| The need to electrify the economy is why nuclear is so bad, it simply can't compete on cost even. This article is about a power plant that cost £46Billion and nameplate of 3260 MW Assuming 100% load factor for the plant (looks like 70-80% is more common but I'll be generous) that's 28,557,600MWh per year. Or a cost of £1610 per MWh per year. Taking just one of the latest wind farm in UK South Kyle Wind Farm, Cost £38Million with a nameplate of 240MW. Assuming 10% load factor (30% is common but I'll be pessimistic for this case). That's 210,240MWh per year,(2400.1 24 * 365) that's £180 per MWh per year,
(Life span differences of wind(30 year expected) vs nuclear(40-60) could increase the cost of the wind by up to double if you took the worst case but I've already given a 3x disadvantage on load factor)
Even with the deck stacked in nuclear's favour it's 10x more expensive than wind, you will simply never migrate a factory using thermal gas with the cost of electricity made by nuclear. Edit: also Flamanville 3 in france costs are better but still so much worse than wind, 13billion Euro(~11Billion GBP) for 1600MW nameplate, comes out for 713gbp per MWh per year, still 3x worse than wind. |
If the alternative is having no lights and no industry operating the extra cost of dispatchable power pales in comparison to the losses due to blackouts.