Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by roryirvine 1 day ago
If Clegg erred, it was by being overly optimistic.

Approval for Hinkley Point C was indeed granted ten years ago but it has not, in fact, delivered. Unit 1 is currently estimated to begin production in 2030 at the earliest.

If the projected £48bn cost had instead been invested in building out new wind and solar projects, they'd be online now and would already be producing more electricity than HPC ever will, even when taking the differences in average capacity factor into account.

1 comments

...when it is sunny and windy.

I honestly don't know why anyone is arguing against nuclear at this point.

Even taking the different average capacity factors into account, the renewables would still produce more electricity each year than Hinkley Point C.

The case against new nuclear is simple: they take too long and cost too much money. HPC got the go-ahead based on EDF bearing the brunt of the risk, but if we could have persuaded French taxpayers to subsidise new UK offshore wind it would have made much more sense for us to do that instead.

The case against wind and solar is that it only works when it is windy or sunny. At least Nuclear is consistent.
Thankfully the sun still rises most days. And the winds ye gods the winds
> The case against wind and solar is that it only works when it is windy or sunny.

It is 2026 and "solar" can for a while now be read as "solar with battery storage". Similar, grid-level storage for any other intermittent power generation method.

We all know this, you included. This tired and childish talking point that "solar only works when it is sunny" is boring and increasingly at odds with observed reality of these power systems as they are now rapidly being built out.

You think Solar + Batteries is equivalent to a nuclear power plant? What would the footprint be for equivalent solar power production?
Already answered by parent https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48477998 Not equivalent, more power and faster.