“Hinkley Point C was initially set to cost £18bn and to be completed in 2025, but the estimated cost has since swelled to roughly £46bn in 2024 terms while the start date has been pushed back to 2029 at the earliest, because of construction delays.”
I’m no fan of opponents of nuclear based on safety and waste disposal arguments but boy do the cost arguments carry a lot of weight. How can these costs ever compete with renewables plus storage?
There’s an alternate reality out there where things like Hinkley Point C and the Elizabeth Line come in on time and on budget. We really need to get better at large construction projects.
In the meantime… I’d say that connecting Hinkley Point C to the grid should be easier than for renewables… but that doesn’t count for much when it takes so long to build anyway.
So my answer is that it can’t compete, and we can only really justify it as increasing security of supply.
4 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 18.9 ms ] threadI’m no fan of opponents of nuclear based on safety and waste disposal arguments but boy do the cost arguments carry a lot of weight. How can these costs ever compete with renewables plus storage?
In the meantime… I’d say that connecting Hinkley Point C to the grid should be easier than for renewables… but that doesn’t count for much when it takes so long to build anyway.
So my answer is that it can’t compete, and we can only really justify it as increasing security of supply.
3.2GW divided by $50 billion is $15/watt. I think wind is $1.5/W.
If I was going to gamble money on energy investments I'd invest in solar or wind farms.