Again, absolutely nobody serious is making this comparison.
Except the article did.. Or did you miss that part?
The high and reliable capacity factor of nuclear is exactly why the UK's nuclear sites are awarded such high strike prices versus the apparently massively cheaper pricing of wind on an LCOE basis.
No, again it's a deliberate con created by a rigged energy market. Again, it's not a like-for-like comparison, but it's been used for years to promote useless 'renewables'. Best example is probably the crazy CfD system that allowed 'renewables' to lowball bid, giving claims that energy costs are falling and wind is competitive. Most of the <£50/MWh contracts aren't in force, even though some are operating and happily flogging electricity to generate massive windfall profits. This is spectacularly dumb, and CfDs should come into force as soon as the site(s) start exporting to the grid. BEIS is belatedly looking at closing this loophole-
Of the 3,190 hourly periods from the start of the year to 14 May, the IMRP has been higher than £73.71/MWh in 3,072 (96%) and higher than £94.81/MWh in 2,892 (91%) of them, highlighting the opportunity of delaying a CfD.
Suggesting 10 days from exporting to the grid rather than the current up to 3yrs. It still doesn't solve the rigged cost comparison. Assume a month has 730hrs, a 1MW generator should deliver 730MWh. Wind and solar simply cannot deliver this, because they're weather dependent. So the UK has to pay >£73.71 because we also need reliability and electricity when it's dark, or the wind's not blowing. The UK also makes this worse via other subsidies. So a few days ago, it was windy overnight when demand was low. Windmill spinners then got paid constraint payments, and troughed even more profits exporting heavily subsidised energy to EU via the interconnectors.
If the energy market was simply changed to a simple capacity auction, this problem would vanish. Bidders contract to deliver 730MWh @ £73.71/MWh. If they don't deliver 730MWh, they pay a penalty instead of socialising the problem onto our energy bills. Of course that would wipe out most of the 'renewables' scammers unless they were integrated, ie operate both wind and CCGT.
This isn't some genius fact only you have noticed while the public is being hoodwinked. We in the industry are smart enough to know the difference between power and energy thank you very much.
Sorry, but I call BS. This should be obvious by just looking at the marketing claims. 'Renewables' are so cheap, yet as we've poured more and more of our money into these scumbag's pockets, our energy bills have only increased. As has inflation, because energy is an input cost to everything. And as inflation increases, so do 'renewables' scammer's profits because their costs don't increase, and their contracts are indexed to inflation. The more they charge for the energy, the more inflation rises, and the more profit they make.
With the exception of "The Green Party" - who are an irrelevance - every major and mainstream climate and political grouping in the UK recognises the current essential role of gas and the future role of nuclear in providing continuous base load.
Sorry, but that's bollocks. See Goldman Sach's country leader's comment to the world-
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is set to urge world leaders at COP27 to move "further and faster" in transitioning to renewable energy.
Sunak doesn't have to worry about heating his homes, because we pay those bills. Or-
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer had told the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg the UK needs to double onshore wind, triple solar and quadruple offshore wind to achieve the party's ambition of generating 100% renewable electricity.
Sadly, they're all drinking the same Green Kool-Aid, and Starmer's too dumb to realise that having 3x solar generates 3x0MWh for most of the day. Again, he probably doesn't care because we pay his bills, and if not, the 'Renewables' lobby probably will.