Is solar really four times the cost of nuclear? No, but…

[FBaggins]

12. Just wondering... Did you actually believe any of that?

You're trying to leave the reader with the impression that a wind plant built today will get lower and lower strike prices over the next few years (you flat out claim that it's a guarantee for no more than 4 years. Which, of course, is nonsense. The contract lengths in each case are entirely appropriate for the expected service lives of the assets involved - providing a long enough guarantee for the developer to recoup its capital expense.

The non-nuclear strike price guarantees are not for four years... they're for 15-20 - depending on how long they are expected to last. It would make no sense to provide a 40-year commitment to an offshore wind farm with turbines that are warranted for half of that period. Conversely, a 40-year commitment for an asset with a service life of 60-80 years is entirely appropriate.

And for the record, the UK does expect nuclear costs to decline in the future. Roughly maintaining the price advantage over offshore wind in 2030.

There's no need to spot lies to judge the relative costs. All we need to do is sit back and watch. The strike prices are mostly set (with nuclear expected shortly). How much of each will be built at the given prices? If they commit to develop almost no offshore wind (at 155) and lots of large-scale solar (at 125)... then we will know that the wind at that higher price is still less attractive. And thus the "real" price of solar is above 125 (or the real price of wind is comparatively lower - or both).