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

[FBaggins]

15. Nice attempt at deflection

Let's just ignore the fact that your last post was entirely incorrect... and just move on to new errors, eh? We'll just pretend that the 4-year-guarantee claim was never made.

You are locking in the capacity of the nuclear plant, you are not locking in any set amount of capacity with wind.

Don't you think you ought to read up on these things before making such claims? Don't you think it would be a little less embarrassing? The CFD do "lock in" project capacity. Of course, with variable renewables, there's no guarantee what proportion of that maximum capacity will be generated, but they can't increase the nameplate capacity under the same CFD.

So yes... they're pretty close to "locking in" the amount of electricity they'll buy from the nuclear plant... while it's a shot in the dark how much the wind plant will actually produce. But it's beyond me why you think that's a good thing for wind.

That means that the nuclear plant (which will probably not be completed for at least 10 years going by EDF's demonstrated recent record) will be entering a market where the demonstrated declining costs of renewables is significantly lower than that being offered today.

And the wind plant (which will also take years to build) will also be entering a market where current prices are lower... but they'll still get the 15 year CFD at the price they locked in at (assuming they can complete the project on time). The key you're missing is that the nuclear plant will enter a market where the price of offshore wind (particularly when adjusted for the value of that power) is still higher than the price of then-new nuclear (and almost certainly higher than the price of that now-completed nuclear plant)

As for which gets built being a measure of relative costs, that is pure bullshit. There is a competition for market share going on. The nuclear plant(s) are going to crowd out the lower priced renewables so they WILL NOT get built.

Lol... so what you're saying is that the combination of the nuclear plants being cheaper and lasting longer means that when renewables eventually do get cheaper... they still won't get built because the nuclear plants will have eaten up all of the market?

"Pure bullshit" indeed. The UK is looking to decarbonize their electricity generation in the next couple decades. There's lots of room for renewables growth even in the most aggressive pro-nuclear scenario.

Let me simplify it for you. If an investor thinks she can be more profitable building an offshore wind plant at $155 than a nuclear plant at ~$95... then that's what she's going to invest in (and visa-versa). There's enough capital to go around (since the various time periods of locked up capital must be considered as well)... but they'll either all come in above/below growth expectations (indicating an incentive price that's too high/low respectively), or some will be relatively more successful at those prices. You can't spin from that by treating your expectations for the future as certanties. The "four times" analysis compared long-term costs of recently built/ under construction plants. Claiming "well... then-new solar will only be 50% more expensive 20 years from now" is beside the point.

Would you like a list of papers detailing the 50 year pattern of failure to perform by the nuclear industry?

Got any that don't boil down to the childishly oversimplified assumption that since it has "nuclear" in the name... it's exactly like decades-old nuclear plants? Any that explain the comparison in price between the fire two plants of this design and the price they're bidding for these two units (and/or the ones in China) without just claiming "they're lying... it will really cost more than Flamville because that's the 'negative learning curve' of nuclear power"?

No? Then let's not waste time with more spam.