Thread by @doug_parr

Here we go again with the "#nuclear power will be really cheap" story again

Amazing how often this is trotted out. There is zero evidence for it. Those who like nuclear want it to be true. But it isn't. A quick reprise

ft.com/content/e69b62…

A long time ago in 2006 there was UK energy review concluding nuclear power was a good idea

Overturning policy that renewables were best bet because they were 'not delivering' after 3 yrs of trying

One of all-time worst decisions in energy thinking

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

Obviously now, after 14 years of trying and nuclear being a calamity and renewables being cheap, we have not seen anything like that sharp about turn.

Note that far more people are employed in BEIS on nuclear issues than on RE

In that Energy Review 2006, EDF said nuclear would be around £37/MWh in 2012 prices, a sharp contrast with the £92.50/MWh actually agreed

Nukes enthusiasts rationalise this by saying we need to build lots of them, then it will become cheap

But....

1. The real costs of nuclear power have increased over the last 50 years. There is no real-world sign of that changing

provedor.nuca.ie.ufrj.br/eletrobras/est…

2. In practice where a series of reactors was built in France, the cost appeared to go UP for each reactor the more they built

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

3. Each reactor like Hinkley Point C takes 7% of current power demand (with contract giving preferential access to the grid even if cheaper sources are available)

If there are to be a *series* of reactors, how much of UK power generation does the industry want kept for itself?

Why does the political class keep an interest?

Well one reason is 'generation time' - because political decision makers turn over quickly

Another is accountability. How many of those who made that worst-ever energy decision in 2006 have been held to account for it? Zero