The question was about cost and you made the false claim that renewable energy is only about increasing energy cost vs nuclear in some perverse conspiracy theory. Currently, adding renewable energy reduces energy prices. Fully renewable will require storage, but the total costs is still far less than nuclear
Have you admitted that nuclear is part of UK's net zero initiative?
No, scaling nuclear wont reduce costs. This Is the fundamental problem with massive monolithic solutions that are.made in so few numbers there is no economies of scale. Compare to solar where they are just printed off a giant factory floor at thousands of panels a day. and require minimal labour complexity to install. The problem with nuclear is that they require massive labour pools for 10-15 years, and often highly skilled labour. Labour is very expensive unless you can exploit workers like china does. This creates massive up front costs but the return period to start paying off the loans is now counted in decades. Gor 15-20 years the projects just accumulate billions of costs each year, and each year the interest on the loans compounds. Solar panels can be up and running within 6 months of breaking ground.
This is why nuclear will never be cost effective. Basic laws of physics and economics prevents that. You need to be building thousands of power stations with effectively slave labour and remove all the necessary red tape that ensures safety.
I'm not against nuclear, it is just nuclear is a horrible choice on purely economic grounds
As for supply, uranium already has supply problems. If you excluded Russian controlled sourced there would be bug supply shortages
No i did not make such a claim whatsoever, i said the goal of net zero is to increase costs.
You are conflating net zero and renewables/nuclear, or I'm not being clear enough.
The reason i brought up nuclear was because no CO2 emissions, looking at your own chart 15 years ago, at that point its cheaper than everything except gas, with a small difference.
That would be the time, corresponding to the whole emergence of climate talk, to invest big in nuclear, thus hitting CO2 targets etc.
But the goal is not to do any of that, but simply increase costs, without actually achieving anything, but using it as an excuse for actions.
I dont know if you understand what i mean or not, but falling into specific discussions about types of power, or the economics of it, is 100% the wrong way forward.
My only point in nuclear is that, at the goal of reducing CO2, you didnt have any other choice, your economic argument might be valid now, but not 15 years ago or so, and now we just dont have enough storage for the power.
Hence as the goal is CO2 emissions, nuclear is the only viable option that is scalable, which is not done, this is one evidence in the fact that the goal of net zero, is not to end up at net zero, but to simply increase costs via laws, taxes, regulations etc.
