U r doing a lot of double-counting here. The strike price is high, and it is an implicit subsidy. But the construction cost is covered by the constructor. So u

U r doing a lot of double-counting here. The strike price is high, and it is an implicit subsidy. But the construction cost is covered by the constructor. So u cant complain about both of them. The 1.2GW of renewable runs at ~30% capacity. Nuclear is generally at 90%. So your 3.2GW nuclear is equivalent to 9.6GW renewable !! Nuclear is too expensive, true, but you are paying for dispatch-ability. Do you want a 50% discount on electricity which only runs 70%/80%/90% of the time? The 24/mwh was just a presentation slide. Yes, the UK got a shitty deal. But when negotiation started 10 years ago off-shore wind as 500% more expensive. And on-shore wind was banned by politicians. I love the green stuff. It is cheaper. More scalable. It will win. But we need every nuclear reactor we can get. /end runt EDIT: The UK is also x10 more densely populated than the US. Metros such as London or Tokyo are an extra challenge for low-density renewables.