UK wind farms generate record 22.7 GW in a day, enough to power 22 million homes

Amazing news, but you're unlikely to see this in our "Mainstream Media" (aka the right-wing press) cos it doesn't fit their narrative.

Nearly 23GW were generated by wind energy on just one cold, windy evening last week. In more relatable numbers, that was 56% of all electricity on our grid. Nuclear did 8%. Just pointing that out.

However, in maybe 15 or 20 years we'lll have Sizewell C chipping in, and btw we're all starting to pay for that through our energy bills next month. This useless government has thought of a way to make nuclear attractive enough to get built - we pay them for well over a decade before they even produce any electricity.

Nuclear is SUCH a bargain.

(adapted from Dale Vince)

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

meJess · F

@SW-User so you are quick to say NO and WRONG to other posters, but don’t actually have the grace to admit your own mistakes.

You cite one article by a renewable promoter and then use it incorrectly to support a 100% position that is at best a 50/50 between now and 2035 according to impartial reporters, some of who have set it even lower.

Are you reposting someone else? If you are do you simply accept that verbatim?

SW-User

@meJess No mistakes in my post. The fact remains, nearly 23GW were generated last week on just one day by wind energy. The main thrust of my post was how expensive nuclear is.

meJess · F

@SW-User Compared to what?

SW-User

@meJess every other source of energy.

meJess · F

@SW-User Basis start up cost or life return? With or without equivalent subsidy to renewable?

You make a lot of definitive statements but when asked cannot justify them.

This message was deleted by its author.

SW-User

@meJess LOL OK I will finally bow to your flawless logic.

Of course, unless you adjust every figure for lifetime output, build-cost amortisation, grid-integration, storage, capacity-factors, potential refurbishments, subsidies, and that little extra called externalities, no sensible person can claim one energy source is cheaper than another. After all, electricity comes from magic, not maths. Once you’ve added all those caveats… you might even discover that onshore wind (which is now the second cheapest major zero carbon option, behind solar) turns out to be a bargain compared with building a giant box of concrete, steel, and radioactive waste for 50+ years of ‘always-on’ power.

But yeah. I totally see your point that nothing’s ever 'definitive.' But seeing as I can't justify anything apparently, want me to run the numbers for the UK today (with 2025 costs) and show you where wind actually stands vs nuclear? 😉