The reason Hinkley was structured as it was is because every other nuclear decomissioning results in socialising the cost to the state. This was intended to ensure that was not the case - despite the massive state subsidy. Which rather brings us to the normality of nuclear - the costs are always indicative of comical mismanagement, overrun and very often completely ignoring the decommissioning entirely. So it never, ever brings electricity at the alleged cost it can in the developed world - decommissioning makes a complete mockery of the figures, every damn time.
Considering Dinorwig cost £425m in the 1980s to get around 10GWh, even allowing for inflation and construction costs rising much in excess, there should be easily enough for multiple times 16GWh from $89bn even with major overruns. Hence "a ton". Probably enough to derive most generation from wind with more than adequate storage underlying it.
Clearly that needs suitable geography for several sites, but considering there were two backup sites within 10mi of Dinorwig should the main site prove unsuitable, and given the geography of the UK those should not be lacking. I know where I would spend my money given the outlook for renewable costs - absolutely not on nuclear. I was once quite keen in my naive twenties.
Considering Dinorwig cost £425m in the 1980s to get around 10GWh, even allowing for inflation and construction costs rising much in excess, there should be easily enough for multiple times 16GWh from $89bn even with major overruns. Hence "a ton". Probably enough to derive most generation from wind with more than adequate storage underlying it.
Clearly that needs suitable geography for several sites, but considering there were two backup sites within 10mi of Dinorwig should the main site prove unsuitable, and given the geography of the UK those should not be lacking. I know where I would spend my money given the outlook for renewable costs - absolutely not on nuclear. I was once quite keen in my naive twenties.