New onshore wind is something of a dying breed. The future is offshore, and the bigger the better. There is almost as much offshore wind capacity under construction (2.5GW) as nuclear (Hinckley Point C, 3.2GW). There is nearly 4 times as much offshore wind consented for construction (12GW) as other nuclear in planning (Sizewell C, 3GW). All of this wind capacity will be commissioned before Hinckley Point C.
Using nameplate output for comparing wind to nuclear is somewhat problematic, given that even offshore wind only has a capacity factor of about ~35-40%, compared to about ~85-90% for nuclear.
A better measurement would be to compare GWh/yr instead of nameplate otuput, or to use an average output figure (they are functionally the same).
Also wind turbines that have consented for construction will not necessarily be built.
And no new nuclear beyond HPC will be built as long as the Government clings to Thatcherism.... there is a reason virtually noone else has been stupid enough to build a nuclaer power station in a western "free market" electricity system.
Offshore wind is more reliable than onshore, and of course less trouble for the environment, unless you are a particularly fussy fish. Offshore wind is also roughly half the price of nuclear.
Thanks to the way the electricity market works, comparing CfD prices is not a good way to compare the true subsidy of electricity from various sources.
As wind turbines have a somewhat coordinated output, low capacity factor, and very low marginal costs of operation, we can lead to a phenomenon of "price collapse" where the average price at which their electricity can be sold on the market ends up being substantially lower than the average price of electricity on the system.
In other words, the power is cheaper, but also less valuable
This becomes ever more problematic as the power output of the renewable source, as a fraction of electricity consumption, approaches the fraction of it's capacity factor. (At that point electricity prices at peak generating times could easily fall to zero or go negative, as is currently seen in Germany and parts of America).
This means the subsidy to wind turbines at £57.50/MWh (assuming they are actually built! Especially given they are clamping down on the use of underpaid Russian labour) and to nuclear at £80-95/MWh is much much closer than you might believe, as the much higher capacity factor at nuclear makes it much more resistant to this effect.
Price of nuclear is also rather heavily impacted by interest rates, to an almost hilarious degree - if we just use government financing to build the plants the breakeven price would be something like £25/MWh.
The trouble with wind is that even at sea, sometimes it doesn’t blow. Even then, in about 5-7 years time this country will have 40GW of wind capacity, which on a windy day in summer will mean that we will be turning off turbines to prevent the network going pop.
And when the wind doesn't blow in the winter, we will burn huge quantities of natural gas through open cycle turbines and gas engines in an attempt to stop the grid falling over!
Solar is ideal for small scale generation in domestic and commercial applications, particularly if allied to local storage. This is where the railway can make a difference. Station buildings, depots etc have the roof space to supply what is beneath them. But not traction.
But solar panels tend to be anti-correlated to UK electricity demand, in the middle of the summer when electricity demand is quite low.
Without mass useo f air conditioning, photovoltaic power has almost no value.
)
