The original design claim was apparently £24/MWh. So the agreed subsidy price was £92.50/MWh.
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.
If you state this fallacy you should at least tell everyone the unique geological issues HPC is facing.
What unique geological issues?
South Korea's nuclear plants are also much cheaper, for the same reason.