Powell calculates that at current prices the £18bn nuclear plant would power around 1,890,000 homes, whilst the same investment in solar would serve almost double, at around 2,800,000.
And the large subsidy required to run Hinkley point together with a predicted 10% yearly fall in the price of solar power would bring the nuclear plant to twice the cost of solar, he says.
“Hinkley’s construction costs are £18bn but the subsidy costs are an estimated extra £30bn over the lifetime of the plant. Renewables would also need a subsidy but not for as long and not tied to one single massive site”, he says.
“It will take Hinkley 10 years at least to start generating. How much cheaper would solar be by then?”
Since Hinkley Point was first considered in 2010, the costs of solar power have dropped by around 70%.
A paper from the Solar Trade Organisation, published in 2015, estimated investing in solar panels rather than the Hinkley would save consumers around £15bn, taking into account running costs over its lifetime.
Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/09/14/ditching-hinkley-point-power-station-for-solar-would-halve-cost_n_12010704.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&ir=UK+Politics