Wylfa, operating at a capacity factor of 90%, will deliver 6% of the UK’s electricity needs every year, in the form of low-carbon, 24/7, grid-friendly electricity, for its 60 year design life. There’s a highly probable it will be licensed for a [low-cost] life extension to 80 years.

It would take 818 of the very latest 9.5 MW offshore wind farms, with an average capacity factor of 31.25%, over their [hoped for] 25 year lifespan to deliver the same amount of electricity each year. It will be in the form of intermittent, grid-degrading electricity – a truly appalling product that will forever require fossil-fuelled back up – at a capital cost of £14,724 million.

But those 818 turbines will have to be built a 2nd time and be 10 years into the 3rd build before 60 years of generation is reached – that’s a factor of X2.4 and a capital cost of £35,338 million.

Dr Nina Skurupska CBE needs to carefully consider the value for money argument, as the capital cost of renewables are in the order of 2X to 3X the cost of nuclear.

She also needs to consider other tragic issues wrought by renewables. The reason for the horrendous capital cost of renewables – the very best being wind power – is that wind power uses 10X more metals and 20X more concrete than nuclear power.

Every step of the way, from mining and quarrying through to final decommissioning, at least 30X more precious resource and energy use, accompanied by at least 30X more environmental desecration, ecosystem destruction and species wipe-out characterise renewables technologies.

Those with genuine environmental concerns should not be fooled by electricity prices – a political/commercial construct designed to promote renewables – and hyped to the high-heavens by Dr Skurupska and her ilk.