Yep.
I'd say the benign take would be that the politicos bought into the 'baseload' argument and off-shore wind was still somewhat uncertain. The less forgiving view would be that they are as corrupt as the Ohio politicians.
I think the benign take is the right one. Ironically, the nuclear option was seen as providing certainty, but the fundamental issue with Hinkley Point C is that it's using an updated technology, with the idea being that it would help develop the technology which would be better for construction of future nuclear power.
There were other power plants planned which would be cheaper, but those have also been dealing with rising costs and have either been abandoned or are on hold, as alternative renewable approaches have become so much cheaper.
A January 2019 BBC article summed up the overall state of new nuclear power in the UK, and things have become worse for it since then as new offshore wind auctions have given even lower prices:
Hitachi to halt work on Wales nuclear plant
UK has:
8.8GW of nuclear.
24GW of wind power.
- 8.1GW is offshore.
10.6GW of new offshore wind capacity is under construction and will be commissioned by _2025_.
Recent changes in law have also now made it easier to build onshore wind in England, so that should pick up a bit again.
The latest offshore wind auctions have dropped the price of offshore wind even further.
32GW of CCGT.
13.2GW of solar PV.
UK is also building GWs more interconnects to Norway and continental Europe.
UK peak demand in 2017 was 57GW.
EVs could add 8% to that by 2030.
The biggest potential problem the UK faces would be high demand during periods of low wind, which can last a couple of weeks.
The economics have shifted so much that the worst case scenario appears to be building some more natural gas plants and to import more electricity during periods of low wind.
