Well offshore wind is now too expensive.

Offshore wind auction fails to attract any bids - BBC News

Maybe it was always more expensive and the low strike prices were politically driven. 

Wind is not reliable for our base load of 20GW.

We still have nuclear power stations which can be rehabbed. 

The original level of radiation was over specified and needs to be addressed quickly which will reduce the costs of using nuclear as a feasible alternative. 

The only thing that the pro nuclear and anti nuclear factions agree on is that the current LNT based regulations are wrong.

The price the government was offering was £44 per MWh.  Unless my maths is wrong, that's 4.4p per KWh.  Given that us consumers are currently paying about 33p per KWh, I hardly see how that's "too expensive".

The government offered the generators a price that was too low for it to be economical at today's inflationary prices.  So nobody was interested.

I think this goes back to this post:

The True Cost of Wind Power - Engineering Discussions - IET EngX - IET EngX (theiet.org)

On a purely economic basis wind costs more than nuclear although the numbers have been being fudged for political reasons for a while.

I will quote Andy Millar here:

'The problem is that there are two different discussions going on here.

If you're a climate change denier then it's purely a matter of cost.

If you're not then it's an ALARP discussion - given the hazardous option of using fossil fuels the less hazardous alternatives should (in fact in UK law must) be used unless it is grossly disproportionate to do so. There's then the ongoing legal debate of what "grossly disproportionate" means, with figures of 10x cost to 100x cost being discussed (so if the higher end is taken, then if wind power cost 100x more but significantly reduced the CO2 emissions then it should be considered for implementation). Of course it's actually FAR more complicated than that, because if energy becomes more expensive there are other hazards introduced by that itself (energy poverty). But whether renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels is not the issue given an unnacceptable alternative. (But of course how to make them cheaper than they are is a useful discussion.)'

ALARP is a fun and complicated discussion   

 "ALARP" is short for "as low as reasonably practicable". which is of course undefinable.

What we can do is to try to limit CO2 emissions by reducing fossil fuel use to a minimum not suddenly nothing.  Insulate housing and greening electric generation in most economical way to achieve this which means returning to nuclear at present. But to make it economical we need to revise the over regulation of nuclear furnaces.   After all,  there are still original residents living in Chernobyl in their over 80's. 

 "ALARP" is short for "as low as reasonably practicable". which is of course undefinable.

What we can do is to try to limit CO2 emissions by reducing fossil fuel use to a minimum not suddenly nothing.  Insulate housing and greening electric generation in most economical way to achieve this which means returning to nuclear at present. But to make it economical we need to revise the over regulation of nuclear furnaces.   After all,  there are still original residents living in Chernobyl in their over 80's.