Thread by @Gilesyb

OK, so the @FT is in favour of new nuclear, but not at any price. How to judge this?

Here is my go ft.com/content/b528ba…

First, assume that each year we don't have a nuke, we burn gas instead, which produces carbon. How much? Here comes the maths:1/

A 3.2GW plant running for 8000 hours a year generates 25,600,000,000 kwh of electricity. And a kwh generated with gas produces .117kg of CO2.

So a year early = 3mTCO2 saved.

That is .85% of our current emissions...

or more like 1.5 % of our 2030 emissions. 2/

How much is that worth? Well this doc assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl… prices carbon in 2030 at £80. That would make those emissions worth £239m in 2018 £s

3/

Now, what is £239m worth? Um, £239m. But with 25,600,000mwh of electricity coming out, it also means almost £10 on the price of electricity charged (£239m/25.6m)...

Which (if my maths is right) means that agreeing a nuke early ought to be worth something large on the bill. 4/

(other sources put gas as more carbon intensive, btw carbonindependent.org/15.html says 0.185kg per kwh, which would make the savings 50% higher) 5/

(I should note: only for one year. Because you only get one year early. Or £1 off per year for a decade. Still, something!)