3 ms·

"The only one currently under construction – the Vogtle plant in Georgia – is years behind schedule and roughly $14 billion over the original budget." How does

"The only one currently under construction – the Vogtle plant in Georgia – is years behind schedule and roughly $14 billion over the original budget." How does this happen, it is incredible to me how government contracts are allowed to overrun like this, where is the punishment for the original bidder. Same question applies to things like the F-35, the whole contract bidding process to government entities appears to be a grift.

ethbr0 5y ago
The punishment is that one of the principals, Westinghouse Electric Company, has declared bankruptcy and 2 of the construction contractors, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company and Fluor, have been kicked out of the project.
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  Thats great news at least
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Unfortunately, it's often the case that the executives who made the bad decisions of these companies escape with golden parachutes while the employees lose their jobs.
- Krasnol 5y ago
  Yeah there is always some excuse when there is just another overdue and over budget nuclear power plant under construction...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Gwypaas 5y ago
You have the sibling Virgil C. Summer [1]. That led to the Nukegate scandal [2] and executives landing prison sentences instead of golden parachutes. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal
MattGaiser 5y ago
A lot of it is bad government specs. So the government lacks a good idea of what it needs in advance, but buys something anyway. Then any change costs extra money.
- sofixa 5y ago
  That's just regular anti-government FUD. In those specific cases, Westinghouse shat the bed so much it cost Toshiba, which acquired them, billions and almost bankruptcy ( Westinghouse did go bust).
dvh 5y ago
If we just assume the over-budget of $14 billion that would give us 13 GW of solar, and nuclear fanboys still thinks nuclear is viable option? And the nuclear plant is only 2.3GW. Seriously nuclear has to die, it is ridiculously expensive even in the best case scenario, it's a no brainer.
- heartbeats 5y ago
  "13 GW of solar" is going to have a way lower capacity factor, as well as a shorter life-span. At the very least, you should compare life-cycle $/MWh, not $/GW.
  - philipkglass 5y ago
    The Energy Information Administration regularly produces forecasts for levelized cost of electricity ($/MWh). You can see the present forecast here, which makes projections for plants entering service in 2026 (see table 1b): https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.... Looking at the older report from 2018, we can see costs for plants entering service in 2022: https://web.archive.org/web/20181227232223/https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20181227232223/https://www.eia.g... In 2018 the LCOE for new nuclear built in 2022 was estimated at $92.60/MWh while that from solar PV was estimated at $63.20 (before tax credits) or $49.90 (after tax credits). The newer report with projections for 2026 shows that both nuclear and solar PV get tax credits, and at that time the nuclear tax credit is actually larger. The after-tax LCOE is $30.43 for solar PV and $70.59 for nuclear. The earliest report in this series was from 2016. The AP1000 reactors currently under construction in the US started building before 2016, back when solar was considerably more expensive. The decision to build new AP1000 reactors was economically rational given the then-current costs of solar and the then-projected costs of new reactors. The reactor projects went tremendously over budget and utility scale PV costs subsequently plummeted, so building new reactors in South Carolina today would be a much more dubious choice, but I don't fault the decisions made back then. In 2020 in the United States, utility scale solar PV had a capacity factor of 24% while nuclear power had a 92% capacity factor: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
mkoubaa 5y ago
Multiply every large project in the USA's budget by 3 and you won't get surprised anymore
- ncmncm 5y ago
  $1 for construction, $2 for corruption. Enriching the corrupt pays long-term dividends -- in increased corruption. Rich, corrupt people buy politicians to seed more corrupt projects. Solar and wind seem, thus far, relatively immune to corruption. Most storage methods should be, too. It seems to be because easy estimation of incremental cost leaves little scope for corruption.
  - dmix 5y ago
    > Solar and wind seem, thus far, relatively immune to corruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra?oldformat=true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra?oldformat=true > Solyndra executives misled federal officials to obtain $535 million in government-backed loans, with the help of former President Barack Obama's White House. I haven't heard of much large scale wind projects. Most smaller scale corruption happens at the local level and rarely makes the news.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      "Relatively". But the Wikipedia page does not in fact include any "misled federal officials" language, quoted above as if it were from there. It says, instead, "Ultimately, none of the investigations of Solyndra found any evidence of wrongdoing or undue political influence." Sometimes a business failure is just a business failure. I have not heard of any multi-billion dollar solar failures or cost overruns as are the norm for nukes. Most wind projects are large scale, yet buy their turbines on the open market. Again, I have not heard of any big cost overruns or non-delivery. Solar concentrator projects have not paid back investment because they have turned out to be uncompetitive, same as Solyndra, undercut by the staggering fall in cost of conventional photovoltaics. Their natural value would be for process heat, which I have not heard of being tried.

ethbr0 5y ago

The punishment is that one of the principals, Westinghouse Electric Company, has declared bankruptcy and 2 of the construction contractors, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company and Fluor, have been kicked out of the project.

wonderwonder 5y ago
Thats great news at least
throwaway894345 5y ago
Unfortunately, it's often the case that the executives who made the bad decisions of these companies escape with golden parachutes while the employees lose their jobs.
Krasnol 5y ago
Yeah there is always some excuse when there is just another overdue and over budget nuclear power plant under construction...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Gwypaas 5y ago

You have the sibling Virgil C. Summer [1]. That led to the Nukegate scandal [2] and executives landing prison sentences instead of golden parachutes. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal

MattGaiser 5y ago

A lot of it is bad government specs. So the government lacks a good idea of what it needs in advance, but buys something anyway. Then any change costs extra money.

sofixa 5y ago
That's just regular anti-government FUD. In those specific cases, Westinghouse shat the bed so much it cost Toshiba, which acquired them, billions and almost bankruptcy ( Westinghouse did go bust).

dvh 5y ago

If we just assume the over-budget of $14 billion that would give us 13 GW of solar, and nuclear fanboys still thinks nuclear is viable option? And the nuclear plant is only 2.3GW. Seriously nuclear has to die, it is ridiculously expensive even in the best case scenario, it's a no brainer.

heartbeats 5y ago
"13 GW of solar" is going to have a way lower capacity factor, as well as a shorter life-span. At the very least, you should compare life-cycle $/MWh, not $/GW.
- philipkglass 5y ago
  The Energy Information Administration regularly produces forecasts for levelized cost of electricity ($/MWh). You can see the present forecast here, which makes projections for plants entering service in 2026 (see table 1b): https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.... Looking at the older report from 2018, we can see costs for plants entering service in 2022: https://web.archive.org/web/20181227232223/https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20181227232223/https://www.eia.g... In 2018 the LCOE for new nuclear built in 2022 was estimated at $92.60/MWh while that from solar PV was estimated at $63.20 (before tax credits) or $49.90 (after tax credits). The newer report with projections for 2026 shows that both nuclear and solar PV get tax credits, and at that time the nuclear tax credit is actually larger. The after-tax LCOE is $30.43 for solar PV and $70.59 for nuclear. The earliest report in this series was from 2016. The AP1000 reactors currently under construction in the US started building before 2016, back when solar was considerably more expensive. The decision to build new AP1000 reactors was economically rational given the then-current costs of solar and the then-projected costs of new reactors. The reactor projects went tremendously over budget and utility scale PV costs subsequently plummeted, so building new reactors in South Carolina today would be a much more dubious choice, but I don't fault the decisions made back then. In 2020 in the United States, utility scale solar PV had a capacity factor of 24% while nuclear power had a 92% capacity factor: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

mkoubaa 5y ago

Multiply every large project in the USA's budget by 3 and you won't get surprised anymore

ncmncm 5y ago
$1 for construction, $2 for corruption. Enriching the corrupt pays long-term dividends -- in increased corruption. Rich, corrupt people buy politicians to seed more corrupt projects. Solar and wind seem, thus far, relatively immune to corruption. Most storage methods should be, too. It seems to be because easy estimation of incremental cost leaves little scope for corruption.
- dmix 5y ago
  > Solar and wind seem, thus far, relatively immune to corruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra?oldformat=true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra?oldformat=true > Solyndra executives misled federal officials to obtain $535 million in government-backed loans, with the help of former President Barack Obama's White House. I haven't heard of much large scale wind projects. Most smaller scale corruption happens at the local level and rarely makes the news.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    "Relatively". But the Wikipedia page does not in fact include any "misled federal officials" language, quoted above as if it were from there. It says, instead, "Ultimately, none of the investigations of Solyndra found any evidence of wrongdoing or undue political influence." Sometimes a business failure is just a business failure. I have not heard of any multi-billion dollar solar failures or cost overruns as are the norm for nukes. Most wind projects are large scale, yet buy their turbines on the open market. Again, I have not heard of any big cost overruns or non-delivery. Solar concentrator projects have not paid back investment because they have turned out to be uncompetitive, same as Solyndra, undercut by the staggering fall in cost of conventional photovoltaics. Their natural value would be for process heat, which I have not heard of being tried.