4 ms·

> an analysis of cost overruns of the David-Besse power plant, which was budgeted at $136 million at the start of construction in 1967, and ultimately cost $650

> an analysis of cost overruns of the David-Besse power plant, which was budgeted at $136 million at the start of construction in 1967, and ultimately cost $650 million when completed in 1977, found that “NRC modifications and their chain effects” were responsible for over 60% of the total cost. By contrast, the lower construction costs of French plants during the same period have been attributed to a “lack of changes during construction.” And it hasn't gotten any better since 1977.

daniel-cussen 4y ago
Well part of it is the nuclear industry was started by total geniuses like Oppenheimer, von Neumann, Szílard, and Bohr. So now you have to pass the baton to lesser geniuses, or ordinary everyday Americans who eg were on Navy submarines, and want to work civilian (with clearance, it's semi-civilian). There's a bit of an impedance mismatch right there, Hungarian genius mathematicians to apple-pie-eating American whites--generally men because of the radiation--who like, they're smart, they're gifted, but they're not monstrosities of raw intellect.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  No. Cost overruns are the whole point of the project, for many involved. Completion is unnecessary and, for many who have a say, undesirable. This is one of the reasons SMR will not gain traction in the US. There is less scope for wholly-legal corruption. The main reason will be that nukes are among the most expensive methods known for generating power, and there is no way to cut cost enough to match better alternatives.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    You know what there's truth in that but they still have to come up with electricity for their long-term career viability. And they're happy when it happens, they have a little event to celebrate completion, internally. Like breaking a bottle on a ship, that ship may have been contructed in a corrupt manner--don't count on it being so--but when it's fresh out of the shipyard, before it first sails, you break the bottle on it. IT HAS TO FLOAT FOR THE BOTTLE. And secondly a big thing is producing plutonium for the weapons program, they can't just fuck that up. America is a plutonium-exporting country, go right ahead and piss us off bad, like twice as pissed as after 9/11, really fuck us off, and we'll export to you anywhere in the world, even the base at the South Pole, even in space. I think the big thing that altered that was The Simpsons, which killed recruiting for nuclear engineers and nuclear scientists at all levels.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      There certainly are people whose careers depend on actually delivering power, eventually. They are disappointed when construction is delayed, and finally cancelled. But the majority who have any say don't care, so long as enough money changes hands. Civil reactors are not producing plutonium, for anybody. That needs cold neutrons. Probably what killed recruiting for nuke careers was, rather, Chernobyl and Fukushima. But it is remarkable how what was actually done at Santa Susana resembles the Simpsons' portrayal.

daniel-cussen 4y ago

Well part of it is the nuclear industry was started by total geniuses like Oppenheimer, von Neumann, Szílard, and Bohr. So now you have to pass the baton to lesser geniuses, or ordinary everyday Americans who eg were on Navy submarines, and want to work civilian (with clearance, it's semi-civilian). There's a bit of an impedance mismatch right there, Hungarian genius mathematicians to apple-pie-eating American whites--generally men because of the radiation--who like, they're smart, they're gifted, but they're not monstrosities of raw intellect.

ncmncm 4y ago
No. Cost overruns are the whole point of the project, for many involved. Completion is unnecessary and, for many who have a say, undesirable. This is one of the reasons SMR will not gain traction in the US. There is less scope for wholly-legal corruption. The main reason will be that nukes are among the most expensive methods known for generating power, and there is no way to cut cost enough to match better alternatives.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  You know what there's truth in that but they still have to come up with electricity for their long-term career viability. And they're happy when it happens, they have a little event to celebrate completion, internally. Like breaking a bottle on a ship, that ship may have been contructed in a corrupt manner--don't count on it being so--but when it's fresh out of the shipyard, before it first sails, you break the bottle on it. IT HAS TO FLOAT FOR THE BOTTLE. And secondly a big thing is producing plutonium for the weapons program, they can't just fuck that up. America is a plutonium-exporting country, go right ahead and piss us off bad, like twice as pissed as after 9/11, really fuck us off, and we'll export to you anywhere in the world, even the base at the South Pole, even in space. I think the big thing that altered that was The Simpsons, which killed recruiting for nuclear engineers and nuclear scientists at all levels.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    There certainly are people whose careers depend on actually delivering power, eventually. They are disappointed when construction is delayed, and finally cancelled. But the majority who have any say don't care, so long as enough money changes hands. Civil reactors are not producing plutonium, for anybody. That needs cold neutrons. Probably what killed recruiting for nuke careers was, rather, Chernobyl and Fukushima. But it is remarkable how what was actually done at Santa Susana resembles the Simpsons' portrayal.