3 ms·

Our new nuclear reactor here in Georgia (Plant Votgle unit 3), the first new one in 29 (?) years, is a great example. Cost and time overruns galore. It's going

Our new nuclear reactor here in Georgia (Plant Votgle unit 3), the first new one in 29 (?) years, is a great example. Cost and time overruns galore. It's going to end up costing almost double what they projected. The time overrun is attributed to Westinghouse's bankruptcy, but Westinghouse's bankruptcy was also tied to trying to take on this project. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-nucle/how-two-cutting-edge-u-s-nuclear-projects-bankrupted-westinghouse-idUSKBN17Y0CQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin...

accrual 4y ago
I wonder what causes the cost projections to be so far off. Not enough time or research into what the final structure will actually cost? Overly optimistic projections to help ensure the project is approved and started, thus getting the "foot in the door" to complete it?
- enslavedrobot 4y ago
  It's rule number one of the big physics playbook. Make outrageous claims that funders can't verify cause they ain't good at math. Then let the good times roll! See the LHC, ITER, James Webb, F35, quantum computing etc.
- AviationAtom 4y ago
  I think the biggest cost is compliance. Paranoia is the maximum after the various incidents.
  - EricE 4y ago
    >"I think the biggest cost is compliance." Bingo!
- panick21_ 4y ago
  The big problem is the lack of knowlage and experienced. Simply put almost nobody has experience with building reactors, and specially not that one. And outside of it being nuclear, its also an incredible large civil engineering project with incredibly high specification. The US is not exactly known for being great at executing large civil engineering projects. The reality is if you want cheap nuclear you need to mass produce it, just like with everything else. But that requires large scale state action and planning. Or alternatively having a competitive market for smaller nuclear. But for that to happen regulatory approval processes and many other problems are in the way.

accrual 4y ago

I wonder what causes the cost projections to be so far off. Not enough time or research into what the final structure will actually cost? Overly optimistic projections to help ensure the project is approved and started, thus getting the "foot in the door" to complete it?

enslavedrobot 4y ago
It's rule number one of the big physics playbook. Make outrageous claims that funders can't verify cause they ain't good at math. Then let the good times roll! See the LHC, ITER, James Webb, F35, quantum computing etc.
AviationAtom 4y ago
I think the biggest cost is compliance. Paranoia is the maximum after the various incidents.
- EricE 4y ago
  >"I think the biggest cost is compliance." Bingo!
panick21_ 4y ago
The big problem is the lack of knowlage and experienced. Simply put almost nobody has experience with building reactors, and specially not that one. And outside of it being nuclear, its also an incredible large civil engineering project with incredibly high specification. The US is not exactly known for being great at executing large civil engineering projects. The reality is if you want cheap nuclear you need to mass produce it, just like with everything else. But that requires large scale state action and planning. Or alternatively having a competitive market for smaller nuclear. But for that to happen regulatory approval processes and many other problems are in the way.