4 ms·

> Total cost estimated at 16bn GBP Somehow this estimation is taken at face value, and yet: > Hinkley Point C is a 3.2 GWe nuclear plant and is currently esti

> Total cost estimated at 16bn GBP Somehow this estimation is taken at face value, and yet: > Hinkley Point C is a 3.2 GWe nuclear plant and is currently estimated at 32.7 GBP This is taken at actual value. Even though original cost was estimated at 12.4 bn GBP. A lot of cost and budget overruns for nuclear plants are purely political, amidst a rising ocean of FUD. Meanwhile, https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projects-have-less-delays-and-cost-overruns-says-ey/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projec... --- start quote --- Ernst & Young (EY) has found that an average power and utility megaproject is delivered 35% over budget and two years behind schedule Of the megaprojects surveyed, 64% were delayed and 57% were over budge. Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average, --- end quote --- So that estimated 16bn GBP is very likely to be significantly over 25bn GBP by the time it's completed. Edit. More: https://percepto.co/solar-construction-delays-budget-overruns-data-shows-the-avg-50mw-pv-construction-project-delays-cost-2m/ https://percepto.co/solar-construction-delays-budget-overrun... "Data shows the avg. 50MW PV construction project delays cost $2M. The average solar construction project is delayed by about 20% with the consequences hovering around $2M in costs." https://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/1-s2.0-S2214629614000942-main%281%29.pdf https://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/... "we assessed the construction costs affiliated with 401 electricity infrastructure projects worldwide. We found that these projects collectively involved $820 billion worth of investment, and represented more than 325,000 MW of installed capacity and 8500 km of transmission lines. Taken together, these projects incurred $388 billion in cost overruns, equivalent to a mean cost escalation of $968 million per project, or a 66.3 percent overrun per project." And so on.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
Even a 66.3% cost overrun would still make this project cheaper, and would be vastly less than the (so far) 200% overrun of Hinkley Point C. And I'm taking those numbers at your word, without poking into them for details.
- illiarian 3y ago
  To quote the first link (note: it's from 2014): --- start quote --- Most nuclear power plants incurred time overruns, due to both engineering issues and public opposition. Considering the long development times of such plants and the large amount of capital required, these time overruns likely caused large increases in interest charges and contributed significantly to the large levels of overruns seen [29]. Moreover, as Table 3 indicates, the most severe cost overruns for nuclear power were confined to the United States and the 1980s, it is likely that they were significantly influenced by the nuclear power accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. These accidents resulted in “regulatory ratcheting” where safety requirements were significantly altered in the middle of construction periods, with meaningful impacts on equipment needs, construction designs, labor, and materials. --- end quote --- After nearly 30 years of FUD and underinvestment I'm not surprised these projects now take longer. There's regulatory capture, political issues etc. It's possible that they now require safety levels way beyond any reason (Fukushima, commissioned in 1971, and hit by an earthquake and a tsunami at or exceding its safety baseline resulted in 1 death directly attributable to the accident). Unfortunately, there are very few good-faith discussions around nuclear power, it's always emotionaly charged and manipulative. That's why you end up in situations like Germany: https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396 https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    Look, you are obviously very passionate about nuclear power. And you may be right that nuclear's bad economics stem from unfairness. And it might even be true that there is some hypothetical world where people stop being so unfair, and in that world good/safe nuclear will suddenly become cheap for the first time ever. But we have to live in the real world, and here in the real world we need to build an enormous amount of low-carbon power generation in a ridiculously short amount of time. And right now nuclear prices are not comparable to wind/solar prices as we actually build nuclear today. This holds even when you apply the most generous assumptions when comparing them. And non-nuclear renewables are getting cheaper every day, something that just isn't happening to nuclear. So fine, build some nuclear around the edges. Baseload is great! But people need to recognize that short of a political and technological revolution of which there is currently no sign whatsoever, solar/wind/storage are going to form the bulk of a decarbonized grid. So let's please get on with making that happen quickly, because every month we burn fossil fuels brings more future devastation.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

Even a 66.3% cost overrun would still make this project cheaper, and would be vastly less than the (so far) 200% overrun of Hinkley Point C. And I'm taking those numbers at your word, without poking into them for details.

illiarian 3y ago
To quote the first link (note: it's from 2014): --- start quote --- Most nuclear power plants incurred time overruns, due to both engineering issues and public opposition. Considering the long development times of such plants and the large amount of capital required, these time overruns likely caused large increases in interest charges and contributed significantly to the large levels of overruns seen [29]. Moreover, as Table 3 indicates, the most severe cost overruns for nuclear power were confined to the United States and the 1980s, it is likely that they were significantly influenced by the nuclear power accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. These accidents resulted in “regulatory ratcheting” where safety requirements were significantly altered in the middle of construction periods, with meaningful impacts on equipment needs, construction designs, labor, and materials. --- end quote --- After nearly 30 years of FUD and underinvestment I'm not surprised these projects now take longer. There's regulatory capture, political issues etc. It's possible that they now require safety levels way beyond any reason (Fukushima, commissioned in 1971, and hit by an earthquake and a tsunami at or exceding its safety baseline resulted in 1 death directly attributable to the accident). Unfortunately, there are very few good-faith discussions around nuclear power, it's always emotionaly charged and manipulative. That's why you end up in situations like Germany: https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396 https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  Look, you are obviously very passionate about nuclear power. And you may be right that nuclear's bad economics stem from unfairness. And it might even be true that there is some hypothetical world where people stop being so unfair, and in that world good/safe nuclear will suddenly become cheap for the first time ever. But we have to live in the real world, and here in the real world we need to build an enormous amount of low-carbon power generation in a ridiculously short amount of time. And right now nuclear prices are not comparable to wind/solar prices as we actually build nuclear today. This holds even when you apply the most generous assumptions when comparing them. And non-nuclear renewables are getting cheaper every day, something that just isn't happening to nuclear. So fine, build some nuclear around the edges. Baseload is great! But people need to recognize that short of a political and technological revolution of which there is currently no sign whatsoever, solar/wind/storage are going to form the bulk of a decarbonized grid. So let's please get on with making that happen quickly, because every month we burn fossil fuels brings more future devastation.