and these guys run nuclear power stations....

You're quite a funny bloke when you want to be.

 

It's a serious statement: the problem at the moment is that nobody
really knows what it costs to build a nuclear power station.

 

$180

 

I'm not sure that you're correct.

If we applied this thinking to all decisions nothing would ever get done
- we'd spend all our time trying to estimate the impact over the rest of
history.

And it's quite disingenuous to attach this thinking to nuclear power
when we quite happily build wind turbines or hydro schemes with little
idea of the eventual return on expenditure or environmental impact.

 

Is that supposed to be a question?

It's in full pre-xmas regalia right now, with carols being sung last
night outside the hotel (in Union Sq, so pretty much the middle of
things) and everything else you'd expect.

 

But this appears to be true of all huge infrastructure investments. The
consumer prices can be adjusted at future values to cope.

The financial industry bailout proves that we could fund proper
infrastructure if we had political will.

PFI (1) underpins it. A current expert panel assert the need and the
solution. The next govmint contracts it at agreed price. The next 6-12
govmints have to make sure it is paid for. Multiple generations of
citizens get guaranteed benefits.

(1) No *please* don't argue PFI with me, it required COMPETENT contract
formulation.

 

So why do they get the costs wrong? The Channel Tunnel Rail Link was
built on-time and on-budget. Why is the civil nuclear industry unable
to make as good an estimate of time and cost as the rest of civil
engineering?

I meant that nobody knows how much it costs to *build* the power
station; nobody cares what disposal and storage costs are because
governments pick up the tab on that.

After fifty-odd years, we should have an idea of the cost of building
a power station---we don't. We *do* have a good estimate of what it
costs, and how long it takes, to put up a wind turbine.

 

Well I love it and I'm not sure why you wouldn't.

 

[...]

Well, it turns nobody really knew what it cost to build a coal power
station either.

Unless you mean "nuke power plants are notoriously overbudget", which
is a problem of government procurement in general and applies to
lots of things, not only nuclear power plants. Japanese and French
seem to be able to build nukes within the estimated and allocated budget.

 

(M J Carley) wrote in

Enrico Fermi. Although I wouldn't have liked to be there.

 

I thought the Tunnel and associated rail links went hugely over time and
budget and have struggled to survive as a result?

 

[...]

And Polish highways are notoriously late and over budget.

Do you claim that _all_ civil engineering projects except nuclear
engineering
are always on time and within budget?

Some civil engineering projects are on time and within budget, but then
again, so are some nuclear power plants.

[...]

This is patently false. Nobody can be sure how much it costs to
build _some_ power stations. Just like with every large scale
engineering projects.

[...]

In case of wind turbines what we don't know is what the power is going
to cost in the long run. What will be the influence of giant wind turbine
farms on weather patterns? Paving the earth with wind turbines with
an output comparable to nuke plants could have some repercussions, and
a change in weather patterns could drive the cost of power upwards by
a significant amount.

BTW, do you have some sources that show that wind turbines are never
over budget and late? Because it seems a bit suspicious, claiming
that one kind of civil engineering projects is immune to problems
with scheduling and budgeting.

Quick googling shows one project for a wind turbine that ended up
costing 1 million USD, while the budgeted cost was 600 thousand USD.
Well, it's only 65% over budget or so, so you're quite right, it's
almost like it was built within budget. Not. )

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/04/2762742.htm)

 

[...]

Only 80% over budget or so, according to the wikipedia.

So, almost not like nuclear power plants. ;-)

 

No, but you knew that. The point is that the nuclear industry *always*
needs a massive subsidy and usually runs over time and budget.

Which ones?

That has nothing to do with the cost of any given installation.

I didn't say they were *never* over budget or late; I said you know
what they cost. Cost prediction for nuclear plants is a bit of a joke
on the other hand.

These guys claim their coal plants were on time and budget:

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/majuba/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yallourn_Power_Station,_Victoria

likewise, this power station upgrade:

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/p...time-on-budget-and-up-to-speed/309764.article

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9024973&contentId=7046495

 

You reckon?

University of Greenwich professor of energy studies Stephen Thomas
said industry journal Nucleonics Week had cited a number of problems
and issues with welds in the steel liner of the containment building
and errors in the installation of steel reinforcement (see box).

French nuclear power regulator Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire also
halted concrete pouring work for three weeks between June and July
last year citing \u201cinsufficient project organisation\u201d.

\u201cThe original stated costs were \u20ac3.3bn [£2.8bn], but these
costs were re-stated in December to \u20ac4bn [£3.4bn], so they
could say that they are running to budget,\u201d said
Thomas. \u201cBut it is not the original budget. You can\u2019t keep
re-writing history.\u201d Construction at Flamanville began in July
2006 and was scheduled to last for 54 months.

http://www.nce.co.uk/news/energy/ed...ver-flamanville-nuclear-plant/5203617.article

 

The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (High Speed One) was on time and on budget.

 

snip>

We already know that they're proving to be a bit 'fragile' when used
in the UK but that's not going to stop this country using them as a
stop-gap measure until the new nukes come on line.

Cost? I'll leave that to people who can read crystal balls and predict
the future.

 

So are the preparations for the 2012 Olympics, it's just that the
budget's been revised.

 

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:24:19 GMT, (M J Carley) wrote:

snip>

I don't think replacing worn out governor control systems is that big
a thing to brag about.

I can think of a power station that carried out a major upgrade of the
HP & IP turbines on one of its units and mothballed all the equipment
for doing the second one after the first build went massively over
budget and started up 4 months late.

The biggest problem was that they were trying to polish a turd rather
than squeeze out a fresh one.

 

Isn't this because they actually do have a pretty good idea but no one
wants to mention it when trying to get government money so costs and
timescales are graphite equalised[1]. Hence pretty well everything
ends up costing more and taking longer than the original estimate.
Once it's being built though it's then too expensive not to finish.

[1] A lovely expression from the days of broadcast speech circuits, if
the figures don't look right then put in some that do.