Follow this blog:
RSS

Report: nuclear construction costs soaring

By | July 12, 2012, 10:00 AM PDT

The cost of building some new nuclear plants is exceeding estimates by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Building nuclear power plants is expensive, and the costs are routinely exceeding initial estimates by billions of dollars, the Associated Press reports.

The AP’s report this week uncovered substantial cost overruns in plants in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina as evidence of this trend. There also have been considerable construction delays.

Plant Vogtle in eastern Georgia runs run US$800 million over its planned cost of $14 billion. Licensing delays were to blame in that instance, the AP’s Ray Henry found. Henry cited an even more egregious example: Tennessee’s Watts Bar power is $2 billion over budget. A South Carolina plant’s cost has run up $670 million.

Proponents cited in the article argued that the down economy makes building new plants less costly while others were guarded against the perception that ratepayers will view future nuclear plant builds as money pits.

New reactors are being built in rural Georgia over the next five years, and work is already underway to leap another generation ahead in technology. The industry says that the next generation of nuclear plants will be significantly safer.

Smashing atoms does require high capital costs, but proponents would note nuclear’s relatively low cost per kilowatt-hour and lack of carbon emissions. Opponents point to the high cost of subsidizing the uranium fuel cycle and some observers see the presently low cost of natural gas throwing a wrench in the works.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which views nuclear power subsidies as a risky investment, published a report on nuclear power last year concluding that nuclear power isn’t viable without government subsidies.

(image credit: Wikipedia Commons)

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of ScaleOut Software.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
2
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Bring on alternative nuclear
Well spotted. Cost overruns on reactors in Europe too. New builds in Finland, France a financial mess. It's all an argument for alternative nuclear. Drop the uranium-fueled, water-cooled stuff. It's inferior VHS technology compared to the Betamax of other nuclear options, like liquid thorium reactors. Conventional reactors are more dangerous too, in several ways - waste, weapons, meltdowns, etc. Time to turn the big nuclear ship that's been lumbering along for 40+ years. SmartPlanet's most recent story on alternative reactors is at http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/steel-mill-mulls-thorium-nuclear-reactor-for-process-heat/17407?tag=search-river and there are many more at http://www.smartplanet.com/search?q=mark+halper+alternative+nuclear, including a summary of different alternatives at http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/fukushimas-lesson-8216alternative-nuclear-not-8216no-nuclear/13857. And check out the "if you liked this" links at the bottom of the story above...
Posted by markhalper
12th Jul
+1 Vote
+ -
Thorium cheaper?
Are thorium reactors any cheaper than uranium reactors? I doubt it. Unless some way can be found to make nuclear reactors cheaper I don't think they'll be able to compete very well with solar and wind in the future. Another issue with nuclear power is cooling. Reactors have costly shut downs sometimes because the intake water is too warm or the output water adds too much heat to the river it's going back in to. I'm just not convinced that nuclear power is cost effective in most cases.
Posted by riverat1
13th Jul
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!