Well it was expected to cost 3bn now its up to 8.5bn. Given that its still not completed and the prior history of the project there's a good chance it could end up costing even more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkilu...ar_Power_Plant
The main contractor, Areva, is building the unit for a fixed price of €3 billion, so in principle, any construction costs above that price fall on Areva. In July 2012, those overruns were estimated at more than €2 billion,[34] and in December 2012, Areva estimated that the full cost of building the reactor would be about €8.5 billion, well over the previous estimate of €6.4 billion.[2][3] Because of the delays, TVO and Areva are both seeking compensation from each other through the International Court of Arbitration. In October 2013, TVO's demand for compensation from Areva had risen to €1.8 billion, and Areva's from TVO to €2.6 billion.[39] In December 2013, Areva increased its demand to €2.7 billion.[40]
According to some estimates, Olkiluoto reactor could be the fifth or sixth most expensive structure in the world,[citation needed] even more expensive than the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.
Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads"Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab
The problem with this thinking is that we do not currently rely on nuclear energy. The vast majority of energy production worldwide is done in fossil-fuel power plants burning coal, oil, or natural gas (mostly coal). Coal is by far the worst polluter out of all the energy sources we use, it would make sense to replace these with nuclear plants until we figure out something better.
If within the next few decades we could shift our energy production to rely mostly on renewables, well then it wouldn't be an issue. But that's not going to happen. Current renewable energy sources aren't reliable enough to be used as a main source of energy nationwide.
Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads"Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab
US operations and oversight systems (both government and private, with the notable exception of the Navy's nuclear reactor program) both public (government) and private (corporations), are simply not capable of running a nuclear plant with the degree of attention to safety required, and are equally incapable of dealing with the byproducts of nuclear power generation. It's not that these things are impossible, it's just that the corporations will cut corners in search of profit, and the government is too weak, incompetent and/or corrupt to force the corporations into compliance or run its own nuclear reactors. So no focus on nuclear power in the US.
(I'd wager, though I confess I don't actually know, that the fossil fuel companies (and these days probably "green" energy companies too) have lobbied against nuclear power pretty hard as well.)
"In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetent liars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)
Fun little side story. About 11 years ago when NASA began Project Prometheus, they went right to Naval Reactors for the design for it. They didn't even fool around.
Project Prometheus was a NASA plan to develop a fission reactor for propulsion and power of space vehicles and probes by teaming a multi-megawatt reactor (very powerful as far as space is concerned) with an ion engine.
One day... hard to imagine that had it continued to be funded after 2006, it would be entering orbit around Jupiter around now.
Last edited by Bathory; 2016-10-31 at 06:53 AM.
http://thingsihaveneverdone.wordpress.com
Just started my 24/7 LoFi stream. Come listen!
https://youtu.be/3uv1pLbpQM8
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
Gen IV reactors look interesting, apparently they are optimizing them for more hydrogen production.
i am against it unless they can prove their safety and reliability.
r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
i will never forgive you for this blizzard.