# New and improved nuclear plants may cost more than expected. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 5, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880 "2009-06-05T22:35:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/1 "2009-06-05T22:35:06Z")
[A cautionary tale.](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?_r=1&em) > [@](#): > > After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor’s 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online… > > … A new fleet of reactors would be standardized down to “the carpeting and wallpaper,” as Michael J. Wallace, the chairman of UniStar Nuclear Energy — a joint venture between EDF Group and Constellation Energy, the Maryland-based utility — has said repeatedly. > > In the end, he says, that standardization will lead to significant savings. > > But early experience suggests these new reactors will be no easier or cheaper to build than the ones of a generation ago … ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/2 "2009-06-05T22:46:25Z")
You’re absolutely right. I completely agree. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/3 "2009-06-05T22:56:43Z")
Does France also have the regulatory infrastructure that the US does in that every plant has to be tested, approved, retested, reapproved at every stage of design, even if it’s an exact copy of an existing plant? I thought that was part of what makes the plants expensive. It seems like once you have a solid design down, you could just copy it a few dozen times, using the same machinery, labor, construction knowledge, etc. to bring down the costs. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/4 "2009-06-05T23:36:13Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > It seems like once you have a solid design down, you could just copy it a few dozen times, using the same machinery, labor, construction knowledge, etc. to bring down the costs. When an “oopsie” has the potential to cause “The China Syndrome”, I like a little redundancy in the testing process. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/5 "2009-06-06T00:16:50Z")
What’s the debate exactly? That a new design has run into problems during the first attempt to implement it? That nuclear power is…something? That this proves…something else? That Fins like to…do something unspeakable? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/6 "2009-06-06T00:31:09Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > When an “oopsie” has the potential to cause “The China Syndrome”, I like a little redundancy in the testing process. Yuo do realize that _The China Syndrome_ was a movie ? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/7 "2009-06-06T00:46:54Z")
Who is Yuo do?? 😉 -XT ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/8 "2009-06-06T00:52:49Z")
> [@](#): > > After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor’s 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, **the French company building it** , and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online… > > … A new fleet of reactors would be standardized down to “the carpeting and wallpaper,” as Michael J. Wallace, the chairman of UniStar Nuclear Energy — a joint venture between EDF Group and Constellation Energy, the Maryland-based utility — has said repeatedly. > > In the end, he says, that standardization will lead to significant savings. > > But early experience suggests these new reactors will be no easier or cheaper to build than the ones of a generation ago … Bolding mine. I can’t place a lot of stock in this unless it happens to somebody with a better reputation for efficiency. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/9 "2009-06-06T00:56:25Z")
[QUOTE=An Arky] Bolding mine. I can’t place a lot of stock in this unless it happens to somebody with a better reputation for efficiency. [/QUOTE] I don’t know about efficiency, but the French have a LOT of experience building and running nuclear power plants. I think the problems in the OP are more associated with the fact that it’s a new design than with French inefficiency. -XT ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/10 "2009-06-06T01:05:27Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yuo do realize that _The China Syndrome_ was a movie ? The movie was named after the syndrome of a serious meltdown that theoretically could melt down through the bottom of the plant and come through to China. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/11 "2009-06-06T01:07:02Z")
I’m pretty sure he knows that gonzo… -XT ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/12 "2009-06-06T01:13:57Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I don’t know about efficiency, but the French have a LOT of experience building and running nuclear power plants. I think the problems in the OP are more associated with the fact that it’s a new design than with French inefficiency. > > -XT Yeah, but those 10,000 square mile solar/pixie dust power plants will undoubtably come in on time and under budget at less than a dollar a square foot… ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/13 "2009-06-06T01:14:25Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The movie was named after the syndrome of a serious meltdown that theoretically could melt down through the bottom of the plant and come through to China. > [@xtisme](#): > > I’m pretty sure he knows that gonzo… > > -XT Yes, I do. And it’s fictional, thus the “movie” comment. The dangers from a properly designed reactor melting down are exaggerated ( Chernobyl being an example of a _ **badly designed** _ reactor melting down ). It’s perfectly possible these days to build reactors that simply won’t melt down, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/14 "2009-06-06T01:21:10Z")
[QUOTE=billfish678] Yeah, but those 10,000 square mile solar/pixie dust power plants will undoubtably come in on time and under budget at less than a dollar a square foot… [/QUOTE] The one’s that use the magical pony reprocessing process? Undoubtedly…that’s why the evil pro-nuke contingent needs to strike now, while the uranium is hot… -XT ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/15 "2009-06-06T01:28:55Z")
[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/world/europe/18iht-leak.4.14615856.html?\_r=1](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/world/europe/18iht-leak.4.14615856.html?_r=1) Sometimes the population gets nervous. There is often a reason. The French are having some leaking problems. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/16 "2009-06-06T01:35:20Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] Sometimes the population gets nervous. There is often a reason. The French are having some leaking problems. [/QUOTE] The Chinese had best keep a good look out then! How many people have died so far? Do you know? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/17 "2009-06-06T01:48:23Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yes, I do. And it’s fictional, thus the “movie” comment. The dangers from a properly designed reactor melting down are exaggerated ( Chernobyl being an example of a _ **badly designed** _ reactor melting down ). It’s perfectly possible these days to build reactors that simply won’t melt down, anyway. It is also theoretically possible for world peace to break out, and you’ll see Jews & Muslims join hands singing about buying the world a coke. As a gambler, I wouldn’t bet the under on that happening. “Welcome to West World, where nothing can go wrong…can go wrong…can go wrong”. Yeah. Another movie thing. Sometimes shit happens. When the shit in question is radioactive and capable of causing massive death/destruction, cheaping out on safety testing seems contra-indicated. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/18 "2009-06-06T01:56:10Z")
[QUOTE=Oakminster] Yeah. Another movie thing. Sometimes shit happens. When the shit in question is radioactive and capable of causing massive death/destruction, cheaping out on safety testing seems contra-indicated. [/QUOTE] I don’t think a China Syndrome disaster is even remotely probable. I don’t think we should give up safety either, despite the fact that the movie was pure fiction. That said, how much ‘massive death/destruction’ has nuclear power caused in it’s entire history? Let’s TRY for a bit of perspective here. Even if we had a Chernobyl a year we couldn’t possibly be doing as much damage or causing as many deaths as we do currently with coal. Until the magic pony tech is ready to roll we need to be realistic about nuclear power…or we need to suck it up and take this whole Global Climate Change thingy on the chin and resign ourselves that it’s going to be a few decades before the ponies are ready to run wild and free… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/19 "2009-06-06T01:59:05Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > It is also theoretically possible for world peace to break out, and you’ll see Jews & Muslims join hands singing about buying the world a coke. As a gambler, I wouldn’t bet the under on that happening. Who said anything about theory ? Such reactors already exist. > [@Oakminster](#): > > “Welcome to West World, where nothing can go wrong…can go wrong…can go wrong”. And yet another attempt to bring up a movie like it’s a serious argument. > [@Oakminster](#): > > When the shit in question is radioactive and capable of causing massive death/destruction, cheaping out on safety testing seems contra-indicated. No one said anything about “cheaping out”. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/20 "2009-06-06T02:12:09Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And yet another attempt to bring up a movie like it’s a serious argument. It is a serious argument. You say it is possible to design a reactor that can’t meltdown. Even if we assume that to be true, there are no guarantees that said design will be properly built. Humans screw things up every day. That’s why we test…and test some more…and maybe test again…when the consequences of screwing up are really heavy. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880.md?page=2)