It depends on the size of course.
But what China demonstrates is that a nuclear power plant costs $2billion, maybe a little more for Australia, but no where near the silly claims of $10 billion or $25 billion. Be able to get quite a few for those prices.

"In 2009, estimates for the cost of a new plant in the U.S. ranged from $6 to $10 billion. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Economics

Does your style of flaming have a name?

So Hicks, you agree with the man hater that we could build NPPs for $2B?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 12:22pm:



Abd the FINAL resting place for the sealed containers of what is the final 'processed stage' of STILL radioactive waste rests where ?

Last week President Barack Obama announced a a US$8.3 billion (A$9.3 billion) government loan guarantee to a private company to build twin nuclear reactors in the southern state of Georgia.

What more conclusive proof does one need to demonstrate the economic inviability of nuclear power, even in an industry that is 50 years old? Without such a massive financial crutch, private companies and their investors have declined to fund any new nuclear plants for 37 years — not just in the US, but anywhere in the world.
Advertisement: Story continues below

As previously outlined, nuclear plants routinely have such financial problems because it is a hugely capital intensive industry. Delays greatly add to the cost of capital long before any revenue is generated. Construction is extremely complex, compounded by safety regulation.

Every new plant or new design is promised to be simpler, cheaper and quicker to build but proves to be the opposite. The most notable example is the plant being constructed by the French state-owned company Areva at Olkiluoto, Finland, which has doubled in costs and construction time.

Today Areva estimates that building the same 1.6 gigawatt reactor would cost $US8 billion ($A9 billion). The US loan guarantee is for 70 to 80 per cent of the total cost of the two 1.1 gigawatt Georgian reactors, thus putting the construction cost at between US$10.4-$11.9 billion. This is broadly comparable with the French costs (US$5-$5.4 billion a gigawatt). Of course, the American reactor has not been built and will not be for almost another decade, based on previous experience. In fact the AP1000 design intended for Georgia has not yet been certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is not expected to be until the end of next year.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/nuclear-its-just-too-expensive-for-us-and-the-rest-of-the-world-20100225-p4y3.html

In various forums, including this one on Scitizen, the issue of the cost of constructing new nuclear power plants in the United States has become polemic and controversial. The nuclear industry generally reports construction costs of about $2,000 per installed kilowatt (kW). In one of his posts on Scitizen, Charles Barton points out that the quoted costs of new nuclear plants may be even lower. He argues that construction expenses vary widely and depend on the cost of local labor and government regulation. He estimates that the average cost of building new AP-1000s in China is about $1,200 per installed kW.

A collection of new studies, however, suggest that these figures may underestimate the cost of building new nuclear units by more than a factor of 3. Researchers from the Keystone Center, a nonpartisan think tank, consulted with 27 nuclear power companies and contractors, and concluded in June 2007 that the cost for building new reactors would be between $3,600 and $4,000 per installed kW (with interest). They also projected that the operating costs for these plants would be remarkably expensive: 30 ¢/kWh for the first 13 years until construction costs are paid followed by 18 ¢/kWh over the remaining lifetime of the plant. (For comparison, the average residential price for electricity was about 10 ¢/kWh last year).

Just a few months later, in October 2007, Moody’s Investor Service projected even higher costs due to the quickly escalating price of metals, forgings, other materials, and labor needed to construct reactors. They estimated total costs for new plants, including interest, at between $5,000 and $6,000 per installed kW. Florida Power & Light informed the Florida Public Service Commission in December 2007 that their estimated the cost for building two new nuclear units at Turkey Point in South Florida was $8,000 per installed kW, or a shocking $24 billion. And in early 2008, Progress Energy pegged its cost estimates for two new units in Florida to be about $14 billion plus an additional $3 billion for T&D.

http://scitizen.com/future-energies/how-much-will-new-nuclear-power-plants-cost-_a-14-2287.html

Please delete wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 8:01am:


Which really applies to ANY sort of power/utility infrastructure...

But unless it's government constructed, the payback period is amortised into the costings to the consumer.....just the same as now, part of the powerbill is for construction/maintenance costs..

Please delete wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 1:46pm:


I don't know about the Vic power industry, but I think the NSW ones are part-owned by the government...

Mind you, that does help my argument that the costs of building a reactor would be borne by private industry, not taxpayer funded (directly at any rate)...All major businesses get tax concessions, grants etc because they bring employment and huge amounts of revenue to the state/country they're in..