So, do you guys think they're trying to play hardball so they can negotiate a better contract price? Assumingly they would be implying tht they might switch to the EPR or USAPWR?
That sure sounds like their plan. I hope they do proceed with the AP1000, I think the design has a lot of promise. I have a buddy that worked on some of the design qualification work at Oregon State. I was a little skeptical of the design at first because it was so radically new, but he loaned me a copy of the FSAR, and looking through that convinced me the design has a lot of merit. BTW, the documents are now on the NRC website, save for expunging any drawings that show building layouts.
The last time utilities were building nukes the cost overruns almost bankrupted several of them. As much as I would like to see many more built they have to make sure the economics are right.
Yeah, the price numbers are starting to look real scary. Cement is up 30%, steel is up 60%, and copper is up 400%. Labor is real hard to come by for any skilled trades and engineering. All that doesn't bode real well for any new power plants, regardless of type.
Wind takes more steel, concrete and copper and labor per unit of power than nuclear so competition looks good there.
Coal is about the same. Coal also faces stiff political opposition, dare I say worse than nuclear is facing.
The only real danger is continuing the stupidity of more natural gas plants. The raw material costs to build one are less, and the labor is less. Utilities scared by the capital cost just may opt that route, even though the long term cost is far higher.
