>”The project had been expected to cost £20bn and take 10-12 years to build. Stephen Thomas, a professor at Greenwich Business School, said the average forecast put the cost at £35bn over 15 years, or £2.3bn a year.”
>
>
>
>The already delayed project will take an extra year, and is expected to begin generating electricity in June 2027. EDF had originally planned for it be operational by Christmas 2017.
Huge surprise. Not.
What about the 9 nuclear plants in 9 years Boris keeps promising
One of the main points of Sizewell was that it’s pretty much identical to Hinkley which is being built now and therefore would be cheaper to build because most of the design is done and manufacturing equipment is ready and overall it would have much fewer unexpected potential issues.
But then again this isn’t anything official, it’s just a professor at a business school saying it. If this Nuclear plant is identical to Hinkley and is supposed to therefore be cheaper then why would it then suddenly be significantly more expensive? Are they just simply looking at Hinkley and saying “thats X times more expensive than the original estimate so Sizewell will be X times more expensive”? Because thats not good enough reasoning in this case.
Bit annoying when articles like this say “according to research by person X seen by the Guardian” but then not link to the research paper, and if the research for some reason isn’t public then at least say how it got to it’s conclusion. Because at the moment the article is pretty much “trust me bro”.
“Large British project behind schedule and over budget”
No, really?
Nope. No deal. You can’t honour the contract, you should lose it. That 20bn might be better spent on developing portable modular reactors, if only the government hadn’t cancelled all investment in the British nuclear industry and skills.
6 comments
>”The project had been expected to cost £20bn and take 10-12 years to build. Stephen Thomas, a professor at Greenwich Business School, said the average forecast put the cost at £35bn over 15 years, or £2.3bn a year.”
>
>
>
>The already delayed project will take an extra year, and is expected to begin generating electricity in June 2027. EDF had originally planned for it be operational by Christmas 2017.
Huge surprise. Not.
What about the 9 nuclear plants in 9 years Boris keeps promising
One of the main points of Sizewell was that it’s pretty much identical to Hinkley which is being built now and therefore would be cheaper to build because most of the design is done and manufacturing equipment is ready and overall it would have much fewer unexpected potential issues.
But then again this isn’t anything official, it’s just a professor at a business school saying it. If this Nuclear plant is identical to Hinkley and is supposed to therefore be cheaper then why would it then suddenly be significantly more expensive? Are they just simply looking at Hinkley and saying “thats X times more expensive than the original estimate so Sizewell will be X times more expensive”? Because thats not good enough reasoning in this case.
Bit annoying when articles like this say “according to research by person X seen by the Guardian” but then not link to the research paper, and if the research for some reason isn’t public then at least say how it got to it’s conclusion. Because at the moment the article is pretty much “trust me bro”.
“Large British project behind schedule and over budget”
No, really?
Nope. No deal. You can’t honour the contract, you should lose it. That 20bn might be better spent on developing portable modular reactors, if only the government hadn’t cancelled all investment in the British nuclear industry and skills.