Slashdot Mirror


Engineers Plan The Most Expensive Object Ever Built (bbc.com)

HughPickens.com writes: Ed Davey has an interesting story at BBC about the proposed nuclear plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset, UK which at $35 billion will be the most expensive object ever put together on Earth. For that sum you could build a small forest of Burj Khalifas -- the world's tallest building, in Dubai, which each cost $1.5 billion. You could build almost six Large Hadron Colliders, built under the border between France and Switzerland to unlock the secrets of the universe, and at a cost a mere $5.8 billion. Or you could build five Oakland Bay Bridges in San Francisco, designed to withstand the strongest earthquake seismologists would expect within the next 1,500 years at a cost of $6.5 billion...

But what about historical buildings like the the pyramids. Although working out the cost of something built more than 4,500 years ago presents numerous challenges, in 2012 the Turner Construction Company estimated it could build the Great Pyramid of Giza for $5 billion. That includes about $730 million for stone and $58 million for 12 cranes. Labor is a minor cost as it is projected that a mere staff of 600 would be necessary. In contrast, it took 20,000 people to build the original pyramid with a total of 77.6 million days' labor. Using the current Egyptian minimum wage of $5.73 a day, that gives a labor cost of $445 million. But whatever the most expensive object on Earth is, up in the sky is something that eclipses all of these things. The International Space Station. Price tag: $110 billion.

8 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. California 'High Speed' Rail may beat it by birukun · · Score: 3, Informative

    No mention of the great train project in California?

    That will be a budget buster for sure. especially by the time all the bonds and loans are paid off......

    And the Bay Bridge is falling apart!

    --
    Self Defense - A Human Right www.a-human-right.com
    1. Re:California 'High Speed' Rail may beat it by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Go back to your heforshe masters, Emma needs her boots licked.

      It would have been cheaper if the main line ran directly between the major population centers (Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento). Alas, the Central Valley politicians felt left out and turned it into a boondoggle by running the line through the Central Valley. First segment got built between one nowhere location to another nowhere location in the Central Valley. Your tax dollars at work.

    2. Re:California 'High Speed' Rail may beat it by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Informative

      The land costs of running down the coast would kill the whole deal, if it's even possible to run high speed rail down along highway 1.

      The whole deal is a boondoggle. They should have used the first round of funds to acquire right of way (or options for right of way) while real estate was cheap.

      Not use all their money to connect Modesto to almost Bakersfield.

      Sacramento is in the Central valley, but your just flat wrong about the central valley politicians. They have no power.

      What happened was the SF politicians needed their cut and SF politicians get what they want from the state. So they have money to upgrade the cal train right of way to high speed, even though they have nowhere to go on from there. That money will be squandered and spent fighting lawsuits, cal train will carry the SF high speed rail passengers at low speed. Any Northern extension will go through Sacramento.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. Not Even (yet) by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It took me exactly 30 seconds;

    http://money.cnn.com/gallery/n...

  3. Re:Hogwash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Having actually been to the site of Hinkley point, part of the expense so far has been relocating a badger set (despite culling badgers elsewhere in the country), moving a bat colony, and preserving an ancient bridleway (that won't be accessible to anyone but staff). With costs like that before they even break ground, it's doomed to failure.

    None of that of course is a problem with nuclear power, just with the powers that be and the planning of this project. EDF need to get kicked out and bring in Hitachi.

  4. Re:Cost? by slashrio · · Score: 1, Informative

    More than $10 per Wh installed?

    I take it that you mean just Watt, not Watthour.
    $10/W installed is a bit expensive indeed, considering that the installed cost of solar energy is now hovering around the $1/W.
    After 2 near-extinction events (Chernobyl, Fukushima) one would have thought that people got wiser. But no, Nuclear is still 'preferred', even if it costs ten times the solar energy, which doesn't even require any fuel.
    Those politicians that decided to build that reactor must be really stupid! Or maybe just corrupt...

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  5. Re: Wrong headline by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Informative

    Because nothing bad happens when nuclear reactors go wrong.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Re:Very small forest by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

    No 3 Gorges estimate here?

    3 Gorges was projected to cost about $22.5B. The actual cost is believed to be a little below that.

    3 Gorges produces 23GW. Hinkley Point is designed to produce 3.2GW. So that is ten times 3 Gorges based on cost/power.

    Maybe instead of building this new power plant, they should just convince more people to switch to LED light bulbs.