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.

14 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong headline by ffkom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    - as the summary states itself, the (long ago) planned International Space Station was much more expensive than this new power plant. And the ISS is more like "one object" than the new power plant is.

    1. Re:Wrong headline by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Facts don't matter when bashing nuclear. Not even the fact that this is two plants, not just one.

    2. Re:Wrong headline by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TFA is about the most expensive object on earth, it's the summary that is wrong.

      The real issue here is that the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant is insanely expensive and is costing UK citizens a ridiculous amount of money. As well as the usual generous subsidies and incentives from our government, the French government is helping EDF out too, and it will be part Chinese owned, and the energy it eventually generates will be sold at a guaranteed price that is way over the odds.

      It's a scandal that we are wasting so much money on this thing that could be better spent on cheaper, more sustainable electricity generation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Wrong headline by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last time I checked, interest still cost money.

      I'd bet that it the stated cost doesn't cover insurance though....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Wrong headline by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A gas plant in Australia apparently. It's in the article.

      Slashdot got trolled by someone in the UK who thinks their new nuke plant is too expensive.

  2. ISS link?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The ISS link takes me to the Firefox download page. WTF?

  3. as expected by ooloorie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A lot of that money has little to do with building a nuclear power plant, and much more with the cost of massive regulations and legal challenges, as well as paying off corporations, unions, and "non profits".

    Of course, nuclear power economics is also different from other sources, in that most of the cost of nuclear power is in construction, not fuel or maintenance. When all is said and done, nuclear power is cost competitive even at current fossil fuel prices, and if people are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear is pretty much the only option.

    1. Re:as expected by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A lot of that money has little to do with building a nuclear power plant, and much more with the cost of massive regulations and legal challenges, as well as paying off corporations, unions, and "non profits".

      Nope. The opposition group organized a couple of fairly small protests over a few days, which were managed by the police and cost the site owners, EDF, basically nothing as at the time they were still organizing permits to build the thing. There was no legal challenge and the permits were evaluated and handled by the government, at no cost to EDF beyond preparing the paperwork and negotiating emissions limits (i.e. normal stuff).

      The site already has a nuclear plant on, which is simply being extended. Some land might have been bought for £50m, it's not clear if that was for the nuclear plant or a wind farm. Anyway, it was priced normally.

      There has been no major union involvement. While there is a union for nuclear plant workers, they welcomed the extra jobs and increased safety from a newer plant, especially as older plants are closing.

      The extreme cost is mostly due to problems financing the plant (investors don't see much of a future for nuclear in the EU, even after the government guaranteed way above market rate for the energy produced for the 60 year lifetime of the plant) and the fact that modern reactors simply cost a lot of money. All that safety technology, which has been found to be necessary due to numerous accidents in the past, isn't cheap. Plus we know that these things will go on for 60 years now, so more is spent up-front on construction instead of maintenance down the road, which also reduces the probability of unforeseen problems causing a premature shut-down.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Fuck this summary. by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would you mind telling me anything important about the "object?" Like maybe what the fuck it's for? Is it fission or fusion? Production or research? Why does it cost so much? God damn.

  5. Re:Solar? by tonywestonuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Solar provides about 100w / square meter. So 35GW would need 350Million Square meters (350 Square killometers....).. About the size of the isle of white! Maybe we can make a floating island, full of solar panels....

  6. Dumbest thing I have heard in a while by pablo_max · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this thing would really cost 35 billion, there is no way in hell it would be built! It makes no sense at all.
    For that amount of money, you could cover the entire Sahara desert in Solar cells. You could build loads of gas plants and wind farms which would generate massively more energy than one nuclear plant.
    You could launch a bunch of cells into space and transmit the power back to earth for less money than that.
    You could build a wall at the Mexico / USA border and cover it with solar cells for less money.
    You could install gas bags on the ass of every cow on the planet to catch the methane gas to power a gas turbine plant than it would cost to build that thing.
    It make NO damn sense.

    1. Re:Dumbest thing I have heard in a while by fnj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Solar cells are made of "sand" like CPUs ...

      Oversimplifying it by calling it "sand" is highly misleading. A Xeon E5-2697 V4 is ultimately produced from a few cents worth of "sand" (silicon,actually), but it will set you back $2700. Silica is a major constituent of sand; it is not sand. First, you must reduce the silica to 99% pure silicon in an electric arc furnace. Then you must further purify it chemically to less than one part per BILLION of impurities (for ICs; somewhat less for solar cells). Then you must dip a seed crystal into a melted pool. Then you carefully withdraw the seed crystal, resulting in a cylindrical ingot of a single crystal of silicon.

      Then you must diamond-saw the cylinder into wafers. About 1/2 of the cylinder is turned into dust by this process, and must be recycled. Then you might polish the wafers to remove the machining marks from the sawing, or for solar cells (not ICs) you can just leave them there. Then you must dope the material with highly pure boron and phosphorous. Then you heat treat very carefully it to get the doping to migrate properly. Then you must deposit very very thin patterns of palladium/silver, nickel, or copper electrodes to the front. Then you want to carefully apply a titanium dioxide or silicon oxide anti-reflective coating, to reduce reflective losses. Finally you encapsulate the cell in silicone rubber or ethylene vinyl acetate. Finally you mount the cells on a backsheet, interconnect them, install the sheet in a frame, and cover it with glass.

      All of these steps are highly exacting, and require a constant high level of knowledge and QC.

      I'm sure I have vastly oversimplified a lot of the steps, and glossed over some, but perhaps I have a, just a bit, shown a glimpse of why it costs such a huge amount to "just throw some sand on your roof".

      P.S. - silicon (and the boron dopant also) is a metalloid - a "not quite" metal. Metalloids have a metallic appearance, but they are brittle and not very conductive. Sometimes aluminum is classified as a metalloid, so the distinction is obviously pretty vague.

  7. Lockheed f-35 program by siamesevodka · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Since we are actually comparing programs, ie power plant verses aircraft program. You Brits have got a lot to learn about wasting money. The F-35 is 1.5 trillion and climbing.[unlike the plane itself] We have the leadership in stupidity and God willing we aim to keep it.The program is so big that it will take a forest of money just to pay for it.

  8. Nuclear should be killed by jgotts · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We need to kick nuclear to the curb. The true cost of nuclear energy to society is infinite because we have no safe way to dispose of the waste these plants create for the length of time required, on the scale of thousands to millions of years.

    Nuclear waste disposal is never included in cost estimates for nuclear energy, and as a result we have it just sitting around all over the United States. We can't even contain waste safely for a few decades. How do we have any hope to contain it for 100 years, or 1,000 years, or 10,000 years? The answer is we will never be able to do it.

    Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should be doing it. Adding more nuclear capacity just makes the waste problem worse. Who bears the brunt of the waste problem? It won't cause much harm in our lifetimes. Our descendants are the ones we're hurting.

    If you want to read a more detailed technical analysis, feel free to search for my previous posts on the subject.