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.
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.
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
Imagine how much the mice had to pay Magreia to build the Earth.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
What a load of rubbish. Slashdot posters repeatedly inform me that nuclear is cheap and widely scalable while renewables are way too expensive.
They've also kindly let me know that the reason that nuclear power plants go so ridiculously over budget is because of NIMBYs, nothing to do with the cost of engineering, construction difficulties, etc.
"I know you have questions." "That would be why I just asked them."
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.
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....
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.
Facts don't matter when bashing nuclear. Not even the fact that this is two plants, not just one.
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
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
Judging from the headline, Apple's about to announce a new product.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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!
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.
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.
I'd say the F-35 pretty much qualifies for being 'on earth'. Most of the time anyway.
Have gnu, will travel.