Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Major construction project cost overruns

[Randal Leavitt <randal.leavitt@rogers.com>]

Andrew Daley wrote:

> I thought the similarity between this project and Darlington was
> quite striking
>
> In fact, this is even worse...final cost of both projects is 14
> billion but cost estimate at commencement of construction was 4
> billion lower!
>
> I wonder if they will be remembered 50 years from now has having
> promised "driving to cheap to meter"
>

I agree with Andrew that the criticism of Darlington as being over
budget is usually not very informative.  When the scope of the project
changes after it has started then the original cost estimate is no
longer valid.  I believe that this was the case for Darlington.  And
even at its final cost Darlington proved to be a good deal for Ontario. 
The implied criticism that Darlington was a bad project because the
final cost was high is not right.  Darlington was built well, and works
well.  The above example is important because it shows that the original
estimate is not always accurate.  The above example also involves poor
workmanship, which does not apply to the Darlington case.

Ontario has decided to pay solar panel owners 42 cents per kwh for
electricity that they deliver to the grid.  Darlington delivers cleaner
power that costs much less than that.  The public favours filthy,
expensive solar power over clean, cheap fission power.  Some explaining
is needed.

-- 
Randal Leavitt ---------- gnupg public key: bbbad04d
http://positiveenergy.blogspot.com/
http://de.lirio.us/rubric/entries/user/RandalLeavitt