They will never be built. To quote NYTimes “The builders hope to have a license to build and run the plant by the end of next year, under a revised process that is supposed to eliminate problems that caused huge cost overruns in the 1970s and 1980s, when regulatory changes during construction added billions to costs. About 100 reactors were abandoned during construction in that era.” 1)

They might start construction by the end of next year. That is two years and then you need to add the 8 years it takes to build them and it may be ready in 10 years from now or 2020. This is plenty of time to sue to stop this madness and to stage large scale protests at the construction site.

The reactors are made in Japan so very few jobs for Americans in this project. In 2009 the global wind power industry erected 37.5 GW of wind power capacity.2) This industry has hitherto grown at 30% per year so if that continues it can do 400GW in 2018 alone or four times the total capacity for all nuclear ever installed in the US. 1000 GW of wind power could supply 50% of all US electricity needs or be enough to close down all coal power plants in the US.

1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17nukes.html?ref=us
2)http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1196e940a0

After over fifty years of commercial research and operation, how does such a powerful technology remain uneconomical?

In any case, the Republicans are bribed, so hopefully they will keep their end and stop gridlocking majority legislation.

I don't see why everyone hates nuclear. The risks are quite overblown, and it provides large-scale baseload power that wind and solar can not. It does all this while lowering carbon emissions. Part of the reason nuclear isn't economical in the United States is because Jimmy Carter decided to kill the nuclear industry. As a country, we need wind.. we need solar.. we need nuclear. The more electricity we produce, the more quickly we can stop using so much oil.

Why would there be protests at the plant site?

Between Vogtle and Hatch, we've had nuclear power here in Georgia for decades with no problems. I suppose someone could bus some hippies in to make a (literal) stink, but I think you'll discover that the locals will support clean, reliable power.

Nuclear waste is a political problem, not a technical one. Yucca Mountain was a perfectly workable solution, but political pressures led to it being cancelled. Of course, that cancellation is itself now used as a justification for opposing nuclear power.

The coal industry must be laughing its collective ass off.

Matthew, you ignorant slut!

I do not think the citizens in Nevada think Yucca is a workable solution. You should check out rmi.org and get some Amory in your life. In a nutshell, he has proven that the money we are going to pony up for "nukuler" would be more effective elsewhere like solar, wind, efficiency, smart meters etc. If Barry has to buy a few Republican votes in the Senate, it might as well be nuclear rather than offshore drilling or "clean coal". In 10 years this project will be dead and Senator Lindsey Graham will have been defeated by a tea bagger.

Stan,

I hope you don't mind that I suspend my belief until those reactors open on time and on budget. We'll see in 7 years whether the nuclear industry is worth its salt.

With $8.33 billion one can finance 6 GW of wind power, which will produce about the same amount of energy.
With the difference that those 6 GW wind power will produce energy by 2011 already, won't depend on uranium imports, won't require expensive waste disposal, won't deal with decommissioning costs in the range of $1 billion per GW and won't require any cooling water.

Of course, if it was about reducing CO2-emissions, it would be even more effective, if the US invested $8.33 billion in efficiency measures (e.g. home insulation, efficient appliances, lighting systems, solar hot water etc.).
This does even produce a very good return on investment:
http://hes.lbl.gov/hes/profitable.html

It would probably be better if the government simply reduced taxes on work and increased taxes on energy, if it wanted to promote private investments in energy efficiency and thus reduce CO2 emissions.

Btw, European countries have about the same living standard as the US and require almost 50% less energy/electricity per capita.

I am curious as to why Stan believes that CAGW has been shown to be a hoax. Overnight lows in Minneapolis in January are 9 degrees warmer than 40 years ago (National Weather Service, 1960-1967 versus 2000-2007). I have yet to hear an explanation of this other than a build up of GHG's. I did my investigation because my premise was that people who live in warm places wonder what the fuss is, summer's have not changed much. July highs are 1 degree warmer, certainly not enough to notice. July overnight lows are 4 degrees warmer, but who notices overnight lows in the summer? January highs are 6 degrees warmer. Winters are drastically different. I also had to make sure that my memory was not playing tricks with me.

Perhaps y'all don't understand what those guarantees really mean. Only if the plant is abandoned uncompleted do they come into effect. Vogtle is being financed with private money, certainly loosened up by the government guarantees.

Its nothing new either, although the $54 billion sum is bigger, and attributable to Obama. But the Bush Administration's Energy Bill of 2005 offered $11 billion in guarantees to the the first three Utilities to bite the bullet and suffer the slings and possible delays in the first few plants, of restarting the domestic nuclear power industry, and leading the Nuclear Renaissance.

It was that Energy Law of 2005 that changed the legal ground rules, defined the appropriate time to object, and to whom, and outlawed legal "monkey wrenching" for 'Standard' pre-approved designs.

The day it passed, there started a flood of Utilities investigating building nuclear plants once again. Within 18 months some 25 proposals for plants were seeking preliminary authorizations for acquiring land, obtaining site approvals, and starting EIS statements. etc.

That pipeline is up to some 33 Plants right now, that have spent tens of millions to get all the paperwork approvals from stockholders, local, municipal, county, and state governments and PUCs, while arranging financing, and negotiating deals with the Plant builders.

That preliminary work is just about done or will be completed, in the next year or so. As will the NRC design approvals for Westinghouse, GE and Areva "Standard" designs. The NRC engineers have been pouring over the GEN III+ designs for 4-5 years now before approvals are granted.

If the time to construct them is near where planned, and fixed price/fixed time contracts enforce it, while overseas experience already confirm it can be done, the Utilities can't lose.

Nuclear was cheaper than old coal, by the calculations of the only accountants who count; the ones who work for the Utilities spending their own money. It was true then and even more true today. In the 1960s and 1970s nuclear was cheaper when the plants were started back then, Obstruction delayed and drove up costs, ruinously, but you can't do that anymore.

More important, nor is there any reason to even try to do so now.

“I do not see the "clean" aspect when it generates lethal waste that lasts for 1000s of years. When they find a way to deal with that, then we can talk.”

There must be more carbon monoxide in the air in California than we have been told. Maybe SJC's mother let him sucking on batteries to keep him out of her stash. Second generation hippie burning out his brain on recreational too stoned to think for himself. Does your crack dealer follow regulations on proper disposal of hazardous material?

Get a clue SJC, no not stand next to the spent fuel, do not play in traffic. We do have a way to deal with spent fuel. It is called a geological repository.

Kit P-

Don't forget fuel reprocessing, which is utilized in Europe but illegal in the US.