EdF, the bigwig Frenchies with a penchant for promising the moon and delivering a lump of radioactive cheese, recently confessed that Hinkley-C's price tag has ballooned to a cool $A92.6 billion. Yep, you read that right. Remember when they said back in 2007, all starry-eyed, that Hinkley would be zapping turkeys by 2017 for a mere £9 billion? Well, pull up a chair and let me tell you a story about deadlines and dreams and how they go to die in the world of nuclear projects.

The new ETA? 2030 or maybe 2031 if the wind's blowing the right way, and that's just for one of the two reactors. The budget? It went from a modest £9 billion, hopped over to £18 billion for a quick tea break, then decided it wasn't quite done and exploded to between £31 billion and a potential £35 billion "in 2015 money," which translates to about £48 billion today or, for those of us dealing in dollars, $A92.6 billion.

Why, you ask? The classic duo of civil engineering costs and "Oops, this is taking a bit longer than we thought" during the electromechanical phase. This isn't a unique storyline for EdF, though. They've been singing the cost overrun and delay blues at Flammanville in France and Olkiluoto in Finland, too.

This latest facepalm moment is a gut punch for the UK's green dreams, turning nuclear into more of a nightmare. EdF has already been thrown a lifeline by the French government, which had to take over because, surprise, blowing your budget tends to drain the coffers. Meanwhile, China's CGN got cold feet about throwing more cash into the pit because the UK's been giving them the cold shoulder elsewhere.

Over at Stop Sizewell C, Alison Downes is calling Hinkley what it is: an unmitigated disaster. She's lobbying for the plug to be pulled on Sizewell C, arguing that the cash could fuel more renewable, efficient, or frankly, any better use like schools and hospitals.

But wait, there's more! This nuclear novella has a chapter on Australia, where the right-leaning Liberal and National Party coalition is having a bit of an identity crisis. They've been all in on coal, eyed off nuclear, and now, with the Hinkley horror show as a backdrop, are probably having a rethink. Their dream of small modular reactors got torpedoed, and now some are whispering sweet nothings about large-scale nuclear à la Hinkley. Mind you, Australia's aiming for 82% renewables by 2030, with hopes to hit near 100% a few years after. Any dalliance with nuclear now is like hitting pause on progress and wallet health.

Michael Liebreich, dropping truths on his blog*, points out that nuclear projects and budget overruns go together like peas and carrots, only less tasty. He brings up Professor Bent Flyvbjerg's work, showing nuclear plants are second only to the Olympics in the financial oopsie daisy department.

And as for the cost to consumers? While Hinkley might hoover up £42 to £48 billion in construction costs, the first 35 years of its zap juice could cost UK folks up to a staggering £116 billion or $A223 billion when you adjust for a bit of inflation.

So there you have it, a nuclear narrative that's more tangled than a ball of yarn after a kitten party. Hinkley-C continues to be the gift that keeps on taking, and the question on everyone's lips is, "What's next?" Stay tuned, and keep your wallets closed tight.

Related:

https://hypathetical.com/blogmain_files/dutton-goes-nuclear.php

https://hypathetical.com/blogmain_files/Peter-Dutton-Disingenuous-Deception.php

*https://mliebreich.substack.com/p/hinkley-c-dont-say-i-didnt-warn-you

Tags: Peter Dutton nuclear, Nuclear power