> The vendor (Areva NP) and the utility are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default.

With the contract TVO signed with Siemens and Areva for the plant they will never end up having to pay all the cost overruns. It was basically a fixed price contract.

What ended up happening is Siemens got the fuck out of the deal (it was originally a Siemens and Areva joint project) and French government broke up Areva Group into smaller entities and took a hit on the failed project. From the legal fighting Areva agreed to pay TVO 450 million due to failing to deliver on time with some extra money going one way or another based on if it will deliver in the new revised timelines (ended up Areva having to pay TVO another 450 million).

According to TVO at the end of the day the project cost them 5 billion instead of the original 3.2 billion with Areva saying it cost the 8.5 billion so Areva took a huge hit on making a bad contract and/or failing to deliver.

What’s your point other than people generally sell large projects with a low up front number and it ends up being higher. Investors don’t get the 3-4x return they wanted and have to settle for 2x. Or it takes longer to pay itself back.

Solar and wind are expensive too if they are overbuilt 5x or backed up with enough batteries to be a firm source of power.

How can anyone argue against nuclear being part of the solution of reducing carbon emissions just because it takes more imaginary monetary tokens to build?

Who cares who is building the reactor? Russia and China have the skill and the will to make it happen while everyone else is wringing their hands and continuing to pump out co2.

Finland seems to have gotten the prototype, the same reactor type has been finished in China, twice: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Taishan

However, also 50% over budget.