In the early 1970s, the South Texas Nuclear Project was still being sold based on the “too cheap to meter” claim. The actual construction cost ended up being approximately six or seven times the projected cost. Operating costs have been several times projected costs too.
I am actually a supporter of nuclear power. Unlike wind, solar and every other alternative energy scheme, nuclear power can be economically feasible. Plus it is best not to put all of your energy generating eggs in one basket.
Without the incredible success we have had with fracking (which no one seriously predicted even 10 years ago), we would still be looking at having to import more and more oil from the Middle East, Venezuela and other third world hell holes to keep up with our energy needs.
Now if we can continue to expand fracking in the U.S., open up oil and gas development on federal land, and get the Keystone Pipeline built to bring in oil from Canada we have a real shot at keeping our economy going until fission and maybe someday fusion reactors can actually be built and operated economically.
I don't agree.
The actual construction cost ended up being approximately six or seven times the projected cost.
Not quite that much, but 5.6 times is bad enough. Caused by several factors include multiple significant rule changes by the Fed during design and construction. Root&Scoot contributed to the problems.