Promises and outcomes

Six projects show a wide range of nuclear construction results. European and US first-of-a-kind projects ran far beyond their early schedules, while standardised programmes in Asia and the UAE performed better. The records do not support one universal build-time or cost claim.

Evidence reviewed
Translation status
Master text
Revision
2026-07-17.2

The strongest pattern is conditional: mature designs, repeat construction and experienced supply chains improve delivery. Financing structure and cost boundaries still make simple rankings unreliable.

Schedule record

The chart compares the earliest stated operating target with actual commercial operation, or the current target where construction continues.

JSON CSV
  1. 01Olkiluoto 3 2009 2023 +14 Read the case note
  2. 02Flamanville 3 2012 2024* +12 Read the case note
  3. 03Vogtle 3/4 2016 / 2017 2023 / 2024 +7 Read the case note
  4. 04Hinkley Point C 2025 2030*Current forecast +5 Read the case note
  5. 05Barakah 1-4 2017-2020 2021-2024 +4 Read the case note
  6. 06Taishan 1/2 Unknown 2018 / 2019 ? Read the case note
Initial target Actual operation Current forecast
* Early targets and official construction dates use different project stages. The case notes preserve those distinctions.

Cost statements below keep nominal and real prices, financing and ownership shares separate. Unknown values remain unknown.

01

Flamanville 3

Planned
€3.3bn
Current or actual
€13.2bn

The initial estimate was about EUR 3.3 billion, with no clear price basis in the summary evidence. EDF's current construction estimate is EUR 13.2 billion in 2015 prices, excluding construction interest. In 2020 the French Court of Accounts estimated EUR 19.1 billion in 2015 prices on a wider basis that included financing, but used a completion assumption that is now outdated. The figures measure different boundaries.

Read the case note
02

Olkiluoto 3

Planned
€3bn
Current or actual
€5.5bn

The original fixed-price turnkey contract was about EUR 3 billion. TVO estimated its total investment at EUR 5.5 billion in 2018; no final owner outturn has been published. Supplier losses must not simply be added to owner cost.

Read the case note
03

Vogtle 3/4

Planned
US$4.418bn
Current or actual
US$10.7bn

For Georgia Power's 45.7% share, USD 4.418 billion of capital was certified in 2009. The current figure is about USD 10.7 billion of net capital after guarantees and refunds, plus about USD 3.53 billion of financing. There is no official consolidated final total for all owners, so this share should not be scaled up.

Read the case note
04

Hinkley Point C

Planned
£18.1bn
Current or actual
£35bn

EDF's estimate rose from GBP 18.1 billion to GBP 35 billion, both in 2015 pounds. Older EDF definitions excluded construction interest and foreign-exchange effects; the latest short update does not restate the full boundary. EDF says another twelve months would add about GBP 1 billion in 2015 pounds.

Read the case note
05

Barakah 1-4

Planned
₩20
Current or actual
Unknown

The original KEPCO contract was reported at about KRW 20 trillion, but its price basis and exact scope are unclear and no official final outturn is available. A USD 2.42 billion figure reported in 2023 concerns refinancing, not construction cost.

Read the case note
06

Taishan 1/2

Planned
Unknown
Current or actual
Unknown

No official consolidated initial and final cost with a clear price year and scope is available. A precise overrun percentage would therefore imply more certainty than the evidence supports.

Read the case note

Method

How the comparison works

  1. Dates use official construction-start and commercial-operation definitions where available. A grid connection is not treated as commercial operation.
  2. Original and current costs are compared only when their price year, project scope, unit count and treatment of financing are sufficiently clear.
  3. Owner cost, supplier loss, overnight construction cost and full financing cost are different measures. They are not merged into one headline figure.
  4. Each case includes the strongest fair interpretation, including evidence that supports successful nuclear delivery.

Case notes

Cost statements below keep nominal and real prices, financing and ownership shares separate. Unknown values remain unknown.

France

Flamanville 3

1 × EPR · 1 630 MW

Construction start
3 Dec 2007
Current or actual
Construction began in December 2007. Operation was initially expected in 2012. First grid connection followed in December 2024 and full power in December 2025. PRIS still records no commercial-operation date.
Cost evidence
The initial estimate was about EUR 3.3 billion, with no clear price basis in the summary evidence. EDF's current construction estimate is EUR 13.2 billion in 2015 prices, excluding construction interest. In 2020 the French Court of Accounts estimated EUR 19.1 billion in 2015 prices on a wider basis that included financing, but used a completion assumption that is now outdated. The figures measure different boundaries.
Financing and risk
EDF carried the project on its balance sheet. Its state-controlled ownership ultimately leaves a substantial share of construction and financing risk with the company and its public shareholder.
Sources (5)
  1. IAEA PRIS: Flamanville 3 reactor record
  2. EDF: Flamanville 3 produces its first electricity, 2024
  3. EDF: Flamanville 3 reaches full nuclear thermal power, 2025
  4. French Court of Accounts: the EPR programme
  5. French Court of Accounts: the Flamanville EPR, 2020

Finland

Olkiluoto 3

1 × EPR · 1 575 MW

Construction start
12 Aug 2005
Current or actual
Construction began in August 2005. Commercial operation was expected by the end of April 2009 and began in May 2023. Final handover to TVO followed in June 2025.
Cost evidence
The original fixed-price turnkey contract was about EUR 3 billion. TVO estimated its total investment at EUR 5.5 billion in 2018; no final owner outturn has been published. Supplier losses must not simply be added to owner cost.
Financing and risk
TVO financed its owner obligations through the Finnish Mankala model. A fixed-price turnkey contract transferred much of the construction overrun risk to the Areva-Siemens supplier consortium, followed by arbitration and settlement.
Sources (4)
  1. IAEA PRIS: Olkiluoto 3 reactor record
  2. TVO: original Olkiluoto 3 commercial-operation target
  3. TVO: regular Olkiluoto 3 production begins, 2023
  4. TVO: final takeover of Olkiluoto 3, 2025

United States

Vogtle 3/4

2 × AP1000 · 2 × 1 117 MW

Construction start
2 Mar 2013, 19 Nov 2013
Current or actual
Nuclear construction began in 2013. The units were then expected around 2016 and 2017; commercial operation began in July 2023 and April 2024.
Cost evidence
For Georgia Power's 45.7% share, USD 4.418 billion of capital was certified in 2009. The current figure is about USD 10.7 billion of net capital after guarantees and refunds, plus about USD 3.53 billion of financing. There is no official consolidated final total for all owners, so this share should not be scaled up.
Financing and risk
The project combined utility investment, regulated cost recovery and up to USD 12 billion in US federal loan guarantees. Westinghouse's bankruptcy moved further completion risk to the owners, with important consequences for customers and shareholders.
Sources (5)
  1. IAEA PRIS: Vogtle 3 reactor record
  2. IAEA PRIS: Vogtle 4 reactor record
  3. US Department of Energy: Vogtle loan guarantees
  4. Georgia Public Service Commission: Vogtle cost decision
  5. Southern Company SEC filing: Vogtle project cost and financing

United Kingdom

Hinkley Point C

2 × EPR · 2 × 1 630 MW

Construction start
11 Dec 2018, 12 Dec 2019
Current or actual
Formal nuclear construction began in December 2018. The original programme targeted Unit 1 for the end of 2025. EDF now forecasts 2030. This remains a forecast, not an operating result.
Cost evidence
EDF's estimate rose from GBP 18.1 billion to GBP 35 billion, both in 2015 pounds. Older EDF definitions excluded construction interest and foreign-exchange effects; the latest short update does not restate the full boundary. EDF says another twelve months would add about GBP 1 billion in 2015 pounds.
Financing and risk
EDF and CGN finance construction. A 35-year, inflation-linked Contract for Difference supports revenue after generation begins, alongside a UK guarantee. The developer carries construction risk, while consumers carry part of the long-term price risk through the contract.
Sources (3)
  1. EDF: Hinkley Point C agreements and original schedule
  2. EDF: clarification of Hinkley Point C cost basis
  3. EDF: 2025 annual results and Hinkley Point C update

United Arab Emirates

Barakah 1-4

4 × APR-1400 · 4 × 1 337 MW

Construction start
19 Jul 2012, 15 Apr 2013, 24 Sept 2014, 30 Jul 2015
Current or actual
Construction of the four APR-1400 units began between 2012 and 2015. They entered commercial operation from April 2021 to September 2024, after roughly nine construction years per unit.
Cost evidence
The original KEPCO contract was reported at about KRW 20 trillion, but its price basis and exact scope are unclear and no official final outturn is available. A USD 2.42 billion figure reported in 2023 concerns refinancing, not construction cost.
Financing and risk
ENEC owns 82% and KEPCO 18%. Financing initially used Korean export credit and later UAE banks. This lowered financing uncertainty but kept risks within government-supported institutions.
Sources (4)
  1. IAEA country nuclear-power profile: United Arab Emirates
  2. IAEA PRIS: Barakah 1 reactor record
  3. ENEC: planned Barakah completion sequence, 2015
  4. KEPCO: Barakah project and contract value

China

Taishan 1/2

2 × EPR · 2 × 1 660 MW

Construction start
18 Nov 2009, 15 Apr 2010
Current or actual
Construction began in 2009 and 2010. Commercial operation followed in December 2018 and September 2019. Public early targets for 2013 and 2014 could not be verified well enough in accessible primary sources and are therefore not used as schedule data.
Cost evidence
No official consolidated initial and final cost with a clear price year and scope is available. A precise overrun percentage would therefore imply more certainty than the evidence supports.
Financing and risk
The project was delivered by a joint venture led by the state-controlled CGN group, with EDF and a regional Chinese partner. State-linked ownership and an established Chinese construction programme shaped its financing and delivery environment.
Sources (4)
  1. IAEA PRIS: Taishan 1 reactor record
  2. IAEA PRIS: Taishan 2 reactor record
  3. EDF: Taishan 1 enters commercial operation
  4. EDF: Taishan 2 enters commercial operation