Word: costs
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2010-2019
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...National Spelling Bee in 1999, he misspelled "kirtle" as "curtle"—the same way that contestant Julie M. Zauzmer '13 did in this week's competition. “My sympathy was all with her in that moment,” he said. The error had cost Thampy the championship, causing him to place third. Fortunately for Zauzmer, her stakes were lower...
...wild as he was in Sestriere at the Torino Olympics, Miller skied for redemption at the Vancouver. In the downhill, a small mistake cost him the gold medal - "I blew the whole race on one turn," he said afterward - but his technical ability on a nasty, icy course earned him the bronze. None of the fancied racers from Austria or Switzerland came close, and the winner, the Swiss skier Didier Defago, was another dark horse...
...want to understand why the U.S. hasn't built a nuclear reactor in three decades, the Vogtle power plant outside Atlanta is an excellent reminder of the insanity of nuclear economics. The plant's original cost estimate was less than $1 billion for four reactors. Its eventual price tag in 1989 was nearly $9 billion, for only two reactors. But now there's widespread chatter about a nuclear renaissance, so the Southern Co. is finally trying to build the other two reactors at Vogtle. The estimated cost: $14 billion. And you can be sure that number...
...waste-disposal problems, safety issues and regulatory delays create a much more serious obstacle to a nuclear comeback: they jack up the already exorbitant cost of construction. That is the truly serious drawback of nuclear energy. Recent studies have priced new nuclear power at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, about four times the cost of producing juice with new wind or coal plants, or 10 times the cost of reducing the need for electricity through investments in efficiency. Nuclear energy is much cleaner than coal, and it provides baseload power when the wind isn't blowing...
...existing nuclear plants. But even if they weren't spectacularly expensive, additional nukes couldn't come on line quickly enough to solve our climate problems; the industry dream of 45 new plants by 2030 would barely replace aging plants scheduled for decommissioning. And nuclear energy may be the least cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gases, which is why private investors are pouring billions into efficiency as well as wind, solar and other renewables instead. Taxpayers would get more bang for their energy bucks if their elected representatives made similar choices...