For comparison I pay 6 cents per kWh in Quebec (and that’s Canadian money).

Just to make sure no one misunderstands (not saying you did, just that this is easy to misread):

The 4 cent/kWh figure is the additional cost it would have to charge, over the life of the plant, to make up for the budget overage, and would go on top of whatever ratepayers would have to pay for its "regular" energy output.

Further pedantry: you'd have to factor in time value, so that kind of understates it, as the entity that built it would have had to borrow that much more to finish, and pay back with interest.

Thanks. I can now see how my comment could be misunderstood.

My point is that while 4 cents per kWh for 50 years is a very big number in terms of cost overruns and the taxpayers in Georgia will have to eat it, I as a California resident, somehow pay through the nose despite abundant and cheap solar energy, especially during the daytime.

Nuclear power plants now run more than 50 years. We are pushing some to 80 years already.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re...

A large fraction of all nuclear power plants decommissioned recently didn’t make 50 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

We have our own nuclear albatrosses that we are overpaying for in California.

For comparison: I pay 6.269¢ per kWh for energy costs.

We are getting ripped off.

To be fair it's more like 12 cents per kWh for actual electricity and the other 30 cents for delivery.

> To be fair it's more like 12 cents per kWh for actual electricity and the other 30 cents for delivery.

It seems that in Quebec (see the other reply with 6 cents per kWh all included), moving electrons through a copper wire is much-much cheaper. Something is very wrong with the PG&E costs.