The case of the Finnish EPR is repeatedly brought up by opponents of nuclear power. For a counter example, the most recent new nuclear power plant to come on line (Feb 2011) was in South Korea. From "first concrete" to completion took just four years, followed by 6 months of commissioning tests before commercial operation. There is no law that nuclear power plants take 10 years to build or four years to build. You need to get your head around the engineering and project management issues to understand the reasons for delays or lack of delays. The Finnish EPR is "first of a kind" and large first of a kind projects are usually more expensive. It is the first Generation III+ nuclear reactor ever built. Also because few nuclear power stations have been built in recent years in Europe, the supply chain had to be developed from scratch and many sub-contractors involved. Some without experience of special quality, safety and project management requirements of nuclear construction. If you want to understand better the issues read this document from the UK Royal Academy of Engineering http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Nuclear_Lessons_Learned_Oct10.pdf . The report includes the good, the bad and the ugly from recent nuclear plant builds including Sizewell B (on time and on budget), Finnish EPR (significant overruns) and the current build of Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors in China (apparently on time and on budget).