Stolen for parts?
8 Likes
Eaten by a sea monster.
5 Likes
West end of the Baltic Sea, eh?
I know what people would have said about an “environmental monitoring station” during the Cold War.
6 Likes
Viral marketing for the up-coming Godzilla movie.
4 Likes
Nope, capital cost and catastrophic risk still mean nuclear generation of electricity is the same public/private investment scam it’s always been.
2 Likes
Building new ones? Absolutely true.
But the ones that are already running might as well stay running for their scheduled operating life. The costs have been sunk; they’re low-carbon-footprint energy sources. Not using that capacity would amount to pouring more carbon into the air for no good reason.
4 Likes
2 Likes
4 Likes
Wasn’t there a sea cucumber at the bottom of the Mariana Trench? Doesn’t that mean familiar life can exist in the depths?
Well… as familiar as anything in the crawling chaos of the sea.
4 Likes
You’d enjoy it. It’s basically this:
4 Likes
Sunk cost is usually considered a fallacy. The financial cost to the public is the most likely to blow up anyway, as it is a byproduct of the highly developed nature of the technology. As the things age and operations get cut further to the bone, other risks might do some things, but the financial risk of past and future misdeeds on these projects is a certainty. Just think of the timeline of operations, the accruing future cost of the waste, the concentration of financial and policy-making power. It’s classic fail-cycling of elites.
“we can’t afford to put this widget into production at this time, Let’s melt all the tooling down and sell it for scrap value.”
3 Likes
The decision rarely hinges so dramatically.
It’s the remaining cost that matters. If these can’t be retro-fitted with adequate safety systems, that’s too high. If they can, it might not, and may be wiser to keep these in operation.
1 Like
… When used to deflect from the future costs, sure.
If you’re eight billion dollars into a program, it’s going to cost four billion more, and you can get the same thing functional for two, then yes, it’s a sunk cost fallacy to insist that you should get something for the money already spent.
When something is already operational, then, unless the operating costs are higher than the total cost of ownership for a new solution, it’s not a sunk cost fallacy to wonder why we shouldn’t use this thing we poured so much money into.
Especially when you need to factor that, until we have full renewable options built out, any kWh that we don’t generate using a currently-functional nuclear plant will have to be made up with coal, or natural gas, and thus you have to add the future cost of the CO2 you’re pumping into the air to that TCO.
6 Likes
Nuclear fuel is not a fixed cost set at construction, for example, and creates a focus for financial risk given that so many costs are low-balled for the sake of greed and political expediency, and nuclear fuel processing, as a business, is known to be a shitshow of opportunities to get it wrong.
Other oddities of nuclear technology include… the metallurgy of the systems is estimated to be one thing, but because the system creates chemistry as it goes, the reality ends up being something else. There is really no such thing as a corrosion-proof system when all of the dynamics of inorganic chemistry are in play.
And then there’s just regular old fraud, waste, mismanagement and skimming to mix with that.
Don’t get me wrong, submarine reactors and space-exploration RTGs are great, good applications that can also go wrong. They aren’t really something that can take down a regional economy.
2 Likes
Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is an existential risk which is currently on course to destroy human civilization as we know it.
Come back to me when “keeping a nuclear plant open for its originally anticipated lifespan” reaches that level of existential risk.
5 Likes
That’s a disingenuous restatement of the original bullshit attack on Sanders and Warren. Decommissioning before “planned” lifetime is likely to happen for many plants, probably for financial/technological reasons. Are you going to repeat every single disingenuous talking point from the coal, oil, gas, and nuclear industries about the cost of nonnuclear renewables? Are we going to have to go through the risks inherent in centralized power production, regardless of the method? I expect better.
You’re going to have to be more specific. What attack are you talking about, what is bullshit about it, how am I restating it, and why do you think that my restatement is disingenuous?
Huh? I am totally fine with nuclear being decommissioned as soon as there are renewables to replace them; I think the priority should be decommissioning coal, followed by natural gas, and then nuclear.
Also, what bizarro world are you living in that “Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is an existential risk which is currently on course to destroy human civilization as we know it” is a “disingenuous talking point from the coal, oil, gas, and nuclear industries?”
Once again, I am all for renewables, and for a less centralized power grid. However. Once again. Until we can achieve that, nuclear is a preferable option to carbon-burning.
2 Likes
However. Once again. Until we can achieve that, nuclear is a preferable option to carbon-burning.
That is a perfect epigram for extension and expansion of nuclear in preference to renewables. You may think it’s a logical statement, but it’s only applicable for wedging open the scam yet again.