Public services (or even non-profit private organizations) still need to manage their resources efficiently. If the output of the service (number of meals fed to people, kilowatt hours produced, houses built, lives saved, passenger kilometers transported) is much smaller on a per dollar basis than comparable services, without good reason, then that organization is mismanaging resources.
Plenty of public services can and do break even, or bring in more than they cost.
Money is, in many ways, fake. But its accounting represents something real, in the real resources involved: land, human labor, physical materials like concrete and steel and copper that need to be turned into very complex equipment that require highly trained workers to operate and maintain.
So when a project doesn’t break even, it’s worth asking whether the project is still worthwhile, whether the external benefits outweigh the localized costs. I don’t think modern nuclear passes that test (even if I believe that already-constructed nuclear should be extended as long as possible and operated at as close to full capacity as possible, because those up-front costs are already sunk).
“Doesn’t make a profit” doesn’t mean “is run inefficiently”. It doesn’t even mean “doesn’t generate excess value”. It just means excess value is reinvested into the system, like the US Post Office. It never makes money, never has made any money, has always either saved or reinvested the money left over on the balance sheet at the end of the year.
Yes, the specific accounting rules make the line between “profit” and “loss” fuzzy at times, but however you slice it, nuclear power costs a lot of resources for the amount of electricity that it produces. The money represents an opportunity cost of engineering effort and concrete and steel and equipment manufacturing and mining that could have been steered towards other types of projects.
I’m agnostic towards the technology itself, but the economics of nuclear power just don’t make sense in the current environment, where we know that any new plants will get undercut by technologies that are already on the market today (solar+wind+batteries), technologies right around the corner (advanced geothermal), and even technologies that might be commercialized (fusion) within the 50-80 year lifespan of any new fission plant. That’s the competition, and I don’t think new nuclear plants are gonna be able to compete with those other technologies on cost.
Public services (or even non-profit private organizations) still need to manage their resources efficiently. If the output of the service (number of meals fed to people, kilowatt hours produced, houses built, lives saved, passenger kilometers transported) is much smaller on a per dollar basis than comparable services, without good reason, then that organization is mismanaging resources.
Plenty of public services can and do break even, or bring in more than they cost.
Money is, in many ways, fake. But its accounting represents something real, in the real resources involved: land, human labor, physical materials like concrete and steel and copper that need to be turned into very complex equipment that require highly trained workers to operate and maintain.
So when a project doesn’t break even, it’s worth asking whether the project is still worthwhile, whether the external benefits outweigh the localized costs. I don’t think modern nuclear passes that test (even if I believe that already-constructed nuclear should be extended as long as possible and operated at as close to full capacity as possible, because those up-front costs are already sunk).
“Doesn’t make a profit” doesn’t mean “is run inefficiently”. It doesn’t even mean “doesn’t generate excess value”. It just means excess value is reinvested into the system, like the US Post Office. It never makes money, never has made any money, has always either saved or reinvested the money left over on the balance sheet at the end of the year.
Yes, the specific accounting rules make the line between “profit” and “loss” fuzzy at times, but however you slice it, nuclear power costs a lot of resources for the amount of electricity that it produces. The money represents an opportunity cost of engineering effort and concrete and steel and equipment manufacturing and mining that could have been steered towards other types of projects.
I’m agnostic towards the technology itself, but the economics of nuclear power just don’t make sense in the current environment, where we know that any new plants will get undercut by technologies that are already on the market today (solar+wind+batteries), technologies right around the corner (advanced geothermal), and even technologies that might be commercialized (fusion) within the 50-80 year lifespan of any new fission plant. That’s the competition, and I don’t think new nuclear plants are gonna be able to compete with those other technologies on cost.