3 ms·

Here you go: https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/ https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear

Here you go: https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/ https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear... "These figures have profound implications for the industry’s bottom-line. Based on a review of per-plant profitability, there are at least six plants nationwide where regulatory burdens exceed profit margins." Regardless, as I mentioned, the entire process is safer from a proliferation perspective.

pfdietz 6y ago
Those regulatory burdens described there exceed profit margins on operations. Those margins ignore the sunk capital cost of the plants. For new nuclear construction, these regulatory costs would be a small compared to the cost of actually building the plants. Of course, new nuclear plants would be outrageously unprofitable.
- reissbaker 6y ago
  You can't ignore operating costs because of sunk capital costs. That's the sunk cost fallacy! You can sometimes ignore sunk costs if operating revenue is good. But if it's negative, that's the problem.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    I wasn't ignoring operating costs. I was pointing out you can't ignore capital and financing costs.