3 ms·
Yes, but they're far less cost efficient than diesel. That's why the nuclear cruisers were retired. For the carriers and especially the subs the nuclear plants
by nickelpro 5y ago
Yes, but they're far less cost efficient than diesel. That's why the nuclear cruisers were retired. For the carriers and especially the subs the nuclear plants provide operational capacity that diesel can't match. For a research station that's not a concern.
- ComputerGuru 5y agoBecause the “cost of diesel” doesn’t factor in any externalities whatsoever, of which there are many.
- nickelpro 5y agoOf course, but those externalities are for more expensive/less cost efficient when discussing uranium and nuclear power than anything involving diesel. Personnel training, fuel production, equipment maintenance, pick an angle to inspect and you'll find the nuclear solution is far more expensive than traditional power plants.
- Manuel_D 5y agoCost of operation isn't an externality. Externalities are costs we don't directly pay for, like carbon emissions causing global warming. Fossil fuels have incalculably higher externalities in this regard.
- ComputerGuru 5y agoYou are talking about direct costs that are priced in, and I actually disagree about including personnel and training costs in this specific instance because they are all - to an extent - fungible in the military or navy, as there is no shortage of souls and people will be trained for something for some duration of time.