3 ms·

We cite costs in money because it’s useful. But you can’t eat money and you can’t build from it. You need actual stuff and land to do so. That is limited in a w

We cite costs in money because it’s useful. But you can’t eat money and you can’t build from it. You need actual stuff and land to do so. That is limited in a way that the money supply isn’t. Case in point, the currently ongoing global supply shortage.

Ma8ee 4y ago
Uh? Try reading my comment again. That the federal reserve in principle could print unlimited money is irrelevant here.
wizofaus 4y ago
I would think the point is that if nuclear costs more money, it's suggestive that it doesn't really use less resources than other options that cost less. Of course, that's not entirely true, as some of the costs for nuclear are insurance, which isn't priced particularly rationally, and of course, for human expertise, but that's arguably a far more scarce resource as are land and raw building materials - i.e. if you're using highly-skilled human brain power to design/build/run nuclear power plants, it prevents us from using that brain power to do other potentially more productive things (which might include coming up with better solutions for our environmental challenges). To be clear - I'm quite supportive of more nuclear power, but certainly not because it uses less land or resources.
- Swenrekcah 4y ago
  I realise that, but this argument is based on the assumption that things in the world are rationally priced. When an NFT sells for more than a small power plant and a celebrity dog walker can be paid more than a nuclear engineer I don’t have a lot of faith in that premise.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Fair call. But while obviously imperfect, cost in $ is about the best estimate we have of the underlying value of all resources involved for a given economic output. Unfortunately it typically doesn't include externalities - if it had done so historically nuclear might already be cheaper now than fossil fuels.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Ma8ee 4y ago

Uh? Try reading my comment again. That the federal reserve in principle could print unlimited money is irrelevant here.

wizofaus 4y ago

I would think the point is that if nuclear costs more money, it's suggestive that it doesn't really use less resources than other options that cost less. Of course, that's not entirely true, as some of the costs for nuclear are insurance, which isn't priced particularly rationally, and of course, for human expertise, but that's arguably a far more scarce resource as are land and raw building materials - i.e. if you're using highly-skilled human brain power to design/build/run nuclear power plants, it prevents us from using that brain power to do other potentially more productive things (which might include coming up with better solutions for our environmental challenges). To be clear - I'm quite supportive of more nuclear power, but certainly not because it uses less land or resources.

Swenrekcah 4y ago
I realise that, but this argument is based on the assumption that things in the world are rationally priced. When an NFT sells for more than a small power plant and a celebrity dog walker can be paid more than a nuclear engineer I don’t have a lot of faith in that premise.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Fair call. But while obviously imperfect, cost in $ is about the best estimate we have of the underlying value of all resources involved for a given economic output. Unfortunately it typically doesn't include externalities - if it had done so historically nuclear might already be cheaper now than fossil fuels.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]