3 ms·

You're not wrong, but that's not my point. If people want to spend money on X, that's up to them. But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their

You're not wrong, but that's not my point. If people want to spend money on X, that's up to them. But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit. So as soon as people want to pretend it is an "investment" there very much is a simple better option: whatever costs less and generates more revenue. On that basis Nuclear is never the right answer.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lelanthran 4y ago
> But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit. If that is the bar you're going to use for "investment", then no power generation spending is ever an investment. Not coal, not batteries, not geothermal, not renewables, nothing... Because none of the above make their cash back plus a profit; they're all subsidised by taxpayers.
ChefboyOG 4y ago
This is pedantry, and incorrect at that. To invest in something simply means to spend some resources and expect a material result. Energy independence, carbon neutrality, scientific progress, etc. are all material results one could hope for while "investing". If you think another form of energy production is better, that's a perfectly reasonable objection. Twisting the discussion into a debate over the precise definition of "investment" is silly.
vlovich123 4y ago
You’re taking too narrow a definition. Investment: > Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit. Invest: > to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return > to make use of for future benefits or advantages invested her time wisely > to involve or engage especially emotionally were deeply invested in their children's lives Clearly you can outlay capital now for a future benefit tomorrow that isn’t just your original capital back + the investment. Making sure you’re energy supply is stable so that your economy is working better and your national security is a bit more stable seems like a clear ROI even if you don’t make your capital back + profit directly (it does have potential indirect financial benefits too though).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lelanthran 4y ago

> But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit. If that is the bar you're going to use for "investment", then no power generation spending is ever an investment. Not coal, not batteries, not geothermal, not renewables, nothing... Because none of the above make their cash back plus a profit; they're all subsidised by taxpayers.

ChefboyOG 4y ago

This is pedantry, and incorrect at that. To invest in something simply means to spend some resources and expect a material result. Energy independence, carbon neutrality, scientific progress, etc. are all material results one could hope for while "investing". If you think another form of energy production is better, that's a perfectly reasonable objection. Twisting the discussion into a debate over the precise definition of "investment" is silly.

vlovich123 4y ago

You’re taking too narrow a definition. Investment: > Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit. Invest: > to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return > to make use of for future benefits or advantages invested her time wisely > to involve or engage especially emotionally were deeply invested in their children's lives Clearly you can outlay capital now for a future benefit tomorrow that isn’t just your original capital back + the investment. Making sure you’re energy supply is stable so that your economy is working better and your national security is a bit more stable seems like a clear ROI even if you don’t make your capital back + profit directly (it does have potential indirect financial benefits too though).