If that's the reasoning, it's just a variant of the sunk cost fallacy. The question is what is the most effective use of our limited resources right now. Diab

If that's the reasoning, it's just a variant of the sunk cost fallacy. The question is what is the most effective use of our limited resources right now. Diablo Canyon will be shut off at some point, causing a momentary blip in emissions rising. Is $6B on a short extension a good use of our resources? It's certainly difficult to see much benefit. Instead, the benefit is mostly to assert that we still are open to using nuclear. Which, fine, is a good goal, but instead what if we just spent $3B each on an SMR, with the expectation they would probably fail? I think that would have a bigger positive impact towards more nuclear in the future.