100% agree
i just used the word “profitable” cuz its shorter than “morally non justifiable nonsense” and because its a metric thats much more easy to fact check and not as subjective as moral complains.
Comment on Not a single one
LinkeSocke@feddit.org 6 days ago
First of all. I’m against nuclear power plants.
But. This right here, is a weird argument against it. I would even say, its no argument against it at all. We should not produce anything with the focus to make a profit. We should produce to meet needs. I would say that for the entire industry.
And even if you’re not for a democratic industry that is owned by the people, you should at least see that there are some services where it just makes even less sense to look for profit. For example energy production, healthcare, public transport or the food industry. These are all fundamental services that just need to work. They should never have to focus on generating a profit.
einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
LinkeSocke@feddit.org 6 days ago
100% agree
Huh? alright then.
i just used the word “profitable” cuz its shorter than “morally non justifiable nonsense” and because its a metric that’s much more easy to fact check and not as subjective as moral complains.
I don’t quite seem to understand what you mean or what you tried to say with this meme then. There is much more then just “subjective moral complains” or a neoliberal standing point to look for profits in everything. I mean yes. Profit Numbers are more easy to look up maybe. But… it doesn’t really help does it? Its not a metric that’s important at all, like you also agreed to.
einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
Meme is structured in a way to target ppl who claiming that nuclear energy is “cheap” and hence a solution to the climate change. The conclusion should be, its not cheap and there are better ways to fight climate change than building more nuclear plants.
LinkeSocke@feddit.org 6 days ago
Ah. Then I think I understand what you’re trying to do. If you at least use these triggered people and arguments correctly in the comments against them, then this is a tactic, I guess. I didn’t read what you wrote in the other comments, but I just hope for the best now. After all you agreed to me. Then I was just not part of the targeted group. I wish you a nice day. o7
sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
Public services (or even non-profit private organizations) still need to manage their resources efficiently. If the output of the service (number of meals fed to people, kilowatt hours produced, houses built, lives saved, passenger kilometers transported) is much smaller on a per dollar basis than comparable services, without good reason, then that organization is mismanaging resources.
Plenty of public services can and do break even, or bring in more than they cost.
Money is, in many ways, fake. But its accounting represents something real, in the real resources involved: land, human labor, physical materials like concrete and steel and copper that need to be turned into very complex equipment that require highly trained workers to operate and maintain.
So when a project doesn’t break even, it’s worth asking whether the project is still worthwhile, whether the external benefits outweigh the localized costs. I don’t think modern nuclear passes that test (even if I believe that already-constructed nuclear should be extended as long as possible and operated at as close to full capacity as possible, because those up-front costs are already sunk).
Dookieman12@piefed.social 6 days ago
“Doesn’t make a profit” doesn’t mean “is run inefficiently”. It doesn’t even mean “doesn’t generate excess value”. It just means excess value is reinvested into the system, like the US Post Office. It never makes money, never has made any money, has always either saved or reinvested the money left over on the balance sheet at the end of the year.
sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
Yes, the specific accounting rules make the line between “profit” and “loss” fuzzy at times, but however you slice it, nuclear power costs a lot of resources for the amount of electricity that it produces. The money represents an opportunity cost of engineering effort and concrete and steel and equipment manufacturing and mining that could have been steered towards other types of projects.
I’m agnostic towards the technology itself, but the economics of nuclear power just don’t make sense in the current environment, where we know that any new plants will get undercut by technologies that are already on the market today (solar+wind+batteries), technologies right around the corner (advanced geothermal), and even technologies that might be commercialized (fusion) within the 50-80 year lifespan of any new fission plant. That’s the competition, and I don’t think new nuclear plants are gonna be able to compete with those other technologies on cost.