You're arguing from a non-foundation, just a quip against my comments, but I wish to politely decline further discussion. My point in commenting was to point out that the comment further up the chain was ... quite against the evidence at hand.
> That there exist countries with lots of fission does not mean there's a place for construction of new fission power plants. Existing capital can continue to be operated long after it no longer makes sense to replace it, due to sunk costs.
I guess this is an assumption that they have outlived their usefulness and soldier on like zombies? There's no evidence given there, so it doesn't matter.
If you are in fact a policy maker giving me the exclusive chance to redirect funding and regulations to support nuclear energy as outlined in this article, then please let me know and I'll compile a survey and fully justify my opinion.
> That there exist countries with lots of fission does not mean there's a place for construction of new fission power plants. Existing capital can continue to be operated long after it no longer makes sense to replace it, due to sunk costs.
I guess this is an assumption that they have outlived their usefulness and soldier on like zombies? There's no evidence given there, so it doesn't matter.
If you are in fact a policy maker giving me the exclusive chance to redirect funding and regulations to support nuclear energy as outlined in this article, then please let me know and I'll compile a survey and fully justify my opinion.
Cheers