Its a simple matter of capital write-off. If the operation and maintenance costs are all you have to service, and you can still make a profit, then "you can't afford to abandon" that infrastructure.
My calculations show that even if you write off the entire capital cost of a coal plant, Rossi's system beats it if you're still burning coal -- which means you have to replace the boiler. On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have often read the argument that we cannot "afford" to abandon our oil > production facilities, or we cannot afford to replace all automobiles. This > is wrong because we do abandon and replace all oil refinery equipment over > time, probably 20 or 30 years. We replace nearly every car on the road in > about 9 to 12 years (depending on the economy). > > We also abandon hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure, > buildings, houses and so on before it wears out and has to replaced. > > Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The systems that have developed over the centuries cannot be overturned >> in a shocking overnight revolution of disruption. >> > Here are some photos of Detroit, MI.: > > > http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2011/jan/02/photography-detroit > > They show billions of dollars worth of buildings and infrastructure that > have been abruptly abandoned. Libraries with thousands of books, schools, > hospitals . . . all rotting away. It has all gone to waste. > > In any rural district in Japan you will find depopulated areas with > abandoned roads, collapsed houses, abandoned factories and schools. > Billions and billions of dollars worth of stuff. > > No one claims that we cannot afford to abandon Detroit. On the contrary, > we cannot afford to maintain it, because fewer people want to live there. > > When cold fusion replaces a third of gasoline powered cars, the others > will soon be abandoned the same way Detroit has been. Yes, it will be a > waste of still-useful equipment, but that is what always happens when > technology changes. Not only can we afford it, it is actually cheaper than > trying to maintain obsolete equipment. If it was not cheaper to abandon > obsolete but still serviceable machines, we wouldn't abandon them. We would > still be cranking up 1980s IBM mainframes and DEC minicomputers. I am > pretty sure most of them would still work if they existed intact. (Most > have been recycled.) > > - Jed > >
