Whale carrying costs > whale liquidity premium

Or so it seems to me, here is the headline: Washington state waterfront owners asked to take dead whales

Here is part of the story:

At least one Washington state waterfront landowner has said yes to a request to allow dead gray whales to decompose on their property.

So many gray whale carcasses have washed up this year that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries says it has run out of places to take them.

In response, the agency has asked landowners to volunteer property as a disposal site for the carcasses. By doing so, landowners can support the natural process of the marine environment, and skeletons left behind can be used for educational purposes, officials said.

But the carcasses can be up to 40 feet (12 meters) long. That’s a lot to decay, and it could take months. Landowner Mario Rivera of Port Hadlock, Washington, told KING5-TV that the smell is intermittent and “isn’t that bad.”

“It is really a unique opportunity to have this here on the beach and monitor it and see how fast it goes,” said his wife, Stefanie Worwag.

Via Anecdotal.


Can we do the same for nuclear waste? It costs the government $35.5 billion a year and it is climbing at a nice clip. Nuclear energy is an interesting idea but we can't pretend it doesn't have costs.


Look, obviously this problem was caused by Congress not allowing the free market to work - 'Almost 40 years after Congress decided the U.S., and not private companies, would be responsible for storing radioactive waste, the cost of that effort has grown to $7.5 billion, and it’s about to get even pricier.'

See? If only we had let the free market handle the problem, American taxpayers would not be paying.

Stop laughing.

For the much smaller sum of $10 billion I would volunteer my house. Think how much taxpayer money is saved by my noble, charitable works.

Molten salt reactors produce a fraction of the waste and the waste becomes safe over hundreds, not thousands of years. They're safe and efficient.

>Nuclear energy is an interesting idea

How bold of you.

Thank you for daring to think about considering such wild new innovative concepts.

"It costs the government $35.5 billion a year and it is climbing at a nice clip. "

Did you bother to read the article you linked to? I'm guessing you didn't. The cost is currently $7.5 billion per year. But would grow to $35 billion per year if the US were to close all it's nuclear power plants.

Putting the number into perspective indicates that it's not a substantial cost.

The nuclear industry produced about 800 billion kwh last year for $7.5 billion. IE that's a cost of 0.9 cents per kWh.

The economics for building new nuclear power plants is bad, but it's far cheaper to run existing plants. They are some of the cheapest non-carbon fuel sources we have.

But hey the Greens are idiots and bad at math, so naturally they want to shut down the carbon sources and the cheapest non-carbon sources (hydro and nuclear).

For those of you who haven't yet seen this classic video clip, some 50 years ago a dead whale washed up on Oregon's coast and not having any better ideas, the highway department decided to try to blow it up with dynamite. The result is as classic as that film of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge self-destructing in high winds: what not to do when building a bridge, or disposing of a whale carcass.

+1. I'd never seen that. Grotesquely funny.

We can't just haul it off to the middle of the ocean and let nature do its thing?

The floating whale carcass drifting to the beach was nature doing its thing. The carcass is full of gases coming from decomposition, that's why it floats. Hauling it back to the ocean is useless unless the carcass is moored to something , caged, or sunk.

Helpful Suggestion: Tow the carcasses to San Francisco Bay.

The photo for the link is a dead whale in the intertidal zone in California while the text is about Washington state. Since this is about property rights, it's better to clarify that California and Washington have completely different beach laws.

The intertidal zone is the part of the beach comprised between the high and low tide water levels. On California the whale carcass from the photo in on public "land" because the intertidal zone is public. On Washington is a bit more complicate because sometimes the waterfront property rights comprise the "land" until the low tide water level.

So, the dead whale could lay on public lay depending of the state legislation. Albeit, a rotting carcass in your neighbor's property produces a distinct externality: smell.

At this point the issue get really interesting, is the state liable for the smell coming from a rotting whale in public land? Alternatively, is the state liable for the smell of decomposing animals in national parks? What about roadkill in highways? Any lawyer around here knows more?


Long ago we had a dead whale wash up on the beach near our house in Scotland. The local children loved it. No snowflakes in those days - or at least no male ones.

I got a promotion once for my work sucking a whale cock at the Dick sucking factory where I work.

soon wasps will eat your fiberoptic cable

.. ...... .. . ..... ..... ...

...... .......

"Leviathan: The History of Whaling in America" cites shore whaling (harvesting incidental whales that wash up, limited effort whaling of whales close to shore) as an important economic and material contribution to the early colonies.

A symbol of waning moxy, back in the day they knew damn well how to deal with beached whales:


Comments for this post are closed