[throwaway894345]

The sunk cost fallacy is about continuing to incur additional sunk costs. The parent is arguing that we're going to have to pay $X/year to manage the nuclear waste we've already incurred and that the cost is fixed--adding more nuclear waste isn't going to increase the cost. Whether those claims are true may be up for debate, but it's certainly not a sunk cost fallacy.

[marshray]

He's arguing (to paraphrase) "Because we've already incurred such costs we should continue or even expand the policy which caused them."

Claiming that hazardous nuclear waste represents a fixed cost no matter how much you generate is simply absurd.

[charlesju]

Do you have any data that says the cost (ie. money or security) is materially increased from this point forward given the space to store is truly small.

[marshray]

No, because the US currently has no such long term storage facility in operation.