By "have" you mean "built some experimental reactors that broke in interesting and expensive ways", which isn't a great pitch to investors.
The bottom line is you have to explain why nuclear is better than renewables and storage, and it just isn't. It would have to be a lot cheaper and you would have to demonstrate a working system to handle the waste and a way for it all to be profitable and explain why all that hassle is preferable to just building wind turbines.
History suggests that those 1960s era nuclear plants were not so safe... And back then there was no plan for dealing with waste, it was something we (as in people living in 2020) were supposed to have solved with magic new technology.
Perhaps there is a reason why nuclear turned out to be expensive.
People who are born into poverty are used to it and can see that other people somehow cope. When people have been comfortable for their whole lives and then a financial crash hits and end up with nothing, and don't have the mental tools to cope with that loss and uncertainty and angst and anger... That's what causes depression.
The financial crisis is really taking a toll on people. It's not wonder they are turning to populists and anyone who promises to fix things.
What's interesting is that relatively speaking the US came out of the crash fairly quickly. Countries like the UK that went the austerity route are still well below 2008 levels for things like wages and quality of life. Where the US differs is that there are fewer safety nets. If you lose you lose big time and can very quickly end up with nothing and little hope of recovery.
Also, people in the US have access to guns and less emergency mental healthcare, so suicide attempts are more likely to succeed.
I hear this all the time, "We can't use nuclear power, it's too expensive." What of solar power? What do people have to say about that? "We have to subsidize solar power so we can develop the technology and make it cheaper than coal." Okay then, why not subsidize nuclear power so we can develop the technology until it is cheaper than coal?
The total cost per megawatt of nuclear is about double solar/offshore wind + battery storage.
That's the real cost. Subsidies are only used to make them commercially viable alternatives to coal.
What you are proposing is guaranteed high subsidies for many decades, and a bunch of unknown costs because we are sure to find new safety issues and haven't figured out what to do with the waste yet. Alternatively, we have some temporary subsidies on a clean form of energy that will become the cheapest form of generation ever (cheaper than subsidised coal) within a few decades at most.
Based on current technology. Like wind and solar power, you would expect the cost to fall rapidly once large scale investment was being made and demand was high.
That's the key thing to take away from this. If we tax CO2 at not unbearably high rate it would be worth investing in this tech, and prices would start to fall and in a few decades we might be making a big difference.
"Recycling" 1kg of CO2 means 1kg less CO2 removed from the ground and released into the atmosphere.
Of course there are some losses in the recycling process and it's not as good as actually removing it to storage somewhere, as you say, but it's still better than pumping newly extracted CO2 out.
Because they can afford to wait for wages to go down again. No point buying when the price is high if you can wait.
There is a power imbalance in their favour. You need a job, you can only survive on savings for so long, or put up with your crappy working conditions for so long. Eventually you will be forced to accept the lower wages unless you get lucky.
As for favouring younger workers, it's because they are cheaper. They want to pay sub-graduate wages, so seeing a lot of experience on your CV is a pretty good indicator that you won't work for that kind of money and are less vulnerable (more savings, owned home etc.) than millennials.
You are expecting children to make major life choices based on faulty information and then blaming them for the poor outcomes.
I'm gen X, and I was told that a degree in a subject that interested me was the way to go. Didn't really matter what subject, employers just wanted a degree to show you could learn by yourself to that level on the job. The debt wasn't something to worry about.
And when you look at job adverts these days, a lot of them require a degree. If you don't have one it's much harder to get anything good.
Being a plumber or a welder is great, except that in many places it's not a steady, guaranteed income like a wage is. That makes it even harder to get a mortgage, and you have to save more to be secure. And millennials hardly think those jobs are below them, when they are clearly willing to work in the gig economy and other crappy McJobs just to get by.
We had to get up at 3AM, walk uphill both ways, work 25 hours a day for tuppence a year and all died because there was no 'elf and safety. Why shouldn't we want our children to suffer the same thing!?
This has been in the works for the better part of a decade. The EU agreed some changes with them, but they didn't happen. This is really the last resort.
Odd, the left is generally associated with wanting more sexual activity, e.g. through promotion of contraception and the normalization of sex. Feminists in particular regard the sexual revolution, when women were liberated to engage in and enjoy sex thanks to the contraceptive pill and changes in attitudes, as a very good thing.
Even porn has adopted some feminist ideas in recent years, with the popularity of movies that focus more on the mutual pleasure the actors are experiencing and less on the "hammering a slut" aspect.
Consider that many of those deaths due to deer are because the human involved was doing something wrong, e.g. speeding. And in fact huge improvements in vehicle safety have reduced the number of deaths, which required immense political will and public pressure to make happen.
None of that changes the fact that through no fault of their own children are being murdered with weapons that most countries control far more strictly than the US. Your argument is just what-about-ism.
Temperature decreases with depth, down to about 1000m. They must have decided that with the density of servers and amount of heat generated that the temperature on the surface was too high to provide adequate cooling.
Slashdot Mirror
By "have" you mean "built some experimental reactors that broke in interesting and expensive ways", which isn't a great pitch to investors.
The bottom line is you have to explain why nuclear is better than renewables and storage, and it just isn't. It would have to be a lot cheaper and you would have to demonstrate a working system to handle the waste and a way for it all to be profitable and explain why all that hassle is preferable to just building wind turbines.
History suggests that those 1960s era nuclear plants were not so safe... And back then there was no plan for dealing with waste, it was something we (as in people living in 2020) were supposed to have solved with magic new technology.
Perhaps there is a reason why nuclear turned out to be expensive.
People who are born into poverty are used to it and can see that other people somehow cope. When people have been comfortable for their whole lives and then a financial crash hits and end up with nothing, and don't have the mental tools to cope with that loss and uncertainty and angst and anger... That's what causes depression.
significantly more likely to demonstrate lower rates of suicide among higher socio-economic areas
That very clearly and unambiguously says that suicide rates are lower among areas that are less poor and/or experiencing less strife.
No need to read between the lines, it is a simple statement that leaves little room for interpretation.
The financial crisis is really taking a toll on people. It's not wonder they are turning to populists and anyone who promises to fix things.
What's interesting is that relatively speaking the US came out of the crash fairly quickly. Countries like the UK that went the austerity route are still well below 2008 levels for things like wages and quality of life. Where the US differs is that there are fewer safety nets. If you lose you lose big time and can very quickly end up with nothing and little hope of recovery.
Also, people in the US have access to guns and less emergency mental healthcare, so suicide attempts are more likely to succeed.
I hear this all the time, "We can't use nuclear power, it's too expensive." What of solar power? What do people have to say about that? "We have to subsidize solar power so we can develop the technology and make it cheaper than coal." Okay then, why not subsidize nuclear power so we can develop the technology until it is cheaper than coal?
The total cost per megawatt of nuclear is about double solar/offshore wind + battery storage.
That's the real cost. Subsidies are only used to make them commercially viable alternatives to coal.
What you are proposing is guaranteed high subsidies for many decades, and a bunch of unknown costs because we are sure to find new safety issues and haven't figured out what to do with the waste yet. Alternatively, we have some temporary subsidies on a clean form of energy that will become the cheapest form of generation ever (cheaper than subsidised coal) within a few decades at most.
Based on current technology. Like wind and solar power, you would expect the cost to fall rapidly once large scale investment was being made and demand was high.
That's the key thing to take away from this. If we tax CO2 at not unbearably high rate it would be worth investing in this tech, and prices would start to fall and in a few decades we might be making a big difference.
"Recycling" 1kg of CO2 means 1kg less CO2 removed from the ground and released into the atmosphere.
Of course there are some losses in the recycling process and it's not as good as actually removing it to storage somewhere, as you say, but it's still better than pumping newly extracted CO2 out.
Profitable things are not free either, they take up valuable space that could be used for atmospheric filtration.
Gas prices in the US are about 1/3rd what they are in the UK, and somehow it hasn't destroyed our economy.
Maybe gas is too cheap, considering the harm it does.
Because they can afford to wait for wages to go down again. No point buying when the price is high if you can wait.
There is a power imbalance in their favour. You need a job, you can only survive on savings for so long, or put up with your crappy working conditions for so long. Eventually you will be forced to accept the lower wages unless you get lucky.
As for favouring younger workers, it's because they are cheaper. They want to pay sub-graduate wages, so seeing a lot of experience on your CV is a pretty good indicator that you won't work for that kind of money and are less vulnerable (more savings, owned home etc.) than millennials.
You are expecting children to make major life choices based on faulty information and then blaming them for the poor outcomes.
I'm gen X, and I was told that a degree in a subject that interested me was the way to go. Didn't really matter what subject, employers just wanted a degree to show you could learn by yourself to that level on the job. The debt wasn't something to worry about.
And when you look at job adverts these days, a lot of them require a degree. If you don't have one it's much harder to get anything good.
Being a plumber or a welder is great, except that in many places it's not a steady, guaranteed income like a wage is. That makes it even harder to get a mortgage, and you have to save more to be secure. And millennials hardly think those jobs are below them, when they are clearly willing to work in the gig economy and other crappy McJobs just to get by.
We had to get up at 3AM, walk uphill both ways, work 25 hours a day for tuppence a year and all died because there was no 'elf and safety. Why shouldn't we want our children to suffer the same thing!?
Unless there's a patent blocking it.
See the EFF's list of missing products.
This has been in the works for the better part of a decade. The EU agreed some changes with them, but they didn't happen. This is really the last resort.
Europe has plenty of competitive web services. You just don't know what they are because they aren't aimed at you.
They will be peril-sensitive and go dark in emergencies, to reduce passenger stress levels.
The ROI on space isn't immediate and obvious enough for most people so they disregard it.
Well, to be fair some of the modern day conservatives are literal Nazis and quite open about that fact, and it's a game about killing Nazis...
Snowflakes getting butthurt that someone made a game about murdering them?
Odd, the left is generally associated with wanting more sexual activity, e.g. through promotion of contraception and the normalization of sex. Feminists in particular regard the sexual revolution, when women were liberated to engage in and enjoy sex thanks to the contraceptive pill and changes in attitudes, as a very good thing.
Even porn has adopted some feminist ideas in recent years, with the popularity of movies that focus more on the mutual pleasure the actors are experiencing and less on the "hammering a slut" aspect.
This is how international trade works in the real world. If you completely screw your big trading partners, they screw you back and everyone loses.
ZTE's demise helps no-one. It wouldn't have made America great again, that's for sure. For once Trump did the right thing.
I should have clarified that "the victim was doing something wrong".
Such simplistic comparisons are worthless.
Consider that many of those deaths due to deer are because the human involved was doing something wrong, e.g. speeding. And in fact huge improvements in vehicle safety have reduced the number of deaths, which required immense political will and public pressure to make happen.
None of that changes the fact that through no fault of their own children are being murdered with weapons that most countries control far more strictly than the US. Your argument is just what-about-ism.
Voters are not banned from voting
Isn't banning voters a common tactic used by Republicans?
Temperature decreases with depth, down to about 1000m. They must have decided that with the density of servers and amount of heat generated that the temperature on the surface was too high to provide adequate cooling.