It's almost as if you don't know how much radiation, mercury, etc. is released into the air by coal fired plants.
It's almost like you're repeating the obnoxious false dichotomy of nuke fanboys, that opposing nuclear means loving coal. Which is an annoying waste of time when wind and solar passed coal in cost effectiveness many years ago, and that was while allowing coal to externalize most of its costs.
Uh, no. If an electrician falls off a nuclear cooling tower while servicing beacons to warn approaching aircraft, that's an industrial accident, it's not a failure of nuclear power. If that same electrician falls off a wind turbine while servicing a beacon to alert approaching aircraft, that's an industrial accident, not a failure of wind power.
When a wind farm creates a deadly tornado, or a solar farm creates an Archimedes ray and burns a town to the ground, then we can talk about the number of deaths compared to nuclear power. But not before then. Whereas we have two nuclear plant meltdowns on our hands which were failures of nuclear power. Womp womp.
The problem with obtaining insurance is not due to nuclear being unsafe. It's due to a quirk of statistics.
Laughable statement. Wind and solar farms don't need to have immediate evacuation plans for every human in a 20 mile radius because there's not risk of meltdown.
But there are only 100 nuclear plants in the U.S.
And if you add a zero to that number to replace all coal as well as bypass wind and solar, you'd be looking at a Chernobyl or Fukushima every couple of years, instead of every few decades.
Then you should be in favor of building new nuclear power plants and not running old ones well past their useful life.
As much as you'd want to chop off your foot to deal with an ingrown toenail, sure. There is no rational for spending a couple of decades and tens of billions on a new nuclear power plant when wind and solar can be rolled out in a fraction of the time for a fraction of the cost.
Oak Ridge National Laboratories has several new designs that are safe.
And are also vaporware. And will never approach the cost effectiveness of wind and solar, as the latter have no radioactive fuel/waste/security to deal with.
Then here is a thought. Who will insure wind and solar for not providing power 24x7? Will that be you? Will you pay us for not providing power?
Here's another thought: when your precious nuclear power plant goes down for planned (or worse, unplanned) maintenance - sometimes for years at a time - who's going to pay for another one to take its place? Will that be you? Who's going to insure the sudden gap of a few gigawatts in the power grid? Will that be you?
All the FUD thrown against wind and solar by nuke fanboys applies more to your favored method of heating water than it it does for wind and solar.
You mean how France, along with Obama, turned the country with the highest standard of living on the African continent into a third world jihadist hell hole with open-air slave markets? Heck of a job, Brownie!
Nuclear reactors provide one of the cheapest sources of energy besides natural hydro plants.
As much as a $2.5 million Bugatti is a cheap car for a person working at McDonalds, sure. You have tens of billions in upfront construction costs with nuclear power, and will have to deal with the waste for thousands of years. Cost, not hippies, is what's killing your extraordinarily expensive & dangerous way to heat water.
I really don't understand our (the USA) resistance to fuel reprocessing, or funding a "permanent" disposal process and location.
Because the waste will remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years, that's why. So it's not a matter of one & done on constructing a facility to hold it - it's an ongoing cost that you're assigning to hundreds of future generations.
Imagine if the Neanderthals had developed nuclear power 50,000 years ago and built a storage facility that was now leaking through Italy, straight into the Mediterranean. Making a good chunk of southern Europe uninhabitable, while poisoning an entire sea, right out into the Atlantic Ocean. And for what.
Advanced Small Modular reactors that use physics to avoid meltdown are perfect.
That's nice - but at the end of the day, no nuclear vaporware is going to be more cost effective than wind and solar. So lets just go on skipping dangerous & expensive ways to heat water, and go with tech that poses no security or long term storage issues.
Jokes aside the reason nuclear is a nonstarter in America is Americans don't trust their government and private institutions to keep it safe.
It's not about trust, as the US is an oligarchy and not responsive to the will of the people. It's about nuclear power being far to expensive to justify, even for the country that threw hundreds of billions in the F-35 dumpster and set it on fire.
Cost is what is killing nuclear power, as no plant has been or will be constructed that wasn't done so without billions of taxpayer dollars bankrolling the project.
Poor shaming is unrelated to doing math, working out a budget and understanding priorities... which apparently this person and you don't understand.
Apparently you are too dumb to understand (or read) that this woman could call animal control to pick up all seven of her pets and she still wouldn't have the money to rent an apartment. And now I'm going to reply to your partner in elitist dipshittery since it's in the same thread and you're both AC's:
You're replying to someone who has made some very poor financial decisions of his own and believes it is the duty of the rest of us to bail him out by redistributing our money to him. Check his post history.
Ah, another "life choices" shitheel. Why didn't you "choose" to own your favorite tech company and professional sports team by the time you were 25?
You mean Venezuela has been sabotaged by traitors within and CIA agents without. TPTB desperately want a repeat of the first September 11th to happen in the country with one of the largest oil reserves in the world.
So, what's the ratio of homeless in the US vs. the people who died in the old Soviet Union when they were doing "a better job of providing for the well-being of the population"?
So, like most Americans, are you unaware of the fact that famines happened every few years under the Tsars, deaths that were never blamed on capitalism? Or that some of those post-communism deaths happened because the United States and Britain decided to invade the USSR after the end of WWI? That the population of said USSR increased when Stalin was in power, despite losing nearly 30 million people in WWII? The millions who died when Yeltsin capitalized Russia?
Perhaps we should ship all the Bernie-ites ("breadlines are a good thing") to Venezuela.
3/4 of Venezuelas economy is still capitalist, moran. Including all the sectors with the shortages that you've been whining about for years. Which means that Venezuela's real problem....is that they didn't nationalize a whole lot more.
And it is usually because those people are unable to move to other areas where housing is much cheaper and taxes are much lower.
FTFY. If someone has so little money that they are homeless, they by definition don't have thousands of dollars to move hundreds or thousands of miles away and risk signing for an apartment with no guarantee of a job.
I hope you don't actually believe that kind of stuff. Western capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything the world has ever seen.
Utterly laughable statement. Capitalism traded human beings for profit for hundreds of years. Capitalism kept coal workers on starvation-level wages while forcing them to rent in company towns while being paid in scrip that could only be used at company stores. Capitalism sees Wal-Mart tell their employees how to apply for state benefits (because they pay so little money) and organizes food donation drives for their own workers so they can eat. Capitalism sees the richest man in the world higher ambulances to sit outside warehouses to treat workers for heat stroke because its cheaper than installing air conditioning.
I could go on all day. But aside from all that, every job that has ever been created has come from demand, or expected demand. Not capitalism. Not "job creators".
Communism, on the other hand, has ACTUALLY failed most every place it has been tried in addition to the murdering more than 100 million of it citizens.
You know the population of the Soviet Union increased when Stalin was in power, yes? Despite the country losing almost 30 million people during WWII. You capitalist fundamentalists are more full of shit on capitalism and communism than Birther's are on the subject of birth certificates.
Why is this black-and-white attitude towards capitalism repeated again and again when the evidence of the contrary is our present well-fare in US and in Europe
What evidence is that, exactly? That a handful of billionaires have more wealth than a majority of the USA? That people go homeless and die from toothaches in the richest country in the history of the world?
Not harsh enough - we need some guillotines & gulags.
However, it also has one of the most dynamic, healthy, advanced economies on the planet.
This cartoon neatly addresses that bubble thinking. You have an absolute pile of shit for an economy when a single silicon valley billionaire has as much wealth as a hundred million Americans.
Sounds like you're missing the point of a protective case - which can be made 2mm thinner if the tablet is 2mm thinner. A larger, heavier device is going to have a larger, heavier impact with the floor.
Then all they'll have to do is wait a couple of weeks until it comes out that Samsung is shipping tablets with cracked screens instead of cases that are merely bent. Which will throw the Hatorade Distortion Field out of alignment, and people will instantly stop caring about bent cases. Again.
If it's just a con, why didn't another company with superior products and/or prices pay for their own marketing campaign and drive Apple out of business during the Bush Administration? The first Bush Administration.
Slashdot Mirror
It's almost like you're repeating the obnoxious false dichotomy of nuke fanboys, that opposing nuclear means loving coal. Which is an annoying waste of time when wind and solar passed coal in cost effectiveness many years ago, and that was while allowing coal to externalize most of its costs.
...and solar.
Uh, no. If an electrician falls off a nuclear cooling tower while servicing beacons to warn approaching aircraft, that's an industrial accident, it's not a failure of nuclear power. If that same electrician falls off a wind turbine while servicing a beacon to alert approaching aircraft, that's an industrial accident, not a failure of wind power.
When a wind farm creates a deadly tornado, or a solar farm creates an Archimedes ray and burns a town to the ground, then we can talk about the number of deaths compared to nuclear power. But not before then. Whereas we have two nuclear plant meltdowns on our hands which were failures of nuclear power. Womp womp.
Laughable statement. Wind and solar farms don't need to have immediate evacuation plans for every human in a 20 mile radius because there's not risk of meltdown.
And if you add a zero to that number to replace all coal as well as bypass wind and solar, you'd be looking at a Chernobyl or Fukushima every couple of years, instead of every few decades.
As much as you'd want to chop off your foot to deal with an ingrown toenail, sure. There is no rational for spending a couple of decades and tens of billions on a new nuclear power plant when wind and solar can be rolled out in a fraction of the time for a fraction of the cost.
And are also vaporware. And will never approach the cost effectiveness of wind and solar, as the latter have no radioactive fuel/waste/security to deal with.
And why do you have regulation, Sherlock? To prevent the incompetent and corrupt from fucking everyone else over.
Here's another thought: when your precious nuclear power plant goes down for planned (or worse, unplanned) maintenance - sometimes for years at a time - who's going to pay for another one to take its place? Will that be you? Who's going to insure the sudden gap of a few gigawatts in the power grid? Will that be you?
All the FUD thrown against wind and solar by nuke fanboys applies more to your favored method of heating water than it it does for wind and solar.
Regulations exist for a reason.
Gross corporatist propaganda to limit liability for negligence, incompetence and criminal actions.
You mean how France, along with Obama, turned the country with the highest standard of living on the African continent into a third world jihadist hell hole with open-air slave markets? Heck of a job, Brownie!
Because who doesn't want more Chernobyl's or Fukushima's?
As much as a $2.5 million Bugatti is a cheap car for a person working at McDonalds, sure. You have tens of billions in upfront construction costs with nuclear power, and will have to deal with the waste for thousands of years. Cost, not hippies, is what's killing your extraordinarily expensive & dangerous way to heat water.
Because the waste will remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years, that's why. So it's not a matter of one & done on constructing a facility to hold it - it's an ongoing cost that you're assigning to hundreds of future generations.
Imagine if the Neanderthals had developed nuclear power 50,000 years ago and built a storage facility that was now leaking through Italy, straight into the Mediterranean. Making a good chunk of southern Europe uninhabitable, while poisoning an entire sea, right out into the Atlantic Ocean. And for what.
That's nice - but at the end of the day, no nuclear vaporware is going to be more cost effective than wind and solar. So lets just go on skipping dangerous & expensive ways to heat water, and go with tech that poses no security or long term storage issues.
It's not about trust, as the US is an oligarchy and not responsive to the will of the people. It's about nuclear power being far to expensive to justify, even for the country that threw hundreds of billions in the F-35 dumpster and set it on fire.
Cost is what is killing nuclear power, as no plant has been or will be constructed that wasn't done so without billions of taxpayer dollars bankrolling the project.
Uh, she had them before she lost her apartment? Here's your sign....
Apparently you are too dumb to understand (or read) that this woman could call animal control to pick up all seven of her pets and she still wouldn't have the money to rent an apartment. And now I'm going to reply to your partner in elitist dipshittery since it's in the same thread and you're both AC's:
Ah, another "life choices" shitheel. Why didn't you "choose" to own your favorite tech company and professional sports team by the time you were 25?
You mean Venezuela has been sabotaged by traitors within and CIA agents without. TPTB desperately want a repeat of the first September 11th to happen in the country with one of the largest oil reserves in the world.
So, like most Americans, are you unaware of the fact that famines happened every few years under the Tsars, deaths that were never blamed on capitalism? Or that some of those post-communism deaths happened because the United States and Britain decided to invade the USSR after the end of WWI? That the population of said USSR increased when Stalin was in power, despite losing nearly 30 million people in WWII? The millions who died when Yeltsin capitalized Russia?
3/4 of Venezuelas economy is still capitalist, moran. Including all the sectors with the shortages that you've been whining about for years. Which means that Venezuela's real problem....is that they didn't nationalize a whole lot more.
FTFY. If someone has so little money that they are homeless, they by definition don't have thousands of dollars to move hundreds or thousands of miles away and risk signing for an apartment with no guarantee of a job.
Utterly laughable statement. Capitalism traded human beings for profit for hundreds of years. Capitalism kept coal workers on starvation-level wages while forcing them to rent in company towns while being paid in scrip that could only be used at company stores. Capitalism sees Wal-Mart tell their employees how to apply for state benefits (because they pay so little money) and organizes food donation drives for their own workers so they can eat. Capitalism sees the richest man in the world higher ambulances to sit outside warehouses to treat workers for heat stroke because its cheaper than installing air conditioning.
I could go on all day. But aside from all that, every job that has ever been created has come from demand, or expected demand. Not capitalism. Not "job creators".
You know the population of the Soviet Union increased when Stalin was in power, yes? Despite the country losing almost 30 million people during WWII. You capitalist fundamentalists are more full of shit on capitalism and communism than Birther's are on the subject of birth certificates.
What evidence is that, exactly? That a handful of billionaires have more wealth than a majority of the USA? That people go homeless and die from toothaches in the richest country in the history of the world?
Not harsh enough - we need some guillotines & gulags.
This cartoon neatly addresses that bubble thinking. You have an absolute pile of shit for an economy when a single silicon valley billionaire has as much wealth as a hundred million Americans.
omfg someone who is consistent. Give the AC the internets until the new year.
Sounds like you're missing the point of a protective case - which can be made 2mm thinner if the tablet is 2mm thinner. A larger, heavier device is going to have a larger, heavier impact with the floor.
Then all they'll have to do is wait a couple of weeks until it comes out that Samsung is shipping tablets with cracked screens instead of cases that are merely bent. Which will throw the Hatorade Distortion Field out of alignment, and people will instantly stop caring about bent cases. Again.
If it's just a con, why didn't another company with superior products and/or prices pay for their own marketing campaign and drive Apple out of business during the Bush Administration? The first Bush Administration.