Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously? No surprise that they won't investigate anything.
Dude, you're not just talking about any journal here. You're talking about THE journal for the physical sciences. This journal has more than a century of scientific reporting as testament to its quality. It predates the Nobel price. It predates the work of Einstein and Schrödinger. Interestingly though it is not older than the discovery of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, which was first described by Fourier in 1824.
Just to give you a clue what you're actually implying in your post...
Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general (Germany in particular) does not?
I have 7 words for you:
shit,piss,fuck,cunt,mother fucker,cocksucker and tits
As you may or may not be aware those 7 words have been the subject of a SCOTUS ruling that kinda undermines the entire premise of your post.
That is all well and good but you missed my point. Lets say for a second your advice was followed. Lets say the IPCC were to reject the CRU lets say institutions like the CRU were to refuse to use data they were not at liberty to release. Now, do you think everybody would be fine and happy about that? What would happen in such a situation is that people would scream bloody murder about the IPCC not looking at all data, the CRU and institutions like it would be accused of keeping third party data out and using openness as an excuse.
This is what I mean with damned if they do,damned if they don't. Even if the CRU and IPCC had agreed with you 100% and refused to use this data, that would not have done anything at all to reduce the criticism. The skeptics would then simply complain that they were NOT using the data, probably saying that they refused to use it because it proved them wrong or whatever.
I know it would go down this way because I've seen the exact same thing happen elsewhere. It doesn't matter which field. Stem cell research, nuclear power, evolution, teh safety of the MMR vaccine, there is always some group of people who proclaim a conspiracy typically shouting that the scientific method has been violated, but when the issues they complain about are resolved they don't stop, they just make a U-turn from their previous argument and start complaining scientists are doing exactly what they were the day before criticized for not doing.
Also, I think you have a very glorified idea of peer review. Peer review doesn't normally involve some other scientist going through the publishing researchers' entire work right down to the raw data. It typically involves them reading the paper, asking the researcher to clarify ambiguous points, explain their wording, state their assumptions more clearly... You won't get a peer reviewer asking for a copy of a Fortran code that will take days to run on some supercomputer cluster, because the peer reviewer is usually a volunteer and isn't going to go ask for permission to run a huge job on his institution's mainframe just to confirm some findings for a peer review.
If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they can't release it:
"They are cherry picking their data, the met data shows there is no cooling, it's all a fraud!!!"
If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA:
"They don't release the data, they cover it up, it's all a conspiracy!!!!"
Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not. What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud. Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly. No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.
The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.
In short, if computer models are the primary tool in making all sorts of climate predictions, then let's have transparency in building the models and getting conclusions from them.
Oh come of it, you know exactly what would happen if climate scientists refused to use proprietary data:
"Oh look they don't use the bets data there is." "Climate scientists ignore this huge data set." "Data used by climate scientists is not as accurate as the private data used by weather channels."
And so on and so fourth... Seriously climate scientists are doomed if they do doomed if they don't. If they use proprietary data we get this bitchfest that you can read on slashdot. If they don't they would be blasted for "ignoring" a huge set of data.
Now in practice you will get some scientists that refuse to use proprietary data, and some that are fine with it. What the skeptics are doing is claiming that the entire field is corrupt because some scientists figured they would use the proprietary data when offered. Anybody with two brain cells should be able to see that they are mainly clutching for straws in order to try to discredit a solid scientific theory.
do {
solveProblem(); } until (getPhotonPosition() && getPhotonVelocity());
In vacuum Photon Velocity will be a rather famous constant.
The photon momentum, on the other hand, depends on the photon's energy ( i.e the colour ). Thus you can't break the uncertainty principle using photons, even though their velocity is always the same.
Now in before some smartass points out it is gluons that have colour.
It's lovely and fussy and all things nice. A world facing app like a web-browser should make use of it.
Really with the performance of current desktop computers and even netbooks there's no good reason not to stick potentially vulnerable parts of your browser in a separate process and block it from accessing anything it does not absolutely need to deal with.
The normally stated reason why it is tricky to simulate gravity using a rotating space station is that the curvature causes the generated gravitational field to be inhomogeneous and that this generally results in nausea. Thus I'm wondering a few things:
a) Is it known what radius of circulation is needed to avoid this?
b) Is the primary problem that the artificial gravity points in different directions in points separated by a small distance, or is it that the magnitude of the field changes with distance from the center of rotation that makes it tricky?
I guess from a practical point of view you also have to deal with the problem of docking a shuttle with a rotating space station unless you want to start and stop the rotation before every docking. Stabilizing the motion may also be an issue, especially if the station itself is light as compared to the equipment and inhabitants that will be housed inside it.
Put a few hundred planes in the air that have increased effectiveness laser systems with millisecond reload and a few hundred shot capability and suddenly you might have that workable shield.
Except by the time you start pushing for that kind of system the Russians could counter by building enough missiles and warheads to drop thousands of bombs over the US, with each missile releasing hundreds of decoys so you can only shoot down the real ones after they enter the atmosphere.
If even 5% out of a thousand warheads go through you just lost 50 cities.
Would you seriously wish to gamble on whether your shield could reliably detect and shoot down a few thousand incoming warheads without any slip-ups ?
I dunno about FLAC and mp3, but to get an idea what difference the sound quality can make, try this at a both standard and high quality using a good set of headphones:
I don't dare speculate where the cutoff in what we can notice is, and it likely is not the same for everybody, but there's certainly some music tracks where the difference between different levels of lossy compression is quite clear.
I work with particle accelerators that draw enough power that we don't have much choice but to use water cooling, and even though we have major radiation sources, high voltage running across the entire place, liquid helium cooled magnets, high power klystrons that feed microwaves to the accelerator cavities etc... the only thing that typically requires me to place an emergency call during a night shift is still water leaks.
Water is just that much of a hassle around electronics. Even an absolutely minor leak can raise the humidity in a place you really don't want humidity, it evaporates and then condenses on the colder parts of the system where even a single drop can cause a short circuit and fry some piece of equipment. After it absorbs dirt and dust from the surroundings it starts attacking most materials corrosively, which may not be noticed at first but gives sudden unexpected problems after a few years. If you don't keep the cooling system itself in perfect condition valves and taps will start corroding and you get blockages. Maintenance is a pain because you have to power everything down if you want to move just 1 pipe etc...
I just don't see why you would go through the hassle with water cooling unless you actually have to, and quite frankly if your servers draw enough power to force you to use water for cooling then you're doing something weird.
Areva quotes their fuel costs as roughly 17% of total cost of nuclear power with half of that being the cost of the uranium ( rest being enrichment and fuel-rod fabrication )
This means that even if uranium costs were to double the cost of nuclear power would increase by less than 9%.
Conversely for the price of nuclear power do double from uranium costs alone the cost of uranium would have to increase 10 times. Long before that happens it would become economical to build fast breeder reactors and they only need a fraction of the fuel other reactors do.
Also at such high uranium prices it would start being economical to extract uranium from sea-water, effectively making uranium availability a non-issue for thousands of years.
If you stick a child in a room with a bunch of girl and boy toys, without showing them which they should be playing with, they would play with all of them.
Ok Einstein, explain why male-to-female transsexuals that go on estrogen find they cry more, get reduced sex drive, and increased verbal ability, while the reverse is true for female-to-male transsexuals ( i.e testosterone increases libido, reduces their tendency to cry and shifts abilities from verbal to spatial orientation ).
There's been loads of studies done on how hormones impact psychological factors ranging from the effects of birth control pills ( they use estrogens and progesterones ) to the impact of hormone replacement therapy for women entering menopause. In order to make a long story short there's is little doubt that hormones influence us in all kinds of ways.
Seriously, between psychoactive substances like alcohol and caffeine, the impact of nutritional deficiencies such as a lack of iodine, and the impact of hormones like I mentioned above, it is very clear that biological factors have a very strong influence on our psychology. The effects may not correspond with common stereotypes and prejudice, and it certainly does not apply on an individual basis, but to claim it is just a matter of upbringing or social conditioning is demonstratively false regardless of how well it might fit with your preferred political ideology.
One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development. While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case, I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be. If there's even a small chance that environmental toxins is contributing to its prevalence then this is a very serious matter and definitely justifies a careful approach on restricting the use of chemicals that can influence gender development.
To give a slight idea of how strong an effect these things can have on a persons general wellbeing, a Dutch study found 20% of female to male transsexuals had attempted suicide prior to initiating hormone treatment. In comparison the figures following treatment with androgens were just a few percent. Now try to imagine what the effects might be when you expose an entire population to a diffuse cocktail of chemicals that interfere with gender development and you should start feeling a bit uncomfortable about the situation...
Stick rechargeable batteries in climbers and have the ones going down use regenerative breaking to charge their batteries.
When they meet an ascending climber have them swap batteries.
If you achieve a large efficiency the amount of energy you need to supply to overcome friction losses should be small and could probably be compensated for with solar cells or something.
I'm not from the UK but I have lived and visited many countries, and the UK plug EASILY wins. In particular:
a)Good grounding is pretty much standard
b)It is very solid. Many EU and US plugs you can accidentally bend and damage quite easily.
c)The vast majority of them are fused
d)It has a relatively slim profile and fits easily even in cramped spaces.
e)The contacts are flat pins with a large surface area, giving good contact.
f)They attach firmly into the socket so you are very unlikely to pull them out by accident
Seriously, if you have any experience with electronics and travel to Britain you are quite likely to end up wondering "why don't we do plugs this way back home?". It's just one of those things where you can do thing "the right way" and you can do them "the wrong way". The British did it "the right way" and pretty much everybody else cocked it up somehow.
Microsoft is in a hell of their own making. For years they have more or less taught users that:
*The way to install software is to pop some keywords into a search engine, and then run an un-trusted executable.
*The normal installation procedure involves clicking "yes" or "ok" on loads of dialogue boxes without reading them.
*Each app has its own installation procedure and it is perfectly normal that you have to do things you normally would not in order to get things working.
That is only the tip of the iceberg of course. Hiding file extensions, executing apps by double clicking the file, programs changing your system configuration without asking you... Microsoft made it all seem normal, thereby opening the floodgates for all kinds of social engineering attacks. I have no idea how they are going to solve the problem now. If you spend years teaching people to do things one way, you can't just go "uhm we fucked up, do it this way instead" and expect people to trust you.
They taught users to be negligent about security, taunting it as a usability advantage ( Windows "just works" ), and now they are trying to undo the damage without losing face. "Good luck with that."
I've heard estimates of about $10,000 for replacing the batteries in an electric vehicle. So that's 8 cents per mile times 30 miles per gallon that conventional engines get for the same size vehicle which is $2.40. So pretty much zero savings.
So what you are saying is that everybody in Europe, where gasoline prices are multiple times what they are in the US, are likely to see huge savings ?
Second question, how long do you think gasoline prices in the US will stay where they are ?
TPB guys moved the site and themselves to the Netherlands. Unless it is some EU mandate that people sued in one country are sued in all of them, I don't see how this court has any jurisdiction over any of what they are ruling on.
They are Swedish citizens , there's EU treaties on how to deal with situations like this.
A fusion reactor is quite a bit hotter than the core of the sun since we can't achieve anywhere close to the same density in the plasma. I ran into a guy working at the Join European Torus and he used to joke that he was working on the hottest thing in the solar system. Of course he had to stop doing that when he ran into a guy from CERN.
With the remainder being a mix of petrol and various renewables.
Thus even if we consider only CO2 your calculations would suggest that the Tesla is a lot better environmentally than conventional fuels, and this ignores the fact that large scale power plants burn more efficiently and emit less of other pollutants thanks to more efficient filtering and so on.
Thus if you consider not just CO2 but all air pollutants ( including nitrous oxides, particle emissions, various hydrocarbons etc... ) then the Tesla wins easily.
Also in other countries , like France or Sweden, very little fossils is used in electricity generation so over here the Tesla is simply superior. You guys basically need more nuclear power stations.
Slashdot Mirror
Did we not establish a while back that "abstinence only" doesn't work ?
Well we all know nature has a liberal bias. ;-)
(sorry, couldn't help myself )
Dude, you're not just talking about any journal here. You're talking about THE journal for the physical sciences. This journal has more than a century of scientific reporting as testament to its quality. It predates the Nobel price. It predates the work of Einstein and Schrödinger. Interestingly though it is not older than the discovery of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, which was first described by Fourier in 1824.
Just to give you a clue what you're actually implying in your post...
I have 7 words for you:
shit,piss,fuck,cunt,mother fucker,cocksucker and tits
As you may or may not be aware those 7 words have been the subject of a SCOTUS ruling that kinda undermines the entire premise of your post.
That is all well and good but you missed my point. Lets say for a second your advice was followed. Lets say the IPCC were to reject the CRU lets say institutions like the CRU were to refuse to use data they were not at liberty to release. Now, do you think everybody would be fine and happy about that? What would happen in such a situation is that people would scream bloody murder about the IPCC not looking at all data, the CRU and institutions like it would be accused of keeping third party data out and using openness as an excuse.
This is what I mean with damned if they do,damned if they don't. Even if the CRU and IPCC had agreed with you 100% and refused to use this data, that would not have done anything at all to reduce the criticism. The skeptics would then simply complain that they were NOT using the data, probably saying that they refused to use it because it proved them wrong or whatever.
I know it would go down this way because I've seen the exact same thing happen elsewhere. It doesn't matter which field. Stem cell research, nuclear power, evolution, teh safety of the MMR vaccine, there is always some group of people who proclaim a conspiracy typically shouting that the scientific method has been violated, but when the issues they complain about are resolved they don't stop, they just make a U-turn from their previous argument and start complaining scientists are doing exactly what they were the day before criticized for not doing.
Also, I think you have a very glorified idea of peer review. Peer review doesn't normally involve some other scientist going through the publishing researchers' entire work right down to the raw data. It typically involves them reading the paper, asking the researcher to clarify ambiguous points, explain their wording, state their assumptions more clearly ... You won't get a peer reviewer asking for a copy of a Fortran code that will take days to run on some supercomputer cluster, because the peer reviewer is usually a volunteer and isn't going to go ask for permission to run a huge job on his institution's mainframe just to confirm some findings for a peer review.
If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they can't release it:
"They are cherry picking their data, the met data shows there is no cooling, it's all a fraud!!!"
If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA:
"They don't release the data, they cover it up, it's all a conspiracy!!!!"
Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not. What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud. Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly. No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.
The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.
Oh come of it, you know exactly what would happen if climate scientists refused to use proprietary data:
"Oh look they don't use the bets data there is."
"Climate scientists ignore this huge data set."
"Data used by climate scientists is not as accurate as the private data used by weather channels."
And so on and so fourth... Seriously climate scientists are doomed if they do doomed if they don't. If they use proprietary data we get this bitchfest that you can read on slashdot. If they don't they would be blasted for "ignoring" a huge set of data.
Now in practice you will get some scientists that refuse to use proprietary data, and some that are fine with it. What the skeptics are doing is claiming that the entire field is corrupt because some scientists figured they would use the proprietary data when offered. Anybody with two brain cells should be able to see that they are mainly clutching for straws in order to try to discredit a solid scientific theory.
In vacuum Photon Velocity will be a rather famous constant.
The photon momentum, on the other hand, depends on the photon's energy ( i.e the colour ). Thus you can't break the uncertainty principle using photons, even though their velocity is always the same.
Now in before some smartass points out it is gluons that have colour.
It's lovely and fussy and all things nice. A world facing app like a web-browser should make use of it.
Really with the performance of current desktop computers and even netbooks there's no good reason not to stick
potentially vulnerable parts of your browser in a separate process and block it from accessing anything it does not
absolutely need to deal with.
The normally stated reason why it is tricky to simulate gravity using a rotating space station is that the curvature causes the generated gravitational field to be inhomogeneous and that this generally results in nausea. Thus I'm wondering a few things:
a) Is it known what radius of circulation is needed to avoid this?
b) Is the primary problem that the artificial gravity points in different directions in points separated by a small distance, or is it that the magnitude of the field changes with distance from the center of rotation that makes it tricky?
I guess from a practical point of view you also have to deal with the problem of docking a shuttle with a rotating space station unless you want to start and stop the rotation before every docking. Stabilizing the motion may also be an issue, especially if the station itself is light as compared to the equipment and inhabitants that will be housed inside it.
Except by the time you start pushing for that kind of system the Russians could counter by building enough missiles and warheads to drop thousands of bombs over the US, with each missile releasing hundreds of decoys so you can only shoot down the real ones after they enter the atmosphere.
If even 5% out of a thousand warheads go through you just lost 50 cities.
Would you seriously wish to gamble on whether your shield could reliably detect and shoot down a few thousand incoming warheads without any slip-ups ?
Science is vulgar compared to mathematics.
I bet you're even one of those dirty experimentalists, or even worse, a chemist!
I dunno about FLAC and mp3, but to get an idea what difference the sound quality can make, try this at a both standard and high quality using a good set of headphones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqc8JNzniUc
I don't dare speculate where the cutoff in what we can notice is, and it likely is not the same for everybody, but there's certainly some music tracks where the difference between different levels of lossy compression is quite clear.
I work with particle accelerators that draw enough power that we don't have much choice but to use water cooling, and even though we have major radiation sources, high voltage running across the entire place, liquid helium cooled magnets, high power klystrons that feed microwaves to the accelerator cavities etc... the only thing that typically requires me to place an emergency call during a night shift is still water leaks.
Water is just that much of a hassle around electronics. Even an absolutely minor leak can raise the humidity in a place you really don't want humidity, it evaporates and then condenses on the colder parts of the system where even a single drop can cause a short circuit and fry some piece of equipment. After it absorbs dirt and dust from the surroundings it starts attacking most materials corrosively, which may not be noticed at first but gives sudden unexpected problems after a few years. If you don't keep the cooling system itself in perfect condition valves and taps will start corroding and you get blockages. Maintenance is a pain because you have to power everything down if you want to move just 1 pipe etc...
I just don't see why you would go through the hassle with water cooling unless you actually have to, and quite frankly if your servers draw enough power to force you to use water for cooling then you're doing something weird.
Areva quotes their fuel costs as roughly 17% of total cost of nuclear power with half of that being the cost of the uranium ( rest being enrichment and fuel-rod fabrication )
This means that even if uranium costs were to double the cost of nuclear power would increase by less than 9%.
Conversely for the price of nuclear power do double from uranium costs alone the cost of uranium would have to increase 10 times. Long before that happens it would become economical to build fast breeder reactors and they only need a fraction of the fuel other reactors do.
Also at such high uranium prices it would start being economical to extract uranium from sea-water, effectively making uranium availability a non-issue for thousands of years.
Ok Einstein, explain why male-to-female transsexuals that go on estrogen find they cry more, get reduced sex drive, and increased verbal ability, while the reverse is true for female-to-male transsexuals ( i.e testosterone increases libido, reduces their tendency to cry and shifts abilities from verbal to spatial orientation ).
There's been loads of studies done on how hormones impact psychological factors ranging from the effects of birth control pills ( they use estrogens and progesterones ) to the impact of hormone replacement therapy for women entering menopause. In order to make a long story short there's is little doubt that hormones influence us in all kinds of ways.
Seriously, between psychoactive substances like alcohol and caffeine, the impact of nutritional deficiencies such as a lack of iodine, and the impact of hormones like I mentioned above, it is very clear that biological factors have a very strong influence on our psychology. The effects may not correspond with common stereotypes and prejudice, and it certainly does not apply on an individual basis, but to claim it is just a matter of upbringing or social conditioning is demonstratively false regardless of how well it might fit with your preferred political ideology.
One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development. While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case, I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be. If there's even a small chance that environmental toxins is contributing to its prevalence then this is a very serious matter and definitely justifies a careful approach on restricting the use of chemicals that can influence gender development.
To give a slight idea of how strong an effect these things can have on a persons general wellbeing, a Dutch study found 20% of female to male transsexuals had attempted suicide prior to initiating hormone treatment. In comparison the figures following treatment with androgens were just a few percent. Now try to imagine what the effects might be when you expose an entire population to a diffuse cocktail of chemicals that interfere with gender development and you should start feeling a bit uncomfortable about the situation...
Incidentally, Microsoft has responded by releasing a mouse custom made to help developers integrate with the MS Office exclusive interface:
http://savecapitalism.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/bear-trap1.jpg
Stick rechargeable batteries in climbers and have the ones
going down use regenerative breaking to charge their batteries.
When they meet an ascending climber have them swap batteries.
If you achieve a large efficiency the amount of energy you need
to supply to overcome friction losses should be small and could
probably be compensated for with solar cells or something.
I'm not from the UK but I have lived and visited many countries, and the UK plug EASILY wins. In particular:
a)Good grounding is pretty much standard
b)It is very solid. Many EU and US plugs you can accidentally bend and damage quite easily.
c)The vast majority of them are fused
d)It has a relatively slim profile and fits easily even in cramped spaces.
e)The contacts are flat pins with a large surface area, giving good contact.
f)They attach firmly into the socket so you are very unlikely to pull them out by accident
Seriously, if you have any experience with electronics and travel to Britain you are quite likely to end
up wondering "why don't we do plugs this way back home?". It's just one of those things where
you can do thing "the right way" and you can do them "the wrong way". The British did it "the right way"
and pretty much everybody else cocked it up somehow.
Microsoft is in a hell of their own making. For years they have more or less taught users that:
*The way to install software is to pop some keywords into a search engine, and then run an un-trusted executable.
*The normal installation procedure involves clicking "yes" or "ok" on loads of dialogue boxes without reading them.
*Each app has its own installation procedure and it is perfectly normal that you have to do things you normally would not in order to get things
working.
That is only the tip of the iceberg of course. Hiding file extensions, executing apps by double clicking the file, programs changing your system configuration without asking you ... Microsoft made it all seem normal, thereby opening the floodgates for all kinds of social engineering attacks. I have no idea how they are going to solve the problem now. If you spend years teaching people to do things one way, you can't just go "uhm we fucked up, do it this way instead" and expect people to trust you.
They taught users to be negligent about security, taunting it as a usability advantage ( Windows "just works" ), and now they are trying to undo the damage without losing face. "Good luck with that."
So what you are saying is that everybody in Europe, where gasoline prices are multiple times what they are in the US, are likely to see huge savings ?
Second question, how long do you think gasoline prices in the US will stay where they are ?
They are Swedish citizens , there's EU treaties on how to deal with situations like this.
A fusion reactor is quite a bit hotter than the core of the sun since we can't achieve anywhere close to the same density in the plasma. I ran into a guy working at the Join European Torus and he used to joke that he was working on the hottest thing in the solar system. Of course he had to stop doing that when he ran into a guy from CERN.
The breakdown for electricity production in the US is as follows:
Coal: 48.9%
Natural Gas: 20
Nuclear: 19.3%
Hydro: 7%
With the remainder being a mix of petrol and various renewables.
Thus even if we consider only CO2 your calculations would suggest that the Tesla is a lot better environmentally than conventional fuels, and this ignores the fact that large scale power plants burn more efficiently and emit less of other pollutants thanks to more efficient filtering and so on.
Thus if you consider not just CO2 but all air pollutants ( including nitrous oxides, particle emissions, various hydrocarbons etc... ) then the Tesla wins easily.
Also in other countries , like France or Sweden, very little fossils is used in electricity generation so over here the Tesla is simply superior. You guys basically need more nuclear power stations.