Nobody denies a large nuclear plant costs huge sums of money to build. But you have to understand the scale of energy production that they are capable of to know that even the increased cost projections are still a good deal. The issue is the lengthy payback period and initial funding. It is something only a few companies can take on themselves without help. The risk of building the first few new designs comes to play as well.

As for warranted prices of energy, what are those being set our for renewables? If you are against them for nuclear then are you also against them for all types of power?

If you calculate total subsidy on a lifetime per KWh generated basis, you will find that the help nuclear is getting pales in comparison to what solar and wind are getting.

Very true.

AREVA's losses have more to do with poor investments in African mining operations than to do with the Olkiluoto setbacks, as well as other poor investment decisions they appear to have made over the last 10 years.Olkiluoto is a big chunk as well, but its not the majority of their debt problems.

And as far as Olkiluoto, they were simply unprepared to pull off that first of a kind project by themselves, and the Finish supply and regulatory elements faltered as well, a perfect storm of problems. But this is more poor execution than a technology issue. Other plants, including the EPR plants in China, are being completed on a reasonable schedule, more driven by money than anything else.

An insurance company is in the business of making money by taking calculated risks. If there were a risk model that worked in their favor, it could happen. I just think it would be so complicated to evaluate the risk, it would never be considered.

I think it sounds horrible in theory. A system where poor decisions don't have negative consequences is more tolerant of failure. Kickstarter project teams need to feel and be responsible for their performance. They don't need the excuse of "well, at least nobody lost any money".

You pretty much summed it up. This seems to be a case of the developers not really having a sense of the actual challenges of the project and the business. That stems from a lack of experience in both product development and building a business, a trait you can expect from many kickstarter project teams. Something to consider when contributing (its not investing).

Don't worry, the cost of these things will magically be cut nearly in half on the second build, according to the article! They do fail to explain how.

As far as reliability (having it when you need it), which is certainly different than predictability (knowing when it will be available), they could theoretically back up the supply and allow lower flow at times, faster at others, but this would increase the dam effect that environmentalists are worried about.

Its too big a project/risk, I doubt it ever happens. If they could build a small scale one to demonstrate first, they might stand a better chance.

I was referring to the reflective qualities of tin foil helping with the scheme. Lighten up.

Combine these emitter glasses with a tin foil hat for improve results.

You could get a cheap IDE/SATA to USB adapter and pull out the drive. The adapter would still be of use since it also has an SATA port. Who knows, you may run into another occasion where the IDE is needed as well.

And what do they say about things that seem to good to be true?

The new rules appear to accomplish 2 things. 1) Put in place net neutrality restrictions. 2) Regulate ISPs. Most of us like number 1, some of us worry about number 2. I predict it won't be long before regulatory fees are established, thus enabling an expansion of the FCC. Then, they'll have enough people to think of more aspects that need regulation... and the cycle begins. Not to mention that lobby money becomes even more influential on what ISPs can now do.

So, this is focused on investigating just one person? That's even more of a witch hunt than I thought.

I believe we should use science to deal with the claims of scientists. Funding source investigations may bolster suspicions or give some people an excuse to ignore, but they do nothing to prove if the claims have a basis or not.

Actually, it is the "science itself" that I was saying should be what matters. If you don't care about "activists", then you shouldn't care about the 'deniers" this article is focused on.

Well I suppose you would support an equal amount of investigation into the funding of those that might be considered GW activists, you know, to make sure they are not funded by the renewables industry, or their lobby or other activist organizations?

Personally, I think when science allows itself to get into witch hunt mode, it is damning itself to staying there. Scientist should stand up and say "we got this, politicians, please stay out of it".