How about working on latency as well to enable truly responsive HD video conferencing? That, could storage, and external VPN connectivity are the key areas of benefit.

Certainly I didn't mean to totally ignore politics. If you took my post that way then I understand your response. My point is that primary drivers for a state & location selection are much more 'what can you do for me" based wrt taxes, infrastructure, energy cost, etc. If they get political concessions in that mix, great, but without those other items covered, the political end becomes meaningless.

If yo think political battling should take precedence over actual financial setup success, good luck. FWIW, If Tesla wants Texas to change, the best way is to startup in Texas.

Are you making some point about cost? retail price? Market pricing? What? An individual contract in the context of a 50% subsidized source with added production credits means nothing in terms of actual cost.

You mix subsidized prices, market rates and costs in your analysis to the point where it doesn't make sense, not uncommon when trying to make an argument for solar. Stick to cost and you'll see the stark difference. The key thing is that 1Kw of nuclear capacity generates on average about 5 times the electricity in a year than 1Kw of solar PV. And, the cost of backup up is much lower, as you only need 1KW reserve for about 90 Kw of nuclear, while you need almost the full 90Kw of reserve for every 90 Kw of PV. Solar fanboys conveniently ignore that cost, and its a pretty big one.

but even without consideration of that huge additional cost:

The Germans have committed 100 Billion euro in subsidies to spur solar. For that, they have enough solar PV to generate in a year what 2 or three nuclear units can. For $100 Billion in subsidy they could have built dozens of nuclear units, generating many times that amount of electricity. Now they are stuck with the small payback for the huge investment.

A good CEO will not let politics, revenge or reward guide the decision, but rather consider the total package/environment and how that supports the success model. But, regardless of which states are in the running, the trick is to always have several competitive states in the mix right up till the end, even if you've already decided internally, just to make sure you get the best deal possible.

The Germans have committed 100 Billion euro in subsidies to spur solar. For that, they have enough solar PV to generate in a year what 2 or three nuclear units can. For $100 Billion in subsidy they could have built dozens of nuclear units, generating many times that amount of electricity. Now they are stuck with the small payback for the huge investment.

Actually, coal plants are the ones that emit radioactive particulates into the atmosphere. Nuclear plants don't, and as the primary other available baseload generator therefore can historically be credited with offsetting more radioactive emissions from coal than any other single energy source.

So, if that kind of thing truly scares you, you should be glad we've had those nuke plants running for so many years. You can "breathe easier"!

Michigan's woes are in a large part due to the auto industry failure. In some respects, if you want to equate minimum wage law with union wage requirements, one could argue that Michigan is a prime example of the negative effects of higher wage requirements, as the industry clearly decided to leave that state behind.

I'm not really on one side or another of this debate, although I do believe some jobs just aren't that valuable. I just hate when folks start making claims where the numbers really aren't mature enough to support it.

You'll have a hard time backing that claim up with real numbers. Solar doesn't come close when it comes to total cost of producing MWh on an annual basis. Many confuse price with cost, and on top of that forget that pricing is quite artificial due to production credits.

Lots of links, but none of them assert that nuclear plants are "emitting particles traveling on the wind".

But they'll never know what the results would look like had they not implemented minimum wage hikes, so its all a game of 'twist the data'. And frankly, its quite early to be claiming anything wrt results. There are much larger drivers of the economy than min wage. Frankly, I doubt we'd see any different results had those states not made changes, and there is probably a much stronger argument for that position at this time.

Maybe some used this method, but the decisions were was highly political in most cases. Personally, I don't think it hurts or helps as much as those who sit solidly on either side of the debate believe, and fundamentally there are much larger concerns on driving a stronger economy.

Well, if you look at the conclusions, even the researchers stated "might" increase risk. There is a reason for that. Keep it in context of the entire body of knowledge on the matter and it is quite clear.

Care to provide a number?