If you want socialism, maybe you should move to sweden. Have fun with that 75% tax.
Yes, it's not like you get a decent education or healthcare or welfare system for your money, the government just blows it all on ludicrously expensive foreign wars.
Oh, wait...
The US is doing quite well compared to Europe; Europe is imploding.
Proof yet again that there should be a "-5 factually incorrect and based on no evidence whatsoever" mod option.
Which carries over to the idea of a 3D printed Penis with more girth and length. That should sell.
They already exist, and they're called dildoes. Most men aren't wild about amputating the original and replacing it with a lump of pink plastic though.
The contract includes fines for delays, and the Finns (no pun intended)
(and no pun made)
They were caught red-handed cutting corners at the Olkiluoto site in Finland. Finns take security very seriously and hence the plant is already years late..
Yet another example of how interfering in the free market just ruins it for everyone.
If the communist Finns had just let the French build a quick and dirty version, they could have sorted out any resulting accidental deaths through the courts, thereby reducing the upfront costs and allowing the shareholders time to extract the profits before they could be wasted on compensation and paying government "safety" inspectors' exorbitant salaries.
..And France is sinking like a rock. This is just one example.
Yes, the whole nuclear power industry started from scratch a couple of years ago when the Socialists got in.
Most opponents of nuclear power aren't particularly keen on fossil fuel power stations either, you know.
The only long term hope is fusion power, but realistically that's at least a couple of generations away.
And i will say it again : nuclear power is prohibitively expensive.
Compared to what? It's one of the very, very few industries that doesn't get a truly massive subsidy in terms of having its externalities paid for by someone else and never put on the books.
Doesn't? Are you trying to be funny?
The nuclear power industry depends absolutely on government underwriting the unquantified future costs of disposal/storage of radioactive waste and decommissioning power stations.
If you wanted a poster boy for "having its externalities paid for by someone else and never put on the books" a smiling Nuclear Power Baby would be it.
My point is the current new tech will be a lot safer and therefore far less expensive as they won't need to factor in the cost of hypothetical catastrophes.
Welcome to Westworld.
Most of the losses come not from Areva's core business but from various adventures the former management engaged in (most of them for ego-boosting reasons): trying to build a reactor in Finland without its usual parters, getting swindled when buying uranium mines (again, to bypass it's usual parters), and investing heavily in renewables because it's cool.
tl;dr it's someone else's fault
Nuclear is not expensive, it requires an upfront investment.
And of course, you usually get the public/government to pay for the downstream costs like storage of waste and de-commissioning.
If only it wasn't for those pesky Health and Safety rules, it would be a licence to print money.
Nuclear is cheap. Project delays are not cheap in nuclear, or a dam (hydro if you will) or a tunnel or any large scale project. Uncertain political environment is a death knell for large scale projects.
Whether you like it or not, energy production is an inherently political subject., and for better or worse, in a democracy the politicians have to take account of public opinion.
It was all a lot easier in the USSR, where there was no criticism of Chernobyl from the happy locals.
Minecraft is one of the things I like least on the Internet right now. It epitomises everything I dislike about the environment given to the young generation, their imaginations torn from them, pushed into building artificial worlds because making in the real one is hampered by a perfect storm of regulation and fear under the umbrella of crony capitalism.
Is this the bit where I say something about playing in the woods when I was a kid?
Or perhaps I just understand the difference between a subjective opinion and an objective fact and I'm not arrogant enough to assume that my opinions are somehow more worthy than anyone else's.
There is a lot of ground between an objective fact and a purely subjective opinion, but if you want to treat the world in a binary heads/tails way and achieve the rich inner life of a tossed coin, that's up to you.
Popularity doesn't equate to quality and you're an idiot for thinking that it does.
Please list the objective criteria for rating the quality of a piece of art. We'll wait.
Getting people who know what they are talking about to agree how good a piece of art is usually works best.
Someone who doesn't see why popularity does not equal quality is pretty much excluded from the "know what they are talking about" group.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
