Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:no, risking millions to make hundreds is stupid (Score 1) 427

by bingoUV (#46761057) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

Twice market rates would be $200 ($120 profit). Is is smart to risk $200 million in order to make $120? No.

Not if odds of losing $200 million in this way is one in a billion.

And, they do need to buy batteries from somewhere, and right now it would be stupid for anyone to sell batteries to them.

Ok, telling the second time - they buy batteries but these agreements are NOT about those.

And of course you conveniently ignored that manufacturers do not even want a liability with an upper bound at the sale price.

Comment: Re:Your article explains why. $300 sale = $300M li (Score 1) 427

by bingoUV (#46760339) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

Yes, the article is not the best, but this is the one I found in a hurry that deals with the complete issue at once rather than a one day news update at a time. All this transpired over some months so better articles are some 50 in number, each adding a bit to the story so far. But the issue is quite famous.

And no, you are caricaturing the isssue by your battery example. India is not going to Canadian manufacturer for $300 batteries. The agreements being discussed are for billion dollar deals, over years.

If someone were saying it is ridiculously easy to not cause an accident at nuclear plants by making a mistake in mowing grass, yet no company is ready to undertake that including the risk even at twice market rates, this is a serious argument against it being ridiculously easy to not cause accident, right?

And India is ready to limit liability of manufacturer upto purchase price, but manufacturers are STILL not ready. That tells about their confidence in their own technology, doesn't it?

Comment: Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (Score 1) 427

by bingoUV (#46754861) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

as if costly problems are unique to the nuclear industry

I'll tell you what is unique to the nuclear industry. Other industries have costly problems, they insure, and get on with it. A construction company paid out a huge sum in compensation for an under-construction building collapse recently in my country.

Nuclear industry insists on immunity from consequences of any accident. Not very confidence inspiring, wouldn't you say?

Comment: Re:Funny (Score 1) 684

by bingoUV (#46746117) Attached to: The GNOME Foundation Is Running Out of Money

I don't understand this post, and I consulted the budget FAQ too. I guess there is an immense ambiguity(, or an intention to mislead readers) in both the FAQ and your post.

You say "yes, the outreach program took funds out of the general funds". So, do you mean it should not have taken the funds out of the general funds? Where else should it have taken them from?

From FAQ - "GNOME, as the lead organization, has been responsible for managing the finances for the entire effort". I don't understand what managing the finances means. Does it mean all participating organizations have their own income sources, and GNOME just does the paperwork + temporary loaning to smooth over their temporary difficulties? Or does it mean GNOME finance the OPW ?

And if GNOME is only managing the finances, and not financing the activities, how did 25% of GNOME budget get taken up with OPW? Is all of the 25% temporary loans?

If GNOME is actually financing OPW, there is a big transparency gap here - the donors to GNOME may not be aware that one fourth of their money goes toward outreach to arbitrary subsets of people.

Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.