SMRs that utilize 1950's designs and require intense operational oversight and maintenance could never be economical. SMRs that use better, safer designs that can safely operate with no active operational oversight and little or no maintenance, which can function without intervention and without refueling for 20-30 years, then be inexpensively disposed-of and replaced, and which can be manufactured in large quantities to bring the unit cost down, promise to be very economical.

Will the new designs actually achieve all of those goals? On paper it looks good. Whether that theory will translate into practice is something that can only be discovered by trying.

The risks are a lot smaller than you think they are, because of new reactor design. Nearly all of the nuclear reactors in the world are still using a design that's 70 years old, that requires active cooling and doesn't fail safely. We have much better designs now, at least on paper, designs that simply can't melt down, whose failure mode is to simply stop. But no one builds these new designs on industrial scale because they're unproven, and there hasn't been much funding for doing all of the engineering and research needed to develop them into fully-functioning designs that can be.

I'm skeptical that small reactors are really the best way to actually deploy nuclear power on a large scale, because of security concerns, but starting small is the best way to validate and refine new designs. And modularity is clearly a good strategy for making deployments of varying sizes cost-effective. If you can develop a cost-effective module that can be manufactured in large numbers, you can build large plants by clustering them.

The new designs shouldn't actually need much operational oversight -- if something goes operationally wrong, they just stop functioning -- but they'll still have highly radioactive cores which, if extracted, could be pretty terrible weapons. Not to make nuclear bombs, but to greatly enhance the damage done by conventional explosives, by adding radiation hazards that linger for years. So, security will remain an important consideration, and the SMRs should only be deployed where security can be assured, which will in practice mean that most are deployed in large clusters.

This all assumes that the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the new designs proves out, of course. The only way to find out whether that will be the case is to try.

Ublock Origin is still going strong. Pair it with Noscript.

Russia and Russia alone is responsible for their war of genocide and conquest against Ukraine. Here is one of my all time favorite clips from the Russians on the Ukraine war. Not even the Indians who DGAF were buying his nonsense. Also listen to what horse face says about cooperation with the west.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

To this day Russians continue to push absurd it wasn't us, we didn't start it propaganda. Occasionally you get people in the west dumb enough to fall for it... CTR biolabs, Donbas, NATO, Victoria Nuland... ad nausea.

I disagree, ISS is scheduled for termination in four years anyway. Russians waging wars of conquest against other sovereign states who have done nothing to provoke invasion is a good enough reason not to cooperate or help them in any way until they stop. There is no practical means of salvaging parts of the station and it can't be operated by either the Russians or the Americans alone.

One common way is treating municipal wastewater. This doesn't "create" water, but it does make available a water supply that wasn't previously.

I think such systems are generally dual-loop. There's the loop that directly cools all of the equipment, which is full of pure (might even be distilled) water that circulates but is not consumed, then that water goes through a heat exchanger in a much larger supply of treated wastewater. So the wastewater doesn't get close to sensitive equipment and doesn't run through tiny pipes.

The NYT has a track record of stealth-edits.

https://www.poynter.org/ethics...

Wiping the archive makes it much more difficult to detect this stuff.

I don't think I ever suggested that this was a Trump-only problem... indeed I specifically highlighted at the end that conservatives should worry greatly about what an unlimited liberal president will do, and I pointed out at the beginning that presidents have been pushing the boundaries since Nixon, at least.

Regarding your claims about Biden... bringing him up is kind of a non-sequiteur. As the other commenter pointed out, Biden very much followed the traditional path with respect to treating the independent federal agencies as independent. Do you have any counterexamples? As for #3, Biden did abuse the pardon power and I wish he hadn't done it, but as far as I know there is zero evidence that he did it to protect people from prosecution for illegal acts that he ordered.

Finally, on #1: Yes, the ruling happened during the Biden administration, but the ruling was entirely about Trump. I'd go so far as to say that if Biden had been the subject of the case, the conservative justices would have ruled the other way.

While Trump didn't initiate the move towards a more powerful executive, if he achieves status as king-in-all-but-name, he'll be the one that did 90% of it.

I agree that Trump has not yet achieved full control over the executive branch. The uncertainty over whether Slaughter will go his way is a remaining obstacle. We'll know soon.

Not at all.

Car batteries have to have high storage to weight ratios. A reduced-capacity battery holds less power but still weighs just as much.

But weight doesn't matter for grid storage. If the batteries only have half as much capacity, just stack up twice as many of them. And in fact it's not a case of "half capacity". I'd bet Waymo retires them when they get to 80-90% of capacity, because reduced capacity means more time spent charging and less time spent working. If the grid storage system gets a battery with 80% of its original capacity, it can likely use that battery for decades before it has to be retired and recycled.

And, of course, lithium ion batteries are highly recyclable, so there's no reason not to expect them to be recycled when they're finally taken out of service in 2060 or so.

That's not really correct, though. The batteries aren't worn out or unusable after 15-20 years... they just have maybe 15-20% less capacity than when they were new. So a battery that provided 400 miles of range, now only provides maybe 320 miles. So it becomes a question of how much range reduction the owner is willing to tolerate.

I bought a Nissan Leaf in 2011. The early model Leafs were something of an outlier because they lacked a thermal management system for their batteries and they had a very small battery, both of which caused them to suffer much more severe degradation than basically all other EV models. My 2011 now has about 70% of its original range, and that original range was only about 80 miles with a good tailwind. So now it can only go about 50 miles on a full charge. In the winter, that drops to about 40 miles... less if you use the heater.

Is the Leaf's battery so degraded as to be useless? Depends on your use case. For many use cases the Leaf's battery was too short-ranged to be useful when it was brand new. For a typical commuter, though... it was fine when it was new, and now it's marginal to insufficient unless you can charge at work.

As it happens, my son -- a college student -- still drives it daily to and from school and work. In the summer it can get him to school and work and home, without charging (he charges it from a wall outlet at his apartment). In the winter, he has to charge either at school or at work. Both have chargers (proper L2 charger at school; wall outlet at work -- but it's enough).

I wouldn't put up with that at my stage in life, but there are plenty of people who would. Heck, in college I drove a car with an unreliable starter; I always parked on an incline so I could start it by rolling and popping the clutch. This is even more true of vehicles that start with a larger range, say 300 miles, and more reasonable degradation. Your 300 mile-range car may become a 250 mile-range car over the course of 20 years of use. More likely, if you're the sort who buys a new car, you'll keep it for a few years and then sell it or pass it to someone else when it has lost only a few miles of range, but there's no reason not to expect it will stay in service for 20, even 30 years... mostly likely until it's in an accident or has other issues unrelated to the battery that aren't worth fixing.

You should look up the actual data on the effects of the emissions controls, rather than relying on anecdotal experience. They're a really, really good idea, and I don't think they're actually going to get rolled back, and if they do, they'll get reinstated.

We've been hearing for years now that if we even think about slowing down AI development, the entire universe will collapse on our heads. This by almost everyone involved in AI development. We have to or the Chinese will win. We have to or the universe may never develop to its true potential. We have to let AI wipe out humanity to make the universe more intelligent. We have to go faster, harder, meaner, because we have to.

There's no time for sanity now! It's just going to be seen by the rest of the industry as a feint, an attempt to get everyone else to slow down so they can leapfrog ahead. And deep down, we all wonder if that's not the actual case. Don't we?

More importantly: Capitalism is an ECONOMY and market system. It is NOT a blueprint for a society. You can run your commerce and trade as capitalism, when you run your SOCIETY along capitalism principles you end up... essentially with the USA.

This is the part that is constantly forgotten. As a society, we have values that are not represented well within capitalism. But for some reason, we dumb shits think that we can treat everything as a market and apply capitalism to it and that will magically solve problems. But in education, just as one random example, the goal of it all is educated adults as output. It is not maximizing profit. Same for the prison system, the healthcare system and two dozen others.

It's greed, pure and simple.

Making a good product is possible. KEEPING making good products for decades is hard. Even more importantly: You will have hits and misses. Which, for a quarterly-result-bonus oriented manager is a no-no. Subscription models mean plannable revenue streams. Then all you need to do is negotiate your bonus package so that the already existing subscriptions will provide and you're home free and can already order your 2nd yacht.