Correa despises being on the dollar
Correa despises being on the dollar
So you're perfectly happy to make up whatever context suits you. Why am I not surprised? Here, how does this sound for you?
As you know, I hate white people. Could you please make me some lists of candidates that don't involve any of them racist crackers? Thank you.
From a physics standpoint, this is not true. Larger reactors help you have higher total neutron cross sections, both for elastic scattering / moderation and fission. A "small" nuclear reactor is defined by the IAEA as one that's less than 300MWe, although even reactors as big as 500MWe are sometimes referred to as "small". Per-reactor, not per-plant. Don't get me wrong, you can make reactors at any size - some companies are looking at modules as small as 25MW (per reactor). But it makes your already problematic economics even worse.
That said, I still do have more hope for small reactors than large ones, just simply from the standpoint of getting some degree of mass production and refinement through use. Still, the "nothing may go wrong" situation one faces with nuclear reactors and the "need to start from scratch if some flaw is developed in the basic design that prevents you from 'nothing may go wrong'" still bites.
Nuclear power has always been a lot more popular on K Street than on Wall Street. At least these sort of overruns pale in comparison to some of the ones in Europe - one in the UK has now become the second most expensive thing ever made by man (after the International Space Station). Lots of nuclear plants on that list, too. One in Finland is now a decade overdue and commercial operation still isn't expected until 2018 - assuming there's not even more delays.
One of nuclear's biggest problems is, it doesn't work very well small. There are some "smallish" modular reactor designs, but as a general rule, nuclear plants are very large structures. Which means, you're not making a lot of them. Which means you don't retire the risk (both financial and safety) very quickly. Nuclear inherently contains a lot of both of those. It can take decades to learn what problems are. And when we redesign systems to start over with a new "generation" of nuclear power plants, that "ironing out the financial and safety kinks" process starts over.
It's unfortunate, but the very nature of fission means going through every element on the periodic table except the extremely short-lived/superheavy ones. Which automatically means facing very significant corrosion and containment challenges. The very nature of a high neutron flux means degradation on its own. The very nature of having exceedingly toxic materials means that you can't allow even tiny amounts to escape, and have to go to extreme levels to prevent serious problems like fires - and not only is your fuel source challenging from a chemical and materials standpoint, but it also can't be shut down quickly. Criticality can be, but the daughter product decays keep the core hot for a considerable length of time.
Nuclear is eminently doable from a technological standpoint. But like rocketry, a lot of things conspire to make it very difficult to do affordably and safely.
That's a response to something. What is it responding to?
No, she didn't. But don't let facts stand in your way.
You're mixing up your conspiracy theories.
Have you not heard this guy speak? Just to pick one example of the hundreds of him acting as Putin's personal apologist.
Have you not noticed that Trump immediately applies everything he's criticized for onto his opponents? Bad temperment? No, I have a great temperment, YOU have a bad temperment! Angry? I'm calm, YOU'RE angry! Abuse women? Nobody has more respect for women than me, you abuse women! Puppet? No puppet, no puppet - you're the puppet! Every single time, he's like a mirror. I swear, if Hillary said "Your beauty pageants were poorly produced", he'd respond with, "No, YOUR beauty pageants were poorly produced!"
It makes him all too easy to bait during debates.
(And no, I don't think Trump actually uses drugs - it was just funny timing
Trump, the guy who wants more countries to have nuclear weapons, and asks why we're going to make nuclear weapons?
Trump, the guy who wants the US to bomb the children of suspected terrorists?
Trump, the guy who endorses the strategy of Assad, Russia, Hezbollah and Iran in Syria?
This is your anti-war candidate?
Assange should reveal something of real value soon, otherwise there will not be any impact whatsoever.
Clearly you missed #risottogate.
Call your senator and demand an investigation!
Right. Because the one email linked in your article is this. Oh, that's oh so damning. The rest of your article is built around O'Keefe garbage. The guy who built his career on selective editing and deception.
They've also just released some of Obama's emails where they're discussing picking positions with race and sex as the criteria
Link to the email. Not a right wing blog, not O'Keefe garbage, the actual email.
Correa believes precisely the opposite. He believes that a Trump presidency would be better for Latin america, but in the context that it would rally people in opposition to him to support leftist causes. He says that Clinton would be better for America and the world.
Marco finally started explaining how he was hoping to aid Assange.
Did he also elaborate on how he planned to abet as well?
Quite true. Actually, what I found most interesting was the part right before that:
"One of my first acts will be to get all of the drug lords, all of the bad ones - we have some bad, bad people in this country that have to go out...." SNIIIIIIFFFFF! "... we're gonna get them out..."
Deep snorting while talking about drug lords is a bit less than opportune timing
(Also: apparently the drug lords are in the US?)
"Oh what wouldn't I give to be spat at in the face..." -- a prisoner in "Life of Brian"