Like Cory says, the USA is now carrying out its threats regardless of what you do or don't do, so there's no need to care about them any more. There's nothing a country can do to influence whether the USA invades it or not, so it might as well do what it wants instead of what the USA wants.
Yes I've heard lots of weak people discussing a fear of competing in a wider talent pool and then crying about "bias" as an excuse rather than taking responsibility for their own results.
We hear often about isms of all sorts, but as soon as someone mentions an unsympathetic group, all of a sudden isms magically disappear. Further, even bringing up the idea is aggressively chastised.
Do I have any more information on the subject than anyone else? No.
I'm sorry, I don't care who you are or what the history between your country and the US is, you don't come and be disrespectful like that and get away with it.
All he had to do was was smile and wave, but Zelensky made it into a dick measuring contest which he was always going to lose.
He is a terrible leader and this is just more proof of it.
I don't know why, from the start, we haven't used nuclear power more for baseload.
China is already building between 6 to 8 nuclear power plants a year and plans to expand that number to 10 a year.
It's nothing compared to all the other sources of power they are creating, but it seems to me that rather than investing in mass battery storage, a few dozen modern nuclear power plants would be a good idea.
Assuming, of course, you can actually get costs down and cut through red tape like China can.
Because no one cares about nuclear whilst the costs are so high, return on investment questionable and there aren't simple solutions for dealing with the waste. Plus for better or worse the politics of it are terrible.
Meanwhile every year solar and batteries are getting cheaper. And we may see a future with lots of EVs capable of being used as grid batteries.
Agreed. Nuclear is cool but beaten in so many ways by the current renewable revolution. Distributed, low risk, cheap energy generation backed by batteries seems strictly superior to nuclear generation.
Backed by batteries is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Batteries required to make them viable are never included in the LCOEs for renewable, because it'd make them ridiculously more expensive than nuclear. The problem is we need power now, all the time. It's much easier to develop new technologies when the lights are still on.
Even backed by batteries renewables are still winning. How good things look depends on how much battery you decide to include, but fortunately we don't need that much battery, especially while we still have some legacy dispatchable generation.
It "helps" that nuclear is just so slow and expensive to get going that everything else just ends up looking pretty good. If it were cheap, fast and safe that would have been great, though.
> I don't know why, from the start, we haven't used nuclear power more for baseload.
Because it was too expensive and took a long time to build. At least one utility in the US was forced into bankruptcy due to nuclear builds when power demand growth suddenly slowed during the long construction time.
Nuclear plants are not a replacement for batteries. You either have enough nuclear plants to cover peak demand, in which case you don't need any renewables at all, or you need batteries (or rather, storage, batteries are not the only option). Economics seem to favor storage and renewables over 100% nuclear.
The difference being nuclear only needs something to cover the peak, whilst renewable needs capacity to cover 100% of production because of wild variability.
Just because we have machines that can lift much more than any human ever could, it doesn't mean that working out is useless.
In the same way, training your mind is not useless. Perhaps as things develop, we will get back to the idea that the purpose of education is not just to get a job, but to help you become a better and more virtuous person.
That's simply not going to happen. The West isn't sending enough military aid to tip the scales, and this is an existential war for Russia and they are managing it well enough.
The likelihood of it is kinda irrelevant, if it were to happen I expect it would satisfy "The West", hence the want the war to continue part sounds wrong.
Oh, yeah, the US will send the CIA or the military in and take you out and make you take on IMF debt to ensure your future compliance.
Clearly, there are limits to what tech alone can accomplish.
reply