We tried and it did and does work. Renewables are going up, fossils are going down.. We are burning less coal than ever. Any claims to the point of “replaced nuclear with coal” are disinformation and lies.

with nuclear you could export energy to other countries

We are exporting energy to other countries.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of power,. it’s unsafe and inflexible. It doesn’t make sense, it never did, and all those other kids jumping off the bridge don’t change that.

We didn’t. We chose renewables over nuclear.

as there was no current accepted agreement in climate science on the required amount.

100%. The consensus on the required amount to be cut is 100%.

It’s not useless. It will enable MS to build the walled garden they want, where you are forced to use the software they permit you to and nothing else.

Wow. The same “we’ll easily end this war” bullshit that Trump is spewing. That didn’t take long.

When this moron takes over (and he will), it’s gonna get real bad.

We are the Borg.

For getting caught. Not for being Nazi terrorists.

That doesn’t mean all fact checks are bullshit, just that fact checkers are people with jobs and opinions too.

Wing Commander 1-4, space epics of my childhood.

It’s not about who gets the sweeter deal. It’s not a transaction. Members don’t buy services from the EU with their contributions. If France gets more payouts, it’s because France has more of whatever triggers those payouts. It’s not the GDI though, so “same GDI, different net payments” is a flawed argument.

If we’re both in a tennis club and pay the same member’s fees, but I go to play on Thursday, when there’s less people, more space and a free drink at the bar for members, but you go on Saturday, when people are fighting for free courts and you can’t find a seat at the bar, I get the better deal. That doesn’t mean we’re not treated fairly, we’re just using different parts of what’s available.

Now, if you had to pay higher fees in the first place because I said “I"ll only join if I get a discount”, that would indeed be unfair.

You’re confirming that France pays less in.

I’m not. They paid more in fact. They just also got more back out.

Obviously I’m talking about Net. Gross doesn’t matter.

Wrong. What a country pays in and what it gets out are two entirely unrelated questions.

Payments to the EU are calculated by GDI and that’s that (except when there is a rebate). They are supposed to be fair based on that metric.

Payments back to the members are not “free money” the government can spend on whatever. They are subsidies bound to specific purposes that have their own specific criteria of distribution. They are not designed to be fair by comparison of GDI or similar metrics. If there were, as a hypothetical example, an EU program to subsidize local winemakers, you can see how France would very likely receive more money out of this fund than the UK.

It literally does. France does not receive a rebate on the normal calculation by gross national income.

France did receive more EU payouts than the UK in the past ( Example from 2017 ), leading to lower net payments. That’s not the same as paying less in the first place though.

I found a list, and while I was indeed wrong, as there are other rebates, France is not on the List.

I don’t know which numbers you are citing, but if you look at net contributions, payments from the EU to the members may of course also vary.

The UK was the first country to receive a discount though.

The UK is the only country that got a discount on their payments.

Edit: I stand corrected. One of a few

A major point the others fail to mention is that they got a special discount on their contributions to the EU Budget.

This reduction amounts to roughly 66% of the difference between the UK’s contributions to, and receipts from, the EU budget

Moderate Inflation (around the 2% target) is necessary for the current economical system to function. It incentivizes people to either invest or spend their money instead of sitting on it.

Nuclear has never been profitable without massive government subsidies and guarantees, and Google Kairos too will either manage to collect those or lose money.

It’s unclear how Google and Kairos set up the deal — whether the former is providing direct funding or if it just promised to buy the power that the latter generates when its reactors are up and running. Nevertheless, Kairos has already passed several milestones, making it one of the more promising startups in the field of nuclear energy.

I guarantee you, they are shouldering on none of the risk (like the Chinese and French at Hinkley Point), and this startup will be going down.

Nuclear is only competitive if you don’t factor in the negative externalities ( it has that part in common with fossil fuels) and the massive amount of government guarantees and subsidies that go into each and every plant.

Nuclear accidents are not insurable on the free market, that should tell you everything. If they were and owners had to factor in a market based insurance price, that alone would be so astronomically high that no investor would ever touch nuclear.

So governments guarantee to pay for damages in case of nuclear incidents. Governments bear the cost of waste disposal. Governments bear the cost of security (as in military /anti terrorism measures, because these things are awesome targets). Governments pay huge amounts of direct subsidies or take on debt via government owned companies to cap consumer prices. None of this is factored into electricity prices, none of this is factored into most studies.

If small nuclear plants are so impractical, why is Google funding seven of them?

Because, again, google won’t ever have to foot the actual bill. Also, google has a history of investing into things that don’t work out, so I wouldn’t necessarily cite them as an authority.

Edit: We don’t even know if google is actually “investing” anything here. They only say they agreed to buy power.

It’s unclear how Google and Kairos set up the deal — whether the former is providing direct funding or if it just promised to buy the power that the latter generates when its reactors are up and running.

Windows isn’t any less vulnerable now than 1 week after end of support.

So the UNIFIL report just doesn’t mention the combat taking place so close to their base that an Israeli tank accidentally backed up into their main gate during retreat?

Yeah, sure.