Investments in nuclear power are not taking money away from investments in solar.
This is interesting. Why do you think that?
I would disagree, because is see investment capital as finite. There are only so many investors able to operate at infrastructure scales. And therefore I see nuclear's true cost as opportunity cost.
The land thing isn't anywhere near enough of a concern for me, especially when dual uses of land are quite feasible.
24/7 is just about over commissioning and having storage. Build 10x as much and store what you generate. At those sorts of levels even an overcast day generates.
Storage. It's all about storage. In exactly the same way that our water is handled. We have reservoirs to handle the times when natural water supply is low.
You're using factors of less than 10 to argue against a factor of 100.
Where do you want to put your hazardous waste again?
Finland with it's vast swathes of frozen tundra.
$60k per MW or $210M for a nuclear reactors worth (3.5GW). Sure... the reactor will go 24/7 (between maintenance and refuelling down times, and will use less land (1.75km² Vs ~40km²) but at 1% of the cost, why are we still talking about nuclear.
(I'm using the UKs Hinckley Point C power station as reference)
So more how newsgroups fell, because ISPs didn't want to run the servers due to storage.
I really wish running your own mastodon was as accepted as running your own email server. There'll be no "blue check mark" problem if your company runs the server and only provides accounts to employees.
No. The have nag screens for donations, but they don't block on principle.
Biggest button needs to be "Disable lane keeping assist" and that should sort most of the stress he refers to.
"Extremely thin" is pretty low on my list of features I want.
If making it a bit thicker gives me ethernet and HDMI then make it thicker. A laptop moves from place to place, and not needing dongles / specialist cables makes it far easier to jump on anybodies desk and just plug in.