The other table has newer studies than 2015, where nuclear is not cheaper, but you’ve only pointed out the column where they found it was cheaper 10 years ago. Wind and solar have gotten cheaper to produce, and nuclear more expensive. It is not cost efficient compared to other modern options.
It costs more to produce that electricy with nuclear than it does to produce it with other technology. Making lots of cost inefficient electricity is still making cost inefficient electricity.
Nuclear plants cost a lot to produce but electricity from a nuclear plant sells for the same as electricity from anything else. Since many other options are cheaper to produce and maintain, nuclear is less cost efficient, not highly cost efficient as you claim. That’s why it’s not successful.
Wind and solar are both cheaper forms of electricity than nuclear. It’s not like this is a two-way race between nuclear and fossil fuels. Nuclear is a losing tech, right next to fossil fuels.
My moral compass is also why I dont use search engines. It’s absolutely cheating to use modern technology to find out something.
There are 5 walgreens in a 1.5 mi radius near me. That doesn’t seem smart.
What a conundrum. On one side there is Google, a company that has become that which it sought to destroy, an evil corporation bent on making money at any cost. On the other side are the hundreds of shit recipe Web sites that write a life story about everything they did in their childhood that led to the making of this food, when all you want is the damn recipe.
No person is advantaged by having their voting power go toward a candidate they woudn’t vote for.
This person knows just enough to sound credible and still get it wrong. He says that the electoral college requires states to allocate all delegates to the popular vote winner in each state, which is not true. States can allocate delegates however they want, and at least two states allocate proportionally to how how their populace voted.
This is a critical difference, because eliminating a mismatch between the electoral college and national popular vote doesn’t require eliminating the college. Eliminating the college requires a constitutional amendment, which is difficult to achieve. The National Popular Vote Compact requires nearly as much effort, and it’s incredibly fragile, because as soon as a few states allocate all of their electors to a candidate who lost in that state, they’ll pull out and the whole thing will crumble.
The solution is for states to allocate delegates proportionally. That is in the best interest of each state, so it’s not fragile. It can be accomplished one state at a time, so it’s logistically easier. It doesn’t require huge buy in to work, just a handful of states, so it’s easier to achieve and more stable. Every mismatch better the electoral college and national popular vote in US history would not have occurred if states allocated delegates proportionally, so it solves the problem. People should start recognizing the real problem, so that we can work on a real solution.
I haven’t used Bronner’s soap in years, but unless something is radically different, that’s sawdust.
CloudFlare makes more than a billion dollars a year in revenue. The work done for this project is probably worth millions to them and they paid out $100,000. That sounds like bullshit to me. Let corporations hire lawyers instead of doing their work for a pittance.
I’ve never really seen Reno 911 other than clips, but this sounds like Reno 911.
The fact that the number of delegates is not exactly proportional to the population of a state has never resulted in a popular vote mismatch eoth the college. It may happen, but it’s incredibly unlikely. Every time there’s been a mismatch has been because states allocate delegates in a winner take all manner. One of these this is a real problem amd one is a hypothetical problem. Solving the real problem is straightforward, and involes state level action of only a few states. The hypothetical problem is difficult to solve smd requires coordinated effort of many states at ones. You can spend your time solving a hypothetical problem and maybe achieve success in 70 years. Or you you address the real problem and succeed in 20 years.
What you’re describing has never resulted in the popular vote winner losing the electoral college. The popular vote winner has always lost because states allocate delegates as a winner-take-all system.
The real solution is to allocate delegates proportionally to how citizens vote, as is done in Nebraska and a couple other states. This achieves exactly the same purpose as the NPVC but is actually politically tractable.
No state has any incentive to assign its delgates to a person the citizens of the state didn’t vote for. You can do what the NPVC does and make it contingent upon everyone playing along, but that requires everyone to play along and is incredibly tenuous. Even if it ever goes into effect, as soon as states allocate delegates to someone who wasn’t the most popular candidate in their state they’ll pull it, and the whole thing will fall apart.
Every state has incentive to allocate its delegates proportionally. That’s exactly what people want. They want that more than winner takes all. It doesn’t require a huge chuck of states to buy into it amd it isn’t tenuous. But it accomplishes the same goal; if states allocate delegates proportionally to how they vote, then the most popular candidate gets the most delegates. If you’re in one of the many states that has winner takes all, advocate to do what the few more democratic states have already adopted and are happy with.
Removed by mod
These network transactions cost between 2 to 4 % for merchants, which is a cost passed to consumers by businesses raising prices. That’s a fairly large “inflation”, and certainly it seems out of line with the effort they out into it. It’s anticompetitive practices that keep it in place.
The Windows start menu is inexplicably a huge mess. Like all MS products, they cram their interface with as much as possible.
According to the article you have provided, it has… The first figure under Global Studies shows nuclear prices have increased, and the general trends of the various studies in the two tables show an increase over time.