She was always keeping a moderate tone, always leaning towards supporting China and the Chinese state as well. I thought she'd skip around the censors because of it.

But it's not the general public who is averse to nuclear, they're as a whole, probably more in favour of it. The current Swedish governmrnt campaigned on it. It's nuclear companies themselves who don't want it. Which is partially why Sweden suddenly and quietly scrapped their plans.

We should just give Americans complimentary abortions if they travel overseas. Pretty sure it wouldn't be too much of a dent to global public healthcare systems.

BYD isn't exactly better... But I guess this will be cheaper. You lose out on the really handy supercharging network tho... Don't know how this will work out...

It's not profitable. For example, in Sweden, the companies involved aren't interested. There was talk of EDF being restructured a couple of years back separating the unprofitable nuclear away from their other businesses (until state bailout and investment). Their CFO resigned over their decision to carry on building UK's latest nuclear powerplant. The Conservatives only pushed through the UK's next nuclear powerplant only after giving EDF assurances and ability to start taking in profits before the completion of the project.

This is what it takes to build nuclear. A lot of state money... Whereas renewables are cheaper, easier, and faster to decarbonise.

So, you're going to spend, billions, to build a nuclear powerplant, that will decarbonise at a slower rate, never turn a profit, be an economic sinkhole megaproject, or, you could just build a solar panel or wind turbine in like, a year, where it'll be functional and working. Profits allow you to reinvest into more projects. Losses, mean you're putting endless amounts of money into less.

Do we count EEZ encroachments in the Pacific? Only reason why China isn't as militarily adventurous as Russia right now, is because they know they're not ready yet. Not really yellow scare nonsense when China itself (Republic of) is concerned about this.

China's President sent his own daughter to Harvard and China has wide income inequality, as well as the greatest proportion of millionaires and billionaires in the world. The wealthy in China go on day trips to Paris to literally eat cake.

Is it though? You'd need to cut the price of nuclear by about 1/4. Even then, renewables are faster at decarbonisation. Not that nuclear represented a large amount of the German grid in the first place. Best case scenario for Germany, is extending the lifespan of their plants not more than a few years.

Sweden was a bit of an outlier though. Most younger Swedes live alone. And they tend to follow government advisories. New Zealand's strategy was stellar, particularly early on in the pandemic. You could do what you want. I remember we were out having concerts as if there was no pandemic, thanks to the zero COVID strategy. But by late-Delta, early-Omicron, zero COVID could not longer be sustained, and it was clear only mitigations would stick. The government hoped to eliminate it like they did the other times, but it was just impossible then, people had become complacent. But yes, on the healthcare-side and economic-side, NZ fared better than Sweden.

Largely, but they are finding some traction in some communities around the world. Nothing too much to worry about, but annoying, nevertheless.

It's actually the worst time to get started on nuclear. Costs keep going up. There's a reason why countries overwhelmingly prefer to invest in renewables over nuclear. This includes nuclear companies. EDF is one of the largest investors in renewables, and it's actually the profitable side of the business. It's going to be the taxpayer that's going to pay for nuclear, and they're not going to get their money's worth, as opposed to renewables.

Renewables?

Poor track record with safety (not talking about the big issues such as meltdowns, but smaller issues such as minor leaks, and workplace incidents). Nobody's interested in building them unless they've got profit guarantees and subsidies from the government. Nobody's interested in insuring them in full (unless it's the government). Nobody's interested in the eventual decommissioning process, which can take a century, and again, still costs. Renewables will be up and running, and profitable, long before nuclear is constructed.

None of those objects are yours.

It took Finland nearly two decades to complete Scandinavia's newest reactor. Sweden can remove the cap, but good luck finding private companies willing to invest in that. Not without guaranteed profits and subsidies. Of course Sweden could just build it themselves. But it's not cheap.

Ehhh, I saw a news article once about doctors helping a boy through an illness. And when he got better the mother wanted to thank the saint she was praying to, and the doctors were running an analysis of which specific saint it was that was responsible for this (since the mother prayed to multiple).

You can't go cheap on nuclear. Otherwise you're looking at a myriad of political corruption and safety concerns, which in part will cost you a government, where you'll eventually have to start all over again. Or you could just invest in renewables. Like what China is overwhelmingly doing.

But that's the thing with nuclear. The upfront costs are massive, and literally irrecoverable. Can you name a single nuclear powerplant that has broken even? I can't. Not unless, it's one that the government has built and then handed over to private industry, for example. Reducing safety from nuclear powerplants is not viable long term. And that's the only way to get them commercially viable.

Well, the website is a bit of a distraction. The car sells well in Europe and China respectively, not just the US. Much like how SpaceX has largely been a success globally as well.