Inflation makes the money you earned longer ago worth less, so it would be an even less amicable comparison.

All names are made-up.

Wahaca?

Just in case you don’t already know, but you can ignore the glory kill mechanic.

You can index the values to a multiple of the median salary instead of a fixed number.

I think that would be Qwant. This is a search engine proxy.

Why not? Some of the easiest bootloaders to unlock in the smartphone market are in chinese phones.

Some argue that transitioning to 100% renewable energy would be too slow to limit climate change, and that closing down nuclear power stations is a mistake.[122][123]

“Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched”. The Economist. 6 March 2021. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 31 January 2022. McDonnell, Tim (3 January 2022).

“Germany’s exit from nuclear energy will make its power dirtier and more expensive”. Quartz. Retrieved 31 January 2022.

In November 2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with their fifth report, saying that in the absence of any one technology (such as bioenergy, carbon dioxide capture and storage, nuclear, wind and solar), climate change mitigation costs can increase substantially depending on which technology is absent.

So, again, if those three examples are what you mean by catastrophic failure, then my assumption was correct. None of them were due to maintenance failures or being in service too long. Catastrophic failure is not a failure mode for a modern reactor past its service life.

Can’t forget about y’all’dnt’ve.

You said catastrophic failure in the same context as loss of life and land. That is what I was responding to, and it is incorrect.

The pressure that the metals of the reactor are put under from the radiation is a real thing, it causes damage and fatigue.

Yes.

they’re decommissioned because if you keep them running they’ll have catastrophic failures, which besides the loss of life and land

No. This is the fearmongering part. A nuclear plant that is past its service life doesn’t just turn into Chernobyl.

I don’t know what article you’re talking about, but I’m pretty sure it won’t trump my years of university education on this.

all need to be decommissioned at some point, because they will fail catastrophically if they don’t.

This is false, that idea comes from decades of anti-science fearmongering. They need to be decommissioned for the same reasons as everything else, they just become too expensive to maintain. Same as every other energy source, including renewables.

That’s very well put. People tend to cling to the ideas of silver bullets, and that’s, more often than not, detrimental to climate goals and tends to just slow things down.

Nuclear subidies aren’t even in the same order of magnitude as fossil fuel subsidies. There’s so much fearmongering in that comment I don’t even know where to start… Chernobyl really was the best thing to happen to the fossil fuel lobby.

go look at the history of nuclear power research and development

My friend, I went to university for this shit.

I mean, those are power companies. If you’re calling public power companies “the oil and gas billionaires” then you’re clearly being facetious.

When people talk about the oil and gas billionaires they are referring to the ones who spend millions on lobbying, Exxon, Shell, BP, Aramco, etc. You know, the ones funding climate change denial and nuclear fearmongering for decades.

Why not?

They shouldn’t, but many do and have done for many years out of ignorance.

This was a great opportunity to quote Douglas Adams! :)

“This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”

Nothing lasts forever, that’s true. But it’s not the incisive observation one might think. NPPs are some of the power sources with the longest service lives.