Macfarlane is not qualified to be Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

fastparticles · 1 day

Well the Russians build one extra HX, each in a separate bunker, so they can operate with one HX on fire :D

fastparticles · 1 day

This is all correct for thermal spectrum reactors, which will lose maximum reactivity configuration on any meltdown type accident. Fast spectrum reactors are a bit different can of worms in this relation, and going through accident scenarios with them persuaded me away from LMFBRs...

trot-trot · 5 days

Stuxnet, assassinations of key people, etc.

isanmateo · 17 days

This was a comment about fusion though

gordonmcdowell · 21 days

Even with Pa separation you end up with a lot of U232 in a realistic (power) reactor, due to (n,2n) reactions Pa. For pure U233 one needs a dedicated low flux facility. If somebody went to that much trouble, he would have already realized that a dedicated reactor for WG Pu239 would be a cheaper, faster, and less risky option.

Also, population-wise most nations are either nuclear weapon states, or are signatory to NPT, so it is irrelevant both ways - technically and politically.

redditgolem · 29 days

That's kind of the point, isn't it? You don't want to be a part of it so you don't participate.

It does not work like this.

That's a perfectly valid position to take. It's the same as choosing not to shop at Walmart as a stance against it.

It is not. It shows deep and profound misunderstanding of how the democracy works: If you boycott Wallmart, you shop elsewhere - while if you do not vote, you just give up your power to those who do vote.

Tea party congress of 2010 is therefore your fault too. Hope you like it.

josephsmidt · 1 month

Eventually

katana0182 · 1 month

US is 50% coal, 20% gas, 20% nuclear, 10% hydro, and the rest is wind and solar. Germany used to have much larger non-polluting part of energy mix than US. Now they are going backwards to coal burning.

Also US is much more sparsely populated than Germany so people drive much more.

If you want to actually compare how clean the electricity generation is, compare CO2/kWh, not per capita. Also compare similar countries - Germany and Denmark versus France and Switzerland or Sweden. Germany and Denmark have more than order of magnitude larger emissions per produced kWh.

PornAgainChristians · 1 month

Indeed, almost any other energy source killed more people than nuclear since the earthquake, from broken dams washing away villages to explosions of ruptured gas lines to oil refinery fires.

50 year old nuclear power technology is still the safest technology we have, but it still could (and should) be improved. Governments are not willing to spend a dime on advanced nuclear though, there is ~100 people involved actual academic MSR research in the world total, excluding China...

PornAgainChristians · 1 month

Regarding:

We must show how we can avoid core meltdowns under any circumstance.

It was (and still is) a matter of policy not to pursue reactors which are walkway safe, and can survive almost anything you throw at them including station blackout, such as well designed molten salt reactors. Weinberg was warning about problems with pressurized water cooled solid fueled reactors safety in extreme circumstances 40 years ago - he got fired and the program of safe reactors was scratched.

http://thoriumremix.com/

Atash · 1 month

This reads like a Monty Python script:

In June 1998, another submarine got caught in fishing nets at Sokcho and its crew killed themselves. Such is the fighting spirit of North Korean soldiers.

ropedNtied · 1 month

http://www.alglib.net/ is good and has dual licensing

Geeky_Robot · 1 month

http://www.cygwin.com/ - makes Windows usable

SandieSandwicheadman · 1 month

The practical difference is that you paid taxes on the income already when you make the capital investment. You can't invest pre-tax.

And then you amortize the investment over time. So it is the same as I said, you just forgot the most important point.

Having loans does not make someone greedy.

I have not even suggested that, calm down and re-read what I wrote.

Indeed had the businesses payed higher taxes, you could get your education publicly funded, as is customary in most developed countries. Somehow in the countries with much large effective tax rate the small businesses are nevertheless doing just fine: http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/102447/back-1955

You fallen for simplistic argument which is both theoretically erroneous, and also disproved by actual experience in other countries. Funny enough, you dont even seem to like its inevitable consequence of piling up student loans, medical bills etc. Enjoy your low tax crusade.

SandieSandwicheadman · 1 month

You are making it sound way too complicated. The only practical differences between capital expenditures and expenses is that you account for expenses as a whole when accrued, while the capital expenditures are amortized into expenditures over time - which is actually advantageous for the business.

In either way the revenues reinvested into the business - be it new office supplies, equipment, or hires - counts against the tax base, so a prudent response of a business owner to a tax hike is to expand business by investing into it.

This whole anti-tax rhetoric is a bunch of nonsense of greedy rich people who are more often than not renters on money they did not make themselves, not actual business owners and certainly not job creators.

SandieSandwicheadman · 1 month

My arguments are from talking to people who run small businesses, not from actual experience, and my accounting education is limited.

That said, there are ways how to account business expenses for what they are. Your argument seems to be that if a small business has a poor accountant, he will get hit by taxes. Well I agree, but the problem is not in taxes, but in the bad accountant.

Investing back into the business with after-tax income from the cash account is not tax deductible and is not listed in expenses.

Indeed, this is why you invest before-tax income in your business.

If you have a big investment, get a loan, or save up for it in some form of tax differed savings account ("rainy day fund") - either one declared as such, or invest into business related liquid assets which effectively work as a tax deferred saving account since you can sell them before making the investment.

SandieSandwicheadman · 1 month

You aren't making mortgage any longer, personally.

Why dont you declare the place with mortgage as of business, and then your mortgage payments are your tax deductible business expenses?

And you have less to invest back into the business.

Here we are back to where we started - what you invest into your business is an business expense, which is tax-deductible.

Net income is needed for retained earnings. It can be used to retire debt, expand operations, or any other number of necessary business purposes.

These all can be tax deductible business expenses.

Moral of the story - business expenses are tax deductible. Higher taxes force business owners to invest back in the business, such as hiring more people.

SandieSandwicheadman · 1 month

Except the taxes payed by the business owner on his own salary, all these are part of his expenses. So his expenses will increase, lowering the total tax base. If he is employing few people, increase in his own taxes is rather small part in the overall picture, esp. since many things non-business owners have to purchase on after-tax income, a business owner can claim to be a business related expense. I still do not see how this makes an economic argument for employment.

SandieSandwicheadman · 1 month

I do not get this argument at all: income taxes are payed from profits, that is (earnings - expenses). Salaries of your employees are your expenses. Hence no income tax increase could affect how many people you can afford to hire (as long as they are legal).

Care to explain your argument?

tt23

TROPHY CASE

tt23

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login