Irrelevant: the goal is not preventing shootings (I mean, they would go for the obvious solution otherwise)
Irrelevant: the goal is not preventing shootings (I mean, they would go for the obvious solution otherwise)
Why did they call them ‘gold’ and ‘silver pro’?
only dangerous for around 500 years
That “only” is just ridiculous :)
Just try to imagine the history of a nuclear waste storage site from the 1500s… how many budget cuts would have it seen? how much buck-passing when it changed hands as a result of war of revolution? how many times would it have been bombed? (and it’s not like we’ve had bombing for a very long time).
We are just not responsible enough to play around with nuclear. Hell, we are showing we are even not responsible enough for hydrocarbons.
(yes, I do know some amount of nuclear waste, from medical applications etc., is definitely worth it and unavoidable - let’s just keep it to a minimum)
AFAIK a sunken reactor is not as big of a threat to life as a one (marine or land-based) that releases nuclear material in the atmosphere, so the biggest issue should be what may happen before the reactor sinks.
Anyway IMHO the biggest issue with nuclear is not its safety, but rather that, even when it operates without the slightest of incidents, it produces waste that needs to be kept “safe” for periods of time that exceed the age of most nation states (let alone private companies).
It’s not only possible, it’s easy: you just need terrible labor and environmental standards, poor welfare, cheap access to raw materials, and tons of state subsidies :)
It’s interesting to note that “we” knew all along it would end like this but just couldn’t resist moving/outsourcing production to China nor investing in China’s fast-growing economy.
“We” were chasing short-term profits and China was playing the long game. Apparently, both parties won, each at their own game.
The cost of batteries is (relatively) higher for cheap vehicles, so that’s the segment where it makes the most difference.