MisterMower
Suppose you tell a football player, your overriding priority is not getting hurt. If you get hurt or do anything that might get you hurt, you are out of football for life. Now go out there and win this game.
Those, in a nutshell, are the incentives the nuclear industry in the US faces. Whatever you do, you must never have even the tiniest release of radiation. Safety is the overriding priority. Cost doesn't matter. If there is any wiggle room in your cost structure, you must spend it on making the possibility of a release even smaller.
Meanwhile, we accept major amounts of smog and carbon dioxide emissions from gas power plants, we accept significant environmental degradation due to mining minerals for wind and solar plants, and we tolerate radioactive fly ash from coal power plants beyond the levels we would allow emitted from nuclear power plants.
> Fuel processing, spent fuel processing and storage and failure modes are absolutely not completely mitigated or even solved problems.
The French did solve this problem using a large breeder reactor where they reprocessed nuclear fuel, and the US was on track to build something similar in the 1970's until the Carter administration banned breeder reactors in 1977.
Choosing to not use a breeder reactor means spent nuclear fuel has to just sit there and be guarded while we also have to go and mine and process more nuclear fuel from scratch to run our existing reactors. It's hard to imagine a more idiotic regulatory regime.
> Well if 40 power plants are being built, you can't really say that their operational record is that they're "safe and economical" because they have no operational record
China has 60 existing nuclear power plants that have operated safely and efficiently, and there is no reason to think that these would operate any less effectively. They will likely be even more safe and efficient.
China has a single advantage over the US when it comes to nuclear: they can ignore people like yourself who don't understand how nuclear power works and just build it. The US would be wise to emulate that approach, especially given we do already do this when it comes to flock cameras or AI data centers.
> the first thing I have them do is find out the county building code engineers[1] and ask them to update the code
Based on your other comments, it doesn't appear you're qualified to be teaching kids about this stuff in the first place, given the lack of understanding about basic electrical code.
The real world is full of tradeoffs. If you also told the kids that mandating 240V outlets in garages would increase the cost of new homes by $1,000 they may have a different opinion on the matter, given that those college kids you're teaching probably imagine themselves trying to buy a home in a few years.
Years ago I owned a home built in the 1980's that had a central vacuum system. It was a cool concept but utterly useless. No new homes that I know of have these systems anymore.
Imagine you were born in the 1960's and thought that these things were the future. Think of all the vacuum bags we'll save from the landfill with this technology! Think of all the money people will save on vacuum cleaners!
> If they want modern features or amenities without spending a fortune rebuilding the house, its best to future proof.
The future is uncertain. Ten years from now people may not even want to own cars if autonomous taxis take off. The whole concept of a garage may morph into something unrecognizable to us today. But if you get your way, we'll waste tons of money putting 240V outlets that never get used as intended.
What is the environmental cost of mining and producing literal tons of copper wire and installing it in new homes for outlets that never get used? What is the cost of using skilled electrician labor to install useless outlets instead of having those same electricians working on building a new solar plant?
I encourage you to discuss these tradeoffs. Don't just ride the good vibes of teaching kids how to use political activism to "make the world a better place", without ever actually teaching them how to evaluate if a certain choice actually makes the world a better place.
If people want a 240V outlet in their garage, they are welcome to pay for it. It doesn't need to be mandated. Home builders aren't stupid: they know what their customers want. If they think they can sell that amenity, they'll install it. If they suspect their customers won't use it, they'll omit it and offer them a lower price. That is the most environmentally optimum solution in the first place. Only those homes that intend to use these outlets should get them.
Imagine I was running a non-profit that teaches middle and high school kids about the human body and the first thing I have them do is to look up their legislator and ask them to pass anti-abortion legislation.
In both situations, kids are being used to promote a political agenda.
It's no different than the parents who bring their kids to protests and make signs for them to hold. Except parents likely explain why they're bringing their kid to a protest. This guy just straight up uses them for his own political goals before even explaining why they're doing it.
You should find that icky.
We tolerate all kinds of externalities from fossil fuel energy production and environmental degradation due to rare earth mining required to produce solar panels and wind turbines.
Nuclear energy is the only industry required to mitigate all possible externalities, and for that reason it is very expensive.
It’s disingenuous to claim nuclear power is a failure because it’s expensive to build without examining the reasons why that might be.
For proof it can work and is both safe and economical, witness the Chinese currently building 40 new nuclear plants. We could do that here, but choose not to. The only missing ingredient is political will, and resistance from ill-informed people such as yourself.
That baseload capacity comes from natural gas power plants. By building solar and wind you are guaranteeing a market for their products in the future.
Not sure what religious fundamentalism has to do with any of this.
I kept all of my engineering textbooks and there have been concepts in them that never made sense when they were taught in school but ten years later I re-read them and things click like they never did when I was learning them years ago.
I think one of the tragedies of the public schools is that all the kids are expected to learn certain things at specific ages and grade levels, and for some kids they’re just not quite ready.
That doesn’t mean they won’t be ready in the future. But they will get a failing grade and the associated feeling of “I must be dumb.” And I think that often changes the trajectory of their lives as you described, often in negative ways.
We spend an ungodly amount of money on education. The one problem the public schools don’t have is a lack of money. The budget for the public school system in my midwestern city of 750,000 people is larger than the city’s entire budget.
Third world countries get better educational outcomes with literally 5% of the money we spend on education. It can be done, quite easily, in fact.
This is not a socioeconomic problem. It is an incentive problem. No one is ever held accountable for educational outcomes in public school systems. Tie teacher and administrator compensation to educational outcomes and this problem will disappear in a semester.
As much as America pretends to be all about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps it’s actually far more socialist than many would like to admit.
This includes zoning laws that protect incumbent property owners from loss of property value by massively changing the character of the surrounding properties.
As much as I would love to live in the free country you describe, it’s not the one we get to live in. And since that’s not the America that exists in reality, there is nothing wrong with people using these rules to protect themselves.
I would add that these aren’t one sided restrictions. They’re reciprocal. A typical property owner can’t convert their property to an eight-plex, and conversely, they can and should expect the same level of protection.
There are plenty of places to cut spending before we start raising taxes on the W2 wage earners that are contributing the most to federal tax receipts.
How would nationalizing health insurance even make a dent in spending? Ultimately the same amount of healthcare will be consumed. You are truly clueless about the federal fisc if you think these are even remotely serious ideas for fixing the federal budget deficit.
1. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/static-data/published-report...
Social security is easy to fix. Just raise the retirement age. Or do nothing and benefits drop by 25% or whatever it takes to become balanced based on current tax revenue.
Good luck rationing hip replacements and breast cancer treatments whose provision is statutorily required by law and whose cost will continue to rise with inflation.
None of this even begins to consider interest on the debt. As interest rates continue to rise and the debt continues to grow this line item will eventually dwarf everything.
Social Security is chump change compared to these two. But at least it’s nominally fixable by faking the CPI numbers used to set the cost of living increases. You can’t charge less for hip replacements or cancer treatments, they cost what they cost.
Yes, you are not a mechanical engineer.
"Nearly 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have a current (non-expired) driver’s license."
A driver's license is not the only form of ID permissible to vote. You can vote using other forms of ID. Additionally, most states allow people over a certain age to use an expired ID to vote.
"Another 12% (28.6 million) have a non-expired license, but it does not have both their current address and current name."
People move and people get married. The average American will move 12 times in their lives and get married at least once. These people will get their license updated. They have one in the first place that isn't expired, after all.
Again, you can vote using other forms of ID beyond a driver's license, and furthermore, a driver's license with an old address is still valid to prove your identity.
"Millions of Americans across political parties do not have a license."
Again, the fixation on driver's licenses is a canard. Millions of American's aren't eligible to drive, so you would expect them not to have driver's licenses.
"People with less education and lower annual incomes are more likely to lack a current driver’s license."
Yes, people who can't afford to own a car are less likely to have a driver's license.
"People with a disability are far more likely to lack a current driver’s license."
Wow, what an insightful finding. People that are not able to drive don't have driver's licenses.
Here's a fun quote from your own link that refutes exactly what you are claiming:
Only "nineteen percent of individuals without a driver’s license cite bureaucratic or economic factors as the reasons for which they do not have a license." The rest weren't interested, or weren't eligible due to legal difficulties.
That means that only 4 million of the 21 million people who don't have a license can't get a license for the reason you're claiming. That's 1% of the entire country.
In a nutshell, only 1% of Americans are too incompetent to figure out how to apply for a license or too lazy to stand in line and fill out the paperwork to get one. Everybody else either has one, has a good reason they don't want one, or should not have one.
And that doesn't even mean that these people can't vote, only that they don't have a driver's license. It's entirely possible those people have other forms of ID.
Open your eyes friend. People are disenfranchised everyday, but it isn't because the mean old DMV denied them a driver's license.
Biden’s student loan forgiveness would have amounted to a gift of potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to his most ardent supporters: young, college educated, poor people.
Trump’s proposal is a fraction of that, and all Americans would be eligible. If he’s trying to buy votes, he’s going to need to try a lot harder. This proposal is nothing like Biden’s vote buying scheme.
Your eligibility to vote and have your name entered into the poll book is determined by providing a Social Security number or birth certificate.
So yes, a driver’s license is sufficient ID to vote in many states.
It’s extremely uncommon.
You need an ID to buy beer, open a bank account, prove you are eligible for employment, pick up a prescription at the pharmacy, book a hotel room, the list is very long. You cannot function in society without some form of ID.
The idea that a large number of Americans are being disenfranchised because they don’t have ID is farcical.