If he lives there until he dies, bulldozing it will be Someone Else’s Problem. If the electrics catch fire and he dies, it’s his own problem. Perfect American solution.
The reason the iPhone takes great photos is probably 95% because of the software. It’s 0% because of the number of pixels, and never was even since their early models.
I think the kind of user who gets a detox phone will also get an Instax or a second hand old Ixus.
It’s literally the definition of a straw man argument. You state a proposition that nobody proposed, because it’s easy for you to tear it down. While others are arguing about your straw man, nobody is looking at or following up on the proposals *actually* on offer.
Nobody in the thread has proposed turning off all nuclear, hence you were building a straw man. Please don’t do that on HN.
No matter how cheap per request, someone will figure out a way to DoS that endpoint, and it will be extremely pricy unless you have effective rate limiting.
What do you mean by 2), ”it’s not heavily subsidized”?
Remember we’re talking specifically about Sweden now, so I’ll discard any arguments about Germany or elsewhere. I don’t know the background there at all.
The Swedish authorities are right now processing requests for subsidies from prospective owners of future nuclear plants. You can read their announcements here for instance. See the little summary fact box at the bottom. https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2026/06/ansokan-o...
I see I implied that the disposal was a major part of the the total cost. Sorry for that, I was being facetious when answering your statement that spot market prices are not total system costs.
Clearly there are many other costs than disposal, which are contributing to its none-competitiveness.
Regarding cost competitiveness: if new nuclear is cost competitive in Sweden, how come it needs to be so heavily subsidized?
What part isn’t true? That disposal of fuel is part of the total systems cost?
Or that the new nuclear can’t compete without subsidies? I think both are evident truths.
You’re right, the total system costs include a lot of things, including disposal of spent fuel. Which is apparently so expensive, nuclear can’t compete with renewables fairly.
I think the promise of SMR is that the 1/5th reactor can be built in 1/2 the time. And you build five of them in parallell. And you have your power sources gradually online over about the same time as one ”big bang” build would take.
I don’t think it’s going to work out that way, but that’s how it’s being sold.
Sweden recently did the same: in order for companies to agree to make new reactors, the government had to promise them a price floor for the electricity they produce. The price floor suggested is more than twice the current price on the spot market. That means that, for the lifetime of those reactors, Swedish taxpayers will be subsidizing production of nuclear power. I thought the idea was that they would be profitable? What happened to the political right’s love of the free market? When politicians go fixing prices with this kind of ”advance bailout”, it just makes it look like they are trying to get a nice retirement job in the nuclear power sector…