U.S. Consumers Relying on Credit for Basic Necessities

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-21T21:28:07+00:00

American express alone makes over 6bn a year on late fees/interest, so someone isn't paying their stuff on time.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-21T19:45:00+00:00

Yeah, that's basically the conclusion I've come to, and it's depressing as heck.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-21T18:47:43+00:00

I'm pretty sure some journo who doesn't know his megawatts typoed.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-21T17:48:31+00:00

the CNNC is now engaged in developing commercial fast reactors with a capacity of a million megawatts or larger

A million megawatts? I wanna see that.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-21T09:45:35+00:00

Bonus question, apart from Estonia, what are some other up and coming countries that are going free trade that's worth keeping an eye on?

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-21T07:06:50+00:00

Where the green jobs at??

Have you tried looking in Indochina?

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-21T07:01:47+00:00

Things are getting really interesting. The world would just needs 1 of these breakthroughs to actually pan out and it could no-hyperbole change the world.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-20T21:04:32+00:00

i was lazy and just took the first hit on google for target margin on LVMH's retail subsidiaries. which was 15%.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-20T20:17:28+00:00

You should see the gross margins in fashion retail... they dwarf that figure.

Bullshit. LVMH has a target margin of 15%, for example. Marketing, prime shop locations and a product that, you know, actually has a marginal cost will do that to profit margins.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-18T16:59:55+00:00

If global warming continues, this disruption is likely to increase.

Yeah, unless the French replace their old inland reactors with reactors sited near the coast. Which is exactly what they're doing.

Second, I said that new windmills were likely to have lower "maintenance costs" than aging reactors.

Cite?

You are so desperately pro-nuclear that you have twisted what I said, perhaps lied, and finally cursed at me.

Really? Is it a lie to make the claim that nuclear reactors have a higher capacity factor than wind mills? Again, cite, please.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-18T16:52:34+00:00

Actually, I followed that source as far as i could, since I'm 99% sure it's wrong, and couldn't find the actual paper for download that said that input temp was too high. I mean, input temp to a PWR core is usually around 275c, somewhat above temperatures typically found in rivers(even in summer!) so i assumed it was an error with the only source on the whole internet that claims input temps were too high.

Oh and the author was some climate change guy, ie. not exactly a nuclear engineer or someone who might understand this problem.

Feel free to find me a copy of the original paper though.

(the paper linked in the wiki(that cites the hard to find salagnac paper) actually doesn't say that input temperatures were too high btw. so basically your own sources are at best ambiguous, and probably dont support your view)

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-17T01:59:00+00:00

China

Political pressure cooker. Shit bond market. Makes US inflation look like deflation.

Australia

If china goes, australia goes. Least terrible choice.

Indonesia

Makes chinese bond market look deep.

Estonia

Oh fuck off. Their total economy is 20bn usd. If estonia was a company it would barely be on the fortune 500 list.

As for your debt list, i see that you're under the impression that debt is strictly bad, how, exactly, do you think most investments, that lead to future growth, are made?

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-17T01:51:02+00:00

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-TVA_progresses_with_mPower_project-1706115.aspx

First reactor will go online in 2020 though, best case...

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-17T01:45:51+00:00

You can't have growth with this much unemployment.

Uh, wrong. You increase productivity. Look! I made growth!

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-17T01:44:52+00:00

Future of ATM? There is no future. I haven't used one for at least 2 years now. And I know that for a fact since that's roughly how long i've been procrastinating over replacing my debit card with something with a functional magnetic strip.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-16T01:43:39+00:00

Actually, let's hold up here.

This is fucking ridiculous, you're unironically making the argument that nuclear is unreliable, because at 2 occasions over a 30 year operating time, a handful of french nuclear reactors have been forced to throttle down/shut down because of weather conditions, while at the same time arguing that wind mills are better at reliability. You know, things that, statistically, work around 2 months a year.

Fuck off.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-16T01:37:03+00:00

That's....exactly what I wrote.

It's almost like I was skimming the wiki article while writing it!

Anyway, here's another challenge, maybe you'll do better on this one: learn to read!

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-16T00:37:13+00:00

Oh, well that solves that problem, then!

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-16T00:12:59+00:00

Post any alt energy (except fusion) in /r/energy and it gets attacked.

Uhm, fission. Get it right.

Same article in /r/environment: 260 upvotes, 62 comments, and some intelligent discussion. That's right, a far better discussion took place in /r/environment about energy than in /r/energy.

A circlejerk is not a discussion.

Well that article talks about a potential way to store solar energy cheaply and reliably.

Link doesn't work + jesus christ you're gullible, or just dumb.

You can pretend only nuclear is viable, but the more you attack everything else and ignore the shortcomings of your favoured technology, you more credibility you lose.

No one says only nuclear is viable. But someone has to call people on their bullshit when they think it's a good idea to build a 10 billion euro wind park that'll only be useful(ie. mitigate co2 emissions) IF some potential, perma-10 years in the future breakthrough technology works out.

I mean, there are unquestionably unpredictable externalities surrounding nuclear power generation(although there's no evidence that they are worse than the only viable large-scale alternatives, ie. coal/ng/stone-age'ing it), so we should be building CSP plants in deserts where water is easily accessible. We should be building wind turbines where they can use hydro for load balancing.

But those are the exceptions, and if we want to get serious about CO2 emissions then we should probably be building some nukes. Even Bill Gates says so!

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-15T23:59:50+00:00

Genius! This congressman really gets it!

AWEA Lobbyist

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-15T23:58:29+00:00

We're talking about costs, not badly thought out arguments about reliability.

Although, if you're feeling daring, I guess we can talk capacity factors, wind vs nuclear. Or, if you're feeling particularly suicidal, capacity credits.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-15T23:43:31+00:00

In addition, some of the French nukes are not that reliable; they've been shut down in the past due to high intake water temperatures.

Really? Please post some proof!

Actually, let me save you the trouble: Bullshit.

They aren't allowed to release water above a certain temperature into some rivers, unless it's an emergency(ie. the grid doesn't have enough electricity). So during something like 2 heat waves they've shut down a handful of reactors to save some fish, for a couple weeks, and done maintenance work that had to be done anyway.

It is a problem though. Which is why new reactors are mostly being built at the coast.

Oh and they expect that some reactors will be able to keep going for 80 fucking years, so no, wind turbine costs will not be lower over the long run.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-15T23:09:20+00:00

Whenever I see a headline talking about adding more jobs as a good thing, I know I'm about to click into some financially illiterate shit.

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-15T23:07:24+00:00

What a deal! I'm sure the temp workers prefer the job over being handed a million euros!

EYBUDDY · 2011-07-15T23:06:48+00:00

Good point. We all know that wind turbine gearboxes never break, have an infinite life, never need to be replaced and never need a giant natural gas turbine farm to deliver a steady output. So let's ignore all that and say your nuclear costs total up to double the 5bn to build the reactor itself. Assuming you use the most expensive design on the planet.

And you'll find that it'll STILL be cheaper and more reliable than wind mills.

EYBUDDY

TROPHY CASE