or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by anantksundaram

While that's most certainly true, my underlying point was slightly different: how risky are these relative to what we have in place? (I was, very conservatively, only talking about replacing the nuclear reactors we currently have).
Not dissimilar people's fear of flying, despite the fact that it's, by far, the safest mode of transportation (except for passenger rail).
We're already buying thousands. Many thousands. Tesla will end the year with at least 20,000 cars sold. If we waited for every major technology to dot every "i" and cross every "t", nothing new will ever emerge. We'd still be using the older, dirtier, less efficient, more expensive versions of all types of technology.
I realize that people don't like Munster much around these parts (and I do often disagree with him myself), but I fail to see what he's saying here that is off-base.   We've had a day in which one well-heeled competitor has introduced a possibly credible alternative to @TV, and another to Siri.   I think Apple needs to step-up. I am sure it will. I wish it will be VERY soon.
1) Why? 2) How will you integrate your photos/music/videos with Amazon's offering?
I agree with your points. But you're conflating with what we have in place (ridiculously ancient, zeroth generation technology, often poorly risk-managed) with what we could be replacing it with: as I said earlier, it's like suggesting we should jettison automobiles altogether because our roads are populated with Ford Pintos, when we have Teslas available. Nuclear technology -- esp. with the passive safety features of 3rd and 3.5th generation, not to mention some of the...
1) Absolutely not. TMI was a non-event. Period. Those are the facts. 2) Solar is an incredibly dirty, toxic technology to produce. We feel virtuous putting up our PV panels, but all the filth has been outsourced to places like China. But more important, both wind and solar suffer from intermittence: the only honest way to compare these two with nuclear is to add the cost of storage (even without which, the cost of energy from those two are substantially higher than for...
This is nonsense data, and has been debunked repeatedly, including here at AI. (I am too lazy to give you a link).
Chernobyl is the only serious nuclear power plant disaster we've had in almost three-quarters of a century of nuclear power. The reasons for that were incredibly poor, unsafe design under Communism. There is not a single death attributable to radiation from Fukushima. Unfortunately, other than for hydro, nuclear is currently (no pun intended) the only source of reliable, baseload CO2-free power.
Wow. Tim Cook certainly seems to have done one thing that SJ could not do (not that it matters to me, but it's worth noting): He sure brought Greenpeace around!
New Posts  All Forums: