You don't seem to be very trusting of my opinion. And that's perfectly fine.

That's why I suggested you do your own research so you're not having to depend on my own personal take on the subject.

I'm just saying that if you want to understand what I meant by privatizing profits and socializing costs you have to understand what indemnities are and how they work in the nuclear power industry

It's just that you're probably going to struggle understanding the "privatizing profits and socializing costs" angle if you don't know what indemnities are and how they function in the nuclear power equation.

It should be crystal clear by this point I would have thought?

You should really look up how the indemnities work to have a fuller understanding of what you're advocating. It's worth your time.

Ok then.

Well it's kind of important to understand how the indemnities work to get the original point of privatizing profit and socializing costs.

I agree that sort of thing happens a lot. I guess with nuclear it's just a matter of the scales involved.

Well it's kind of critical to the original argument. Not sure we can go any further if you don't understand them.

Do you understand how the indemnities work?

I would have thought that would have been obvious to a nuclear expert.

It's actually the cars that kill the people is it not?

Even if you could somehow do that, if you include the true total lifetime cost, it'd require huge subsidies to remain competitive.

Privatizing profit and socializing cost and hiding true costs are an ugly thing indeed and something that nuke power is entirely dependent upon.

I guess the point is that it's a form of socialism for the nuclear energy industry.

Nuclear power is indemnified by the govt beyond a certain amount. Without that indemnity, it wouldn't be economically viable.

It's just that privatizing profits and socializing the costs kind of thing that's somewhat intrinsic to the nuclear equation.

Nuclear is not a silver bullet either monetarily or carbon wise. It's an option. But one with a number of VERY significant downsides and quite dependent on govt indemnification/socialism.

Science is about falsifying erroneous beliefs more so than enshrining "true beliefs". The Big Bang is almost certainly wrong we just haven't found out in which particular ways. Yet.

Science is a progression more than a destination.

So, if we secure our networks, can we get rid of Space Force and their ridiculous costumes?

So...blow even more money on the military? I thought we were already doing that?

So what happens if another nation frowns upon these sorts of shenanigans?

It's got the audio feeds for the entire Apollo 13 mission. Super interesting perspective on the whole deal.

You can go to the past by going forward maybe but not to the past by going backwards.

I think we should limit the amount of nuclear material we put it orbit. I think RTGs are crucial for some applications and we should spend our nuclear material budget on stuff like that rather than nuclear bomb engines and the like :P

Think of it like one of those gold mining riffle concentrator things. The solar system is kind of like that.

Harry Welsh : It's a game, Blithe. That's all. We're just moving the ball forward one yard at a time. Nothing but a game.

Pvt. Albert Blithe : What is, sir?

Harry Welsh : This. The whole thing.

[offers Blithe another drink]