I’d be interested in the economics of building an artificial hydroelectric storage facility over those of building and running a mine for storing nuclear waste.

Germany is not the only country that’s having problems with permanent waste storage. Most countries have not even started dealing with this issue and are still using interim storage solutions.

Not really, you can build hydroelectric storage facilities.

The nuclear storage facilities here in Germany are already being shut down because they’re in danger of leaking into the groundwater.

You said “it’s much safer” in your original comment, which you removed in the edit.

The source you’ve linked shows it’s marginally safer on a death per KW/h rate, true, while being substantially more expensive and comes with the unsolved problem of dealing with toxic waste.

Pumped hydroelectric storage exists and is easily achieved. What about the storage options for nuclear waste?

It’s not, a person has already provided a study proving you wrong.

Edit: You’ve changed your comment completely with that edit.

Right so why shouldn’t we just use power sources where we don’t have an issue with massively toxic waste products later on in the process?

Edit: And which are also a lot cheaper.

You’re saying nuclear power is responsible for less deaths and sicknesses than for example… wind?

Donald Trump’s views on economics have not changed in decades and his tariffs are in line with what the guy has been publicly saying since the 80s.

But yeah that’s not the point I was making.

Yeah man they really saw this tariff stuff coming earlier than anyone else when they started developing the remaster 2-3 years ago.

Imagine if capital G Gamers actually enjoyed playing games instead of nonstop bitching on online forums.

No, that’s only the VTOL variant for the marines (F35B). The regular F35 uses P&Ws if I’m not mistaken.

I was talking about the Gripen regarding spares.

The F35 doesn’t necessarily has to be operated via systems in the US, only if you don’t buy the proprietary terminals to program its flight-Mission systems. Israel for example has bought the entire package including terminals and they are able to operate the jets without US involvements. EU countries however of course chose the cheap option without terminals.

The EU can (or rather, could) potentially make lots of things, the question is if there is sufficient political will to do it.

No doubt, the problem has never been with the quality but with the fact that a hostile American regime can refuse to send spare parts. Which is not as troubling with civil aviation but certainly when we’re talking about our own militaries.

The Gripen uses US-built engines iirc so it’s still a problematic buy for Europeans.

They’re kind of a shitty company but yeah their discovery algorithms are still the best in the business for now.

deleted by creator

Yes, multiple people have pointed this out already and I’ve agreed with them. However I work in the music industry and Spotify is definitely not paying by far the lowest. By sheer volume they’re paying most of the share a song is earning nowadays and even on a per play basis they are fairly similar to their competitors, maybe slightly lower.

We can make the argument that revenue on a per stream basis is much too low in general and I would agree, but then we also have to rethink the entire pricing model.

That’s a fair point.

Yeah I can totally understand that especially in relation to Rogan etc.