C

The headline makes no sense to me and the article crosses over 2 problems in the energy transition.

Microsoft is only involved in purchasing the power, not the facility itself. In my understanding, that means that Constellation is the only party here involved in the government backed loan. Noting also that the loan itself is not malicious, nor is its use to restart the facility - if nuclear facilities should not be funded or have any special tax status then that should have been considered in the government’s legislation.

The 2nd part about the power from the plant going to grid, and not to Microsoft’s data centres directly is a known issue which close to all companies exploit by buying green certificates which I understand are currently done monthly in some areas. That means we do not trace that each electron provided to a user was from renewables, instead we aggregate that a company (via purchasing “green” certificates) shows that enough “green” electricity, anywhere on a connection, was produced to cover their usage for that month. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, their data centres, or this facility in general but is currently being dealt with. It will be clear in the power purchasing agreement how much power Microsoft will purchase from the facility directly and how it is delivered.

Am I missing something?

And no, I don’t think nuclear power is overly helpful given the exorbitant cost, time and waste aspects

The paper itself, which is linked in the BBC article, is quite a read too Original Article

Early adopters will profit the most, it’s a non-issue.

Jesus, Merino & Kiwior?

Yeah if we were 2-0 down and Hakimi did that in the box, I’d be spewing!

Martinelli’s confidence must be taking a beating at this rate.

How much longer does ETH have to turn this around?

I’m sorry, are we really going to pretend long haul flights will become hydrogen in the near future? Has any airport begun building, or even thinking of, refueling infrastructure?

I mean, you can eat the rivalry and all… but if Arteta pulled a Sol Campbell style coup and managed to sign Haaland in January, we’d all be frothing at the seams.

That’s an academy goal to concede.

I would argue that your perspective is a narrow one and you need to change what info you are consuming. My personal take (if you have any interest):

1. Most of the people on this world are not rich enough to be part of daily traffic jams. They are just trying to survive and enjoy life with what they have.

2. Current resource competition is driven by profit seeking and not bourne out of necessity (i.e. we’re not “competing” in the traditional sense, where countries at war are doing so to feed their people etc… At least, not yet.)

3. There is definitely more space and resources available for more people, if we learn to better distribute what we have - the how of this, while keeping everyone happy, is the billion dollar question.

4. You can choose to live in the jungle by yourself if you want, no one is (hopefully) forcing you to take part in working etc.

5. If you can, you should go travel more. If you can’t, go volunteer some of your time to your community. It tends to clear my “the world is going to shit” thoughts. Sure, there’s problems everywhere, and we should fight for the ones we feel are important, but there is also a lot of great things happening.

I’m sorry, are you saying women’s rights were better in the 1700s or wars didn’t happen? Or that people had less problems? Or that the ruling class shared power?

I don’t mean to offend, but this is an insanely naive view of the world.

A lot less humans existed for a lesser period of time without electricity.

We used to burn oil and other fuels for lamps, raw wood for heat, raw sewerage was everywhere if not released untreated into waterways. All of this was hugely polluting and detrimental to health. Please don’t kid yourself that there were better times in the 1700s.

If I had to choose, I’d rather Ødegaard be out than Saliba at the moment.

But yeah, still really not ideal to not have your playmaker in a game where chances will be thin as it is.

Fatigue, lacking a certain attacking midfielder, good defensive opponent. That could have gone either way

You’d probably be more annoyed if he was playing. I never felt he shone without a lot of space to play in

As clarification I meant: “do people in Australia care about the tiny black and white sticker on the box which says “M - rated for mature audiences” now?”

and not: “why should the global community give a damn about Australia…”.

I remember cinemas were always strict with entry into movies, but game shops never used to ask for ID. Has this changed?

No one cares about game ratings in Australia, do they?

4D chess?