Oh I see, I assumed the article was going to be "north korea is making animated versions of existing films for silly reasons", because the article started with "north koreans are only allowed to use the internet with someone else sitting right next to them and approving every 5 minutes"

Why would they do that instead of pirating it?

Where are the files?

This seems like one of those news stories about North Korea that nobody bothered to think critically about, let alone verify.

Fewer people would be able to afford rent. Either the landlords would have to eat the cost, or sell.

A plant doesn't have to be native to benefit local ecosystem, parsley isn't native, but there's a local species of butterfly whose caterpillars love it.

They're called steam traction engines.

The phone company?

It would be really funny if he took it up, and the republicans proceeded to block appointments until a conservative presidency.

OK yeah everyone knew the cops started shooting protesters, but the real mystery is who were the snipers shooting the riot cops.

The evacuation ones were basically impossible at 8+, I was shooting down 3/4 ships and we'd still get overrun.

Is it weaker though? The US seems to be using this as a pretense to give money to the MIC and scale up production, there's a desert of already paid for equipment they're not sending.

So there's enough cheap enough utanium to go around and no need for the industry to recycle spent fuel.

That is where the supply and demand equation is right now. When the supply was lower before the 90s, the equation favored recycling, and if we build more plants to drive up price, it will favor it again.

Sure, if it was free to build, it would be better than not having them (though worse than more efficient types of storage), assuming the cost of refining the steel breaks even.

There's a reason fossil fuel companies fund hydrogen.

As for reprocessing, storage is in competition with newly mined fuel. As mining becomes more expensive or nuclear demand increases, there's greater impetus to recycle more fuel. Conversely, if there's fewer plants consuming the fuel or more mines opening, recycling projects die.

The more plants close, the less waste you're gonna get reprocessed.

Russia already has 40,000 nukes, they're not a proliferation risk.

There's both, there was a plant in Savanah Ga that was supposed to process nuclear weapons into fuel, but after they got the weapons, they stalled on building the plant.

There were other plans to build reprocessing facilities for old fuel in the US (or breeder reactors that can use them as is) that all died off after the fall of the USSR opened up kazakstan, tanking the price of Uranium.

Why would you bury fuel that you've only harvested 1% of the energy from? If you're not gonna build reprocessing facilities, sell it to France or Russia.

Well they own and are currently profiting from coal mines, they don't own solar farm construction companies.

I bet 90% of Russia's 40,000 nukes don't even work!

all this reporting from Western media feels like some sort of backhanded publicity campaign for attracting migrants

How is "food prices in China are super low while food prices in America are higher than ever" supposed to attract migrants to the west?

Are they gonna run a story on the rate of home ownership or commute times next?

Would you evaluate the contents of the wikileaks leaks if they had released an equal amount of dirt on Trump?