It shouls be intrinsically safe. The water has a massive heat capacity and is an excellent shield for radioactivity. Also, recovery, if that's what we want, is much easier, as we are recovering a solid material, rather than containing spreading sheen of tens of thousands of barrels of oil.

Nuclear reactors on land have real, demonstrated liabilities, but, in my opinion, the story would be very different over water.

Briefly, water is how we store hot radioactive waste right now. In fact, Randal Munroe of XKCD fame has a great video on spent fuel storage in pools on YouTube here.

Personally, I find difference in safety is so great in favor of the nuclear reactor that I cannot even draw a meaningful comparison. Would I rather drink water from from a spent fuel storage pool or one contaminated with fuel oil? Spent fuel every time. Would I rather live with an off-shore sunk nuclear reactor or an off-shore oil spill? Sunk nuclear reactor, 100%. Which would I rather be in charge of clean-up? Yup: Sunk reactor.

Is there a compelling alternative perspective here?

I'd also like to point out that the underlying model may well be unsustainable in the way that it is offered at the start. Who benefits when a for-profit company operates at a loss? We, the customers, do. We get low prices and customer-friendly practices that are genuinely enjoyable. That business can't operate in that way indefinitely, as the early investors are not funding it as an act of charity.

Eventually, the bill comes due. The shareholders have funded the company on the premise that, after losing lots of money on customer acquisition, it can restructure and monetize those customers and recoup their investment, hopefully with a lucrative return when they decide to capitalize their holdings and find a new company with which to repeat the process.

There is absolutely no reason not to enjoy the perks of the early stage of the customer acquisition process; the shareholders are subsidizing your product at no cost to you. But we shouldn't be surprised when the shareholders stop subsidizing and start squeezing their formerly pampered customers in the hopes of getting their money back (and more, of course).

This doesn't excuse unethical or abusive practices, but it does mean that, even without them, the experience of those early days probably wasn't going to last forever.

First, find a rock.

For anyone who feels this way after waking up from what should have been "enough" sleep, consider getting a home sleep test. Going from moderate sleep apnea to none was life-changing. If this is how you feel regularly, it doesn't necessarily have to be this way.

Because crystallography and solid state chemistry is the foundation of every modern convenience?

But it's also beautiful. If they've never heard of Bravais-Friedel-Donnay-Harker, then you can't really blame them for not knowing.

Is that the symbol for bleem?

HCP FTW.

Same here. I've come to the conclusion that, if I was unwilling to accept anyone that wasn't of the calibre of Carl Sagan to fill his shoes, I was probably going to wait a long time. I think Degrasse Tyson's advocacy for black scientists is admirable, as is his willingness to promote religious reconciliation. These weren't areas of focus for Sagan, but that's ok. They can be different people, even imperfect people, and maybe that's good.

Yeah, if that's what Johnny Cash was talking about, then what was Trent Reznor talking about?

It can be challenging to pick it out, but, if you read the article, the problem is "Transmission Capacity". This does not mean that energy supply is the problem, rather, that the power grid has a finite, limiting ability to transmit the power generated in one place to another place, far away.

It would be nice if this were not the case, as the construction of remote gigawatt-scale power plants would, as you suggest, solve this problem. However, adding more supply won't change the transmission capacity of the grid serving the utility, especially if the power generation is tens or hundreds of miles away from the demand centers.

One way to relieve the inevitable shortages is to upgrade the power lines and grid infrastructure. The core problems with this are that 1) it's expensive and 2) there's no good way to recoup the costs, as there would be with a plant. Accordingly, few people are eager to dump billions dollars into new grid infrastructure.

An alternative way is to provide power is to accelerate residential solar arrays. Residential PV generates large amounts of excess power that can be metered back into the grid immediately adjacent to neighbors who may not have solar power, but might need power for things like air conditioning during hot days. Crucially, the power for these consumers is being generated immediately adjacent to them, without encumbering the "transmission capacity" of the grid that the distant thermal plant needs to get their energy to the consumer.

Also, residential PV is purchased, installed, and insured by a private home owner at their own expense. Liability for loss or damage to the residential PV array is held by the homeowner, not the utility. As a result, the residential PV array is allowing the utility to sell more power to their customers without requiring that same utility to pay for an upgraded grid.

Residential PV should be viewed as a godsend for the thermal plants generating power that their grids can't transmit.

The first lines from Neuromancer by William Gibson. What a pleasant surprise.