You need to go a little further - Brookfield is tied directly to the CCP with contracts for four new AP1000's in China signed last year. And Cameco, the other firm involved, supplies nuclear fuel to China.

These are Canadian companies financed by (and controlled by) the Chinese State.

China controls Westinghouse - the investment was to purchase the technology behind the Westinghouse AP1000 megawatt nuclear designs.

China bought out Westinghouse years ago specifically to acquire the Westinghouse AP1000 Megawatt nuclear plant designs. The nuclear division is held entirely by the CCP.

This does not seem like a deal that benefits the nation or could ever be trusted on a national security level.

Surely there are US companies licensed to build these facilities.

Water is the single most common molecule in the universe. It's literally everywhere. It's presence does not connote a habitable zone, even in liquid form. The pressures, the high salinity / alkalinity, the lack of sunlight, the intense radiation all make it a lethal area for anything approaching an amino acid.

These moons are orbiting in a sea of organics from the planet itself. Methane, ammonia, an abundance of hydrocarbons. To have traces of these compounds erupting is expected.

There are too many ifs and maybes in this. It's not enough to "maybe" harbor an environment that "might" support primitive life, there needs to be a mechanism in place for that life to have evolved in the first place and there is nothing in that moons history to support that possibility.

Organic compounds exist everywhere in the universe - including lifeless asteroids. It's a consequence of physical chemistry not biological activity and is no indicator of a location being in any way habitable.

Should have gone to trial regardless of the payout if there was criminal action on the part of those executives. It's time corporate heads stopped being shielded by shareholder dollars.

These reactors were shutdown because of irrational anti nuclear protests, not because they were unsafe.

Oh for the love of... give it a rest. The only reason nuclear is expensive is because of irrational fear mongering and uneducated politicians over burdening the industry with unnecessary regulations.

I hate to break it to ya, but we already have thousands of nukes. And commercial reactors are not used for breeding weapons grade material in any event.

Nuclear is far from unprofitable if you're talking about reactivating existing plants. The majority of the expense has already occurred. And god knows Germany is going to need the power with Russia diverting their NG to China in the next few years.

Germany's recent peak power production was around 650 TW but as of last year that was down to 500 TW. Coal and Lignite have always been "fillers" so it makes sense that such a steep reduction in power production would cut those dirty sources first.

The recent push to restart their nuclear reactors would put the final stake in the heart of coal.

> The challenge lies in recovery," Holley said. "It's like getting salt out of bread doughâ"we need to do a lot more research, development and policy to make the recovery of these critical minerals economically feasible."

Just because a mineral exists in tailings doesn't mean it's in any way economically reasonable to recover it. This is a geologist pointing out that research needs to be done to make these recovery processes more efficient, and he's right. But the headline is all wrong.

England is 150 miles across at it's smallest (and closer to 400 miles at it's longest). Most deep water is very far from the coast.

And the water table itself can be anywhere from 6 feet to 200 feet, which honestly isn't that deep.

Well since the reservoirs are at 67% capacity, I'd say all they need is another good rainfall to add another 33%.