Yeah, and FUCKING WIND TURBINES are too dangerous to build offshore, but we’re gonna fasttrack experimental reactors.
I hate Republicans.
Next-gen nuclear reactors safe enough to skip full environmental reviews, says Trump admin
The Department of Energy says advanced nuclear reactor designs - many of which have so far existed mainly at the experimental, testing, or demonstration stage - generally pose limited environmental risk and can qualify for a streamlined environmental review for future projects. The DoE announced the "categorical exclusion" for …
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 09:21 GMT John Robson
But yeah, adopting the "move fast and break things" mindset on nuclear projects probably isn't wise.
It's not, but it's also probably not wise to have them wrapped in so much red tape that they can't happen. And at the moment the nuclear industry is quite effectively strangled with red tape - despite it being significantly safer than most other forms of electricity generation.
I've not read the proposal in detail, but given that the driving force behind it appears to be someone who thinks injecting disinfectant is a good idea - maybe there is a sensible middle ground?
-
-
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 21:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
I'm with you Ace2. Look at what happened to the Conservative party in the UK - they shat on their own lawn, people withheld their votes, a new (possibly less desirable, quasi-Trumpish, but certainly new) party invaded their space, and the Conservative party barely exists any more. If the orange felon continues on his current track then that'll be the future for the GOP.
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 23:15 GMT DS999
Nah, man. Those Republicans have shown us who they are, and I believe them
Yep, fuck them.
I've been a registered republican since 2000 but at this point I don't see myself voting for another republican for at least a decade and probably longer. They sided with a fascist, and that's unforgivable. I absolutely will NEVER for the rest of my life vote for anyone who supported Trump for even one millisecond after Jan. 6, and there is absolutely no "change of heart" or anything else they can say that would make me change my mind. I will definitely be looking into the past of anyone I feel is even slightly sus even if they are running as a democrat or other party. Luckily there is no way they can erase their tracks. The internet always remembers.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 00:17 GMT cyberdemon
> The internet always remembers.
Fake news! FAKE! The internet is demented. LIKE JOE BIDEN! And I demented it! Me and my great buddy at Meta! And Google! Google is GREAT! MAKE AMERICA GOOGLE AGAIN! Truth is what I say it is! Ignorance is Strength!
<Magic Roundabout theme tune plays, backwards>
-
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 22:35 GMT DS999
I never sided with fascism. I didn't support Trump in 2016. The republican party started moving away from me in 2008 when John McCain who I wholeheartedly supported in 2000 in his "maverick" run had to pretend to be a religious conservative to win the nomination in 2008. No problem, I thought, he will move back to the center once he wins the nomination. Then he chose Sarah Palin, and I knew I couldn't vote for him because he was totally co-opted by the religious nutjob wing of the party.
I've done what I could in primaries to try to push them back from the precipice, but they saw the orange idiot and thought "that's what I want" and jumped off the cliff.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 21:32 GMT Jou (Mxyzptlk)
USA needs a voting and election system change, so a third and fourth party can emerge. The "The party which wins, by even the slightest magrin per voter area, gets the seat" logic is flawed. The congress should be set up according to the percentages of votes, and not by who won a county.
The current system is okay for the "before telegraph" time, but even with the telegraphs it could have been adjusted. Today it is nonsense and does not reflect the people.
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 23:20 GMT DS999
We need either approval voting or ranked choice. The problem is that NEITHER major party wants to see that, because it will hurt them. My state actually made it illegal for cities/counties to use ranked choice voting. I guess they are preparing for when Trump croaks and the republican party fractures. They don't want people to have any alternative but to coalesce around the republican party if they want to avoid having a democrat in office.
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 00:00 GMT Someone Else
[...] the old, statesmanlike, rule of law, 'friends & allies' Republicans must still be out there, somewhere.
Yes, they're out there. These days, they call them "Democrats".
"...when not calling them "Socialists", "Communists", "Woke", and other claptrap that is the mainstay of the MAGAt vocabulary...
-
-
Friday 6th February 2026 14:34 GMT Alan Brown
Quite frankly, anything with water, sodium, lead-bismuth or CO2 in the core needs to be automatically denied. We know the downsides of all of these and they're unacceptable risks(+)
Ditto anything using enriched uranium - not because of the enriched uranium itself, but because that particular fuel is the unwanted waste product of weaponsmaking (weapons grade plutonium is made from depleted uranium and nobody makes U235 bombs because they cost hundreds of times more than plutonium ones) - IE: Enriched uranium reactors are a figleaf covering a weapons program, where you get 11% "reactor grade" uranium for power and 89% "highly depleted" uranium for bomb making.
We've had technology to build vastly cheaper, vastly safer, vastly less waste-producing nuclear reactors for 60 years and Nixon attempted to erase it from history in 1972 because widespread adoption would have put the nuclear weapons industry in danger (Hint: if it didn't work partucularly well, orders wouldn't have come down from On High to immediately shutdown the project and destroy all the documentation, nor would AEC rules have been rewritten to make that technology illegal to deploy in wording that skirted around explicitly saying "it's banned")
The economies of scaling on the non-nuclear side mean that anything smaller than 1GW power output isn't worth building, nor is anything that doesn't use supercritical steam for the turbines.
(Yes, I know about supercritical CO2, but it's not ready for mass deployment yet and rolling out TWO major technology changes at once is a recipe for financial disaster. In any case the sizing issue still stands as the only way to make the turbine side pay off is to make them as large as materials science allows them to be. If you could make reliable steam turbogenerators larger than ~1GW then that's exactly what the operators would do)
The USA has pissed away a 50-60 year lead in nuclear power in favour of oil politics/empire building (ironically, on a real "bed of sand") and the current leaders in reviving the tech are China (TMSR-LF1) - proving along the way that Weinberg's claims about directly using thorium as fuel (no reprocessing) and not needing reprocessing for intermediate actinides were both absolutely correct.
By the mid 2040s China will be _THE_ economic hyperpower and they'll have achieved it by breaking the politics of energy scarcity. There are six billion willing customers who will snap up production electrical generation plants even if the USA still manages to strongarm its "allies" into shunning it - they'll do it whilst reducing the global nuclear proliferation risk, for the simple reason that centriffuge farms will ONLY have a military use and no "dual use" justifications to cloud the issue.
Weinberg developed both LWR and LFTR technology, regarding the former as a laboratory glassware demonstrator. He was horrified when a small submarine size steam generator was scaled up to Rube-Goldberg sizes and complexities instead of pursuing the safer option that doesn't face exponentially (actually, cube-law) increasing engineering stresses as power scales up. The hideous costs of building civil nuclear power are largely driven by costs of needing a 3000MW steam boiler which can operate without maintenance for 60 years AND a building strong enough to contain a steam burst wrapped around that boiler. Whilst the hideous operating costs are largely down to internal corrosion (eg: Besse-Davis 2003(*)) and excessive steam turbine wear due to only being able to make wet steam. The horrible thermal efficiency plays into it too but it's minor compared to these two. Prolonged maintenance/refuelling downtimes don't help.
The best way for private industry to profit from LWR is never to turn them on. That's the primary reason why so many USA projects have gone vastly overbudget and behind schedule.
(*) Water at 350C and 100atm isn't benign. It's a demon trying to claw its way out of the pipework and destroy things at the best of times. Trace radioactivity from fuel rod corrosion and tritium generation is merely icing on that cake.
(+) Water - we've seen several examples. Sodium - see Santa Susanna and Monju. Lead-bismuth - see Alfa class nuke boats (polonium generated in the coolant loop, subsequently contaminating the reactor room is enough to ruin anyone's day, not to mention the biohazard of lead vapors). CO2 - see the various leaks from gas-cooled reactors.
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 20:09 GMT Eclectic Man
Approval not rejection
The clear intention here is speed up approval of new Nuclear Reactor designs, not to speed up a rigorous and valid assessment process.
How long does it take to fly to New Zealand?
(Aside: I have just noticed the complete absence of any icon depicting the natural world in the Register's selection. Interesting. The 'won't someone think of the children' icon being the closest I could find to the sentiment I wish to express.)
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 20:40 GMT chivo243
Re: Approval not rejection
Too long for me, I'm almost on the farthest point from NZ on the planet. My antipode location puts me near Australia. https://mapscaping.com/antipode-finder/
By the time I get there, it will be overcrowded.
Sad face for my kid, what a crappy world we're leaving for them.
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 21:59 GMT Bluck Mutter
we only allow the best and brightest to emigrate to NZ...
For example, that extraordinary citizen of the world and outstanding individual Peter Thiel is a now New Zealand citizen. In fact NZ is a popular destination for rich "preppers".
James Cameron just become a NZ citizen and given how crap his recent movies are I probably prefer Peter Thiel.
So I hope you are of a similar standard else it ain't gonna happen for you.
On the upside, we are so far away from everyone else and such a small population that all the crap that other locales suffer (amazon warehouses/drone delivery, data center expansion, nuclear power, fracking etc) doesn't happen here plus we are one of those nasty Social Democracies which abandoned "first past the post" for MMP (Mixed member proportional), have very strong campaign contribution laws (with tiny maximum dollar limits) and are always ranked in the top three countries in the world for government transparency and lack of corruption.
Just a shame our Rugby team sucks... but at least the cancer of Razor has been removed...so there is some hope for the patient to recover but maybe not in time to get steamrolled by the Bokkie 4-0 during this years SA tour.
Bluck
-
Friday 6th February 2026 14:47 GMT Alan Brown
Re: we only allow the best and brightest to emigrate to NZ...
> NZ is a popular destination for rich "preppers".
What those rich preppers fail to realise is that in the event of a national emergency the government will thank them for stockpiling goods and requisition the lot. NZ has rather strict rules about firearm possession and control, particularly the kinds of weaponry that appeals to preppers, so those bunkers aren't going to be partucularly defendable and the fastest way to deal with the armadillo position is to cover the air intakes with a mound of earth.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 00:39 GMT Gary Stewart
Re: Approval not rejection
Over 12 hours not including a flight to and stopover in LA because there were no direct flights from the Dallas Fort Worth Airport when I went there in the 1980's. Unfortunately it was a business trip although I did enjoy flying business class on Qantas which included access to their first class lounge. Still think about going back just for fun.
-
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 20:29 GMT Duncan Macdonald
Highly enriched fuel
The smaller a nuclear reactor is, the higher the enrichment of the fuel needs to be (due to neutron loss at the edge of the core).
A large gas cooled reactor (such as the old british Magnox design) can run on non-enriched fuel (0.7% U235).
Small water cooled reactors (such as the ones in nuclear submarines) need highly enriched urainium (from 20% U235 up to 95% U235)
Highly enriched urainium is a terrorists dream target.
This icon seems apt ============>
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 21:21 GMT thames
Re: Highly enriched fuel
That is nonsense. The first Magnox natural uranium reactors output 60 MW of electrical power. This is in micro-reactor range, never mind SMR (the Rolls Royce SMR is close to 500 MW of output) and definitely not "large".
The first Canadian power generating reactor was the NPD-2, built as a demonstration plant. It used natural uranium and generated 20 MW of power. This was the prototype for the CANDU series of natural uranium reactors.
French nuclear submarines use uranium enriched to 7%, which is not far above commercial power reactors. American submarines may use highly enriched uranium, but there is no technical reason relating to reactor size requiring it.
Most SMR designs use normal commercial fuel such as is used in larger reactor today.
Some SMRs use uranium enriched to just below 20% (which is still far below bomb grade). This is generally done in order to make the reactor smaller as the more concentrated fuel will output the same power in a smaller volume. This is typically done so they can transport the reactor in one piece within normal shipping dimensions.
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 23:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Highly enriched fuel
> The first Magnox natural uranium reactors output 60 MW of electrical power. This is in micro-reactor range, never mind SMR (the Rolls Royce SMR is close to 500 MW of output) and definitely not "large".
That first Magnox would be the Calder Hall 1 in 1956, yes? Outputting 50MW, along with its three brethren and the four 49MW units at Chapel Cross - the prototype units that were built to demonstrate feasibility and all being "large" in the terms of the day. Leading to a series of larger builds to reach the 'proper' scale of Magnox with the 490MW builds at Wylfa in 1971. And they are certainly large in terms of physical plant (and time to build, even after the design was proved, which is something that the small designs *hope* to improve upon, when they get there).
Unsurprisingly, a project that began a bit later than 1956, in 2015 IIRC, the Rolls Royce SMR, is *projected* to reach 500MW with smaller plant.
As for fuel enrichment required for specific designs and/or operational situations (being shipped in containers) will leave that one for others.
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 23:35 GMT Duncan Macdonald
Re: Highly enriched fuel - NOT Nonsense
The first Magnox was a prototype - the full size Magnox reactors (eg the ones that were at Oldbury) managed over 200MW electrical output.
CO2 or heavy water cooled reactors can manage with less enrichment than light water cooled ones due to not having so much neutron absorption.
Small research reactors (usually under 1MW - often pond cooled) need high enrichment because of the neutron losses at the edge and in the coolant
A reactor core needs to have enough reactive material (U235 or Pu239) to sustain a chain reaction - the smaller the core, the more concentrated the reactive material needs to be.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 13:10 GMT John Robson
Re: Highly enriched fuel - NOT Nonsense
Again - most SMRs use 5-20%, i.e. not highly enriched uranium.
There are other things you can do to increase reactivity - for instance increasing the neutron reflectivity of the jacket.
This is not highly enriched, and the gap between this and the stuff that actually matters for the "OMG think of the child terrorists" is absolutely massive.
-
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 12:12 GMT Jellied Eel
Re: Highly enriched fuel
Highly enriched urainium is a terrorists dream target.
Why? I know some Americans are desperate to get their hands on H&K MP7s, but the people carrying those and guarding nuclear facilities aren't just going to hand them over*. So ok, a reactor might have HEU fuel. But that would be sitting in an armoured container inside a reinforced building with several layers of security in and around those. But..
As Lyman noted, most of the ANR designs that the DoE wants to exempt are still in the development phase. Only a single pair of Generation III+ nuclear reactors has been constructed in the US, and those came online in 2023 and 2024, respectively, at the Vogtle nuclear power facility in Georgia
Lyman being an anti-nuclear zealot. But Vogtle built Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, and the AP1000 went through an extensive approval process, with the intent to be able to fast-track additional NPPs, if they used the same design. Which is also the SMR idea, ie get the paperwork done for say, RR's SMR and then churn those out without having to go through hideously expensive approvals processes every time we want to reinvent the wheel. It's also rather sad that the US (and UK) has so few new nuclear power stations, especially when places like S.Korea, China, Russia etc have been building Gen III+ and Gen IV reactors to provide lots of cheap electricity, whilst neo-luddites like Lyman & the UCS want us to tilt at windmills.
But then despite the UCS's grand sounding name, it'll let anybody join. Even Kenji Watts.. Anthony Watts' dog..
*Which is one potential issue around nuclear bit-barn campuses, ie providing people to do the FAFO thing and demonstrate that if you do try to steal nuclear materials, you're more likely to die from lead poisoning than radiation.
-
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 13:20 GMT Jellied Eel
Re: Highly enriched fuel
And noone needs 95% for power generation - not even the smallest proposed reactors.
I guess at some point, maybe we could. So limits on enrichment are mostly due to proliferation concerns and weapons development. But treaties are busily being torn up, and perhaps that will mean enrichment to higher levels and higher density fuel, ie my favorite XKCD-
https://xkcd.com/1162/
And possibly being resource efficient, ie enriching >20% means higher fuel efficiency. But then one of the most fascinating parts of nuclear power, so optimising the fuel cycle, breeding and reprocessing making nuclear energy pretty 'renewable' and sustainable. But plenty of power until we crack fusion and some fun future tech R&D in that respect. Like solving the 'Wot? No tritium?' problem by wrapping a deuterium fusion reactor in a fissile blanket and generating a whole lot of heat.. hopefully in a manageable and controllable fashion.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 14:16 GMT John Robson
Re: Highly enriched fuel
We could, but the effort required to get from 20% to 90% is significant - and 20% is already very capable as a reactor fuel, we just don't need to increase the concentration further for commerical reactors to be highly effective.
There's enough energy density here that reducing that energy density to 20% still results in several reams of paper...
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 15:04 GMT thames
Re: Highly enriched fuel
Civil grade uranium is limited to less than 20% enrichment. At 20% and above, this is considered to be military grade material and is more highly restricted. An actual bomb needs somewhere above 90%, the exact figures being a bit hard to come by.
This is why the highest enrichment level you see on civilian reactors, except for a handful of small, older research reactors, is less than 20% (e.g. typically 19.75%).
Typical light water moderated commercial power reactors use 3% to 5% for economic reasons. The third most common reactor type after PWR and BWR uses natural uranium at 0.7%. You don't need to enrich the uranium if you use a very efficient reactor design with a good moderator.
Plutonium has similar limits based on the different isotopes. The plutonium in spent fuel from commercial reactors is not suitable for making weapons as it does not have a high enough level of Pu-239 and unlike uranium, it is not practical to enrich plutonium. It can however be used as reactor fuel and there are a number of different fuel recycling technologies, depending on the reactor type it is to be used in. Weapons material is made in military reactors designed for the purpose. The first few Magnox reactors were actually military reactors which produced electric power as a byproduct.
-
Friday 6th February 2026 16:16 GMT Alan Brown
Re: Highly enriched fuel
To put in it context
Natural uranium (0.7% U235) and thorium are about $150/kg
3% enriched uranium is more expensive than gold (~65,000/kg)
90% enriched uranium is about $500M/kg
The only reason for using enriched uranium in terrestrial designs is because it's available as a byproduct of weaponsmaking. Given that in the absence of weapons demand you'd be tossing out 89% of your original uranium and pushing the price up 500-fold it makes more sense to design using 500kg of natural uranium instead of 1kg of 3% enriched
The original LWR design used enriched uranium because there were a few tens of tons of the stuff kicking around that uranium separation plants desperately wanted to get rid of - and it allowed building a reactor small enough to fit in a submarine hull. The design was regarded by its developer as a laboratory glassware demonstrator (which is why it has 98% wasteage and needs constant supervision), not a production prototype. It made steam because naval engineers in 1953 understood steam turbines intimately and it had to operate for weeks under ice, only being repaiarable with onboard tools.
LWR designs got locked in by a combination of commercial operators not wanting to invest a couple of billion in less wasteful designs and the military quickly realising that "dual use" and renaming processing sites to "enrichment facilities" provided a shield against limitation treaties
ALL enriched uranium designs are dependent on the weaponsmaking cycle for their fuel.
ALL solid fuel (fuel rod) designs are abusable to produce weapons-grade plutonium - even CANDU (which is how India managed to make its forst PU bomb)
LWR designs aren't hot enough to allow economic turbine operation. Wet steam is hell on turbine blades.
LWR reactors are giant steam boilers and the engineering stresses on boilers go up with the cube of the power. That drives up both reactor vessel costs and containment building requirements to untenable levels.
LWR reactors don't make "much" waste compared to coal, but it's still expensive to sequester for the ~500 years needed for the radioactivity to die off to negligable levels and at that point you have a serious problem inasmuch as that "spent" fuel has substantial quantities of plutonium in it which can be safely chemically extracted without needing hot boxes and waldos (plus, uranium and plutonium are nasty biological hazards. They're more dangerous in that respect than as radioactive sources)
Regardless of wet or supercritical steam, turbines need to be as large as materials technology allows (this applies to supercritical CO2 as well) in order to be profitable. Coal and gas fired plants are around the 1GW size for exactly the same reason that Nuke plants are around that size - economics
A 500MW "SMR" is a nice way of sucking subsidies for something that no commercial operator will touch with someone else's bargepole. On top of that nuclear reactors are like aquariums - the smaller they are the more fiddly they become to keep stable, so the idea of running multiple SMRs in parallel to feed GW-scale turbines just doesn't work economically.
The whole thing is a boondoggle which a decent accountant will shoot down unless the entire setup is heavily subsidised from start to finish
We're spending a lot of time, effort and money trying to perpetuate designs which were obsoleted 60 years ago by something smaller, cheaper, safer, hotter and which even in a worst case scenario can't spread high level radioactive materials more than a few metres from the reactor core, with cleanup mostly requiring "a broom" if it ever happens.
We're spending a lot more time, effort and money trying to avoid nuclear power - which even in LWR form is 300,000 times safer than burning coal and safer than best-case wind or solar whilst not needing crippling levels of investment in raw material production and massive (expensive) grid stabilisation systems to avoid repeats of the South Australia blackouts
Even sillier, the best fuel for the job (thorium) is readily available as the main waste product of rare earth processing - to the point that disposing of it is what makes rare earth mines uneconomic and a market for thorium would make those same mines insanely profitable (coal ash lakes have even higher thorium perecentages than monazite ore, making mining them a potentially self-funding superfund cleanup path). There's about 20,000 years supply of thorium in known existing deposits, but the perverse thing about "mineral reserves" is that they only exist if there's a market for the product - so there officially aren't any thorium reserves because there isn't any market for it.
China's cornered the rare earth global market by the simple expedient of buying up the thorium output of its domestic rare earth producers and stockpiling it in anticipation of their LFTR work paying off.
Concentrating on SMRs and uranium enrichment is playing into the deception games of the sideshow barkers and stage illusionists.
-
Monday 9th February 2026 13:32 GMT Jellied Eel
Re: Highly enriched fuel
Concentrating on SMRs and uranium enrichment is playing into the deception games of the sideshow barkers and stage illusionists.
I don't think SMRs are, if they meet the promise of standardised designs that can be approved and then mass produced. But we don't really seem to know the cost-benefit model of say, RR SMR vs say, approving and ordering 10x CANDU reactors that are tried & tested. Plus do neat things with nuclear alchemy to produce isotopes we need, or just recycle waste. But we need affordable, reliable energy now, and not adding a couple of GW a decade because our construction process is so much slower than say, S.Korea, or even Russia and China.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 05:20 GMT Not Yb
Re: NEPA
There is, very frequently, a bill introduced that consists mostly of "This bill teminates the Environmental Protection Agency." It's never passed, generally remains 'stuck in committee' forever, but it's always a Republican trying to get it on the calendar.
This has been on the Republican agenda since 2017, and probably earlier. H.R. 861 (115th Congress)
-
-
Friday 6th February 2026 18:18 GMT Jou (Mxyzptlk)
Re: NEPA
Most republican presidents did one or two things right. Reagen (+Thatcher) and chlorofluorocarbons. He, 'cause he already has skin cancer, and she 'cause of her scientific background. Does not really compensate all the other nonsense he did, and other presidents would probably have acted the same on those CFCs.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 21:16 GMT Jou (Mxyzptlk)
Dammit, I hope they choose the right location...
but please not where I know some good USA-ians live. And > 1000 km distance from them, and > 1000 km distance from the two borders. 'cause the typical "money first" priority, which is currently more than ever before, throws security down the drain. See USCSB for examples which companies could not hide.
Hmm, Oklahoma panhandle / North Texas, East-Wyoming. Though Texas just turned blue when I read the news right - but I am a bit too far away to tell, and it is a bit more complex for sure.
Mar-a-lago and Clearwater (Scientology City) are, sadly, out of question since both is too close to a few good I know...
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 21:32 GMT thames
Re: Dammit, I hope they choose the right location...
They are to be built at US nuclear research sites, which were mainly involved in the development and testing of nuclear weapons.
They will still undergo review. There are three categories of review, and "categorical exclusion" is one of them. Essentially, the Department of Energy will review the design and if they determine that the risk of the release of hazardous materials is small enough, then they don't have to go through the same review process used when it is assumed that hazardous materials may be released.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 00:45 GMT Gary Stewart
Re: Dammit, I hope they choose the right location...
The Pantex plant near Amarillo in the Texas panhandle is the primary facility in the US for assembling, disassembling, and maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile so there may be talent there. And in an interesting twist Texas is one of the largest producers of yucky woke green energy in the US. It's going to take a while for Texas to just turn purple (lots and lots or rural areas) although I think I see the (train head)light at the end of the tunnel.
-
Friday 6th February 2026 16:25 GMT Alan Brown
Re: Dammit, I hope they choose the right location...
Texas is blue already by voter numbers (~53%). It's red because of rampant gerrymandering and you can expect that to keep getting worse as the percentage of Democrat voters keeps increasing.
This applies to most red states BTW - which is why you see so many Republican state legislatures with Democrat governers
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th February 2026 00:26 GMT Fruit and Nutcase
He's roosting* over at the Daily Telegraph - along with Andrew Orlowski and Gareth Corfield...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/l/la-le/lewis-page/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/a/ak-ao/andrew-orlowski/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/g/ga-ge/gareth-corfield/
Vintage Lewis...
A400M, Eurofighter, Tornado: Euro defence collaboration means disaster. Will we ever learn?
Decades of bitter experience should warn the Prime Minister against partnerships with Continental nations
note: behind paywall
*once flown away from The Register, are they at least an honorary Vulture?
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
