11 ms·

Filling Nuclear Power's $5T Hole Is Beyond the Banks

35 points by guerby 3y ago

guerby 3y ago
https://archive.is/0dh6E https://archive.is/0dh6E
pfdietz 3y ago
This is just showing how late in the day it is for nuclear power. The putative green meanies barely have to lift a finger, nuclear is staggering so much.
- rayiner 3y ago
  The “green meanies” have been working in this for 60 years and already won. And they cost us half a century of progress on decarbonization in the process. What’s too late is decarbonization based on wind and solar. If everyone in the developed world had taken the same approach as France in the 1960s, the developed world would emit so little CO2 that the entire developing world could afford to come up to the same standard within the same total CO2 budget as today. We would have a decades longer runway to decarbonize the other aspects of the economy—construction, transport, etc. Instead, what’ll happen now is that developed countries will take until 2040 or longer just to decarbonize their grids, and developing countries will cause global CO2 emissions to blow by every target on the way to a 4C increase in average temperature.
  - j-pb 3y ago
    I always find that argument flawed, because we could also have started investing much earlier into renewables too. Carter installed solar panels at the white house, Reagan tore them down. Wind turbines today don't have that much magic sauce and could have been developed much earlier. Let's not kid ourselves, Nuclear Plants are mediocre as a carbon-fee energy source, but really great if you want a nuclear arsenal, and france wanted one.
    - janmalec 3y ago
      I know this is the internet but you have no idea what are you talking about. Nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear arsenal as the spent fuel from modern reactor is not viable weapons material. There are many countires that have peacefull nuclear power programmes and no nuclear weapons and there are also countries that heave nuclear weapons or even their own nuclear weapon program, but no nuclear power. France has nuclear because oil was expensive and they didn't have many other alternatives like the Germans.
      - Kon5ole 3y ago
        >Nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear arsenal That's not true. Once you have the expertise and infrastructure to handle nuclear fuel and waste you can also relatively easily reprocess the fuel to create weapon-grade material. It's certainly much harder if you start with solar panels and wind turbines! :) Likewise if you have the facilities needed to create nuclear weapons, it makes sense to make some money on the side making electricity as well.
      - j-pb 3y ago
        __modern__ reactors are build to be rarely opened and burn off as much plutonium as possible. But that's obviously not how the french nuclear program started. Only doing nuclear research for military purposes is frowned upon by your neighbours and makes you look suspicous, and only having a civilian program is super complex and expensive and doesn't even make you untouchable. Luckily building the infrastructure for a nuclear arsenal goes hand in hand with building the infrastructure for civilian uses, so you have a buy one, get one free situation. >> The National Assembly approved the initial nuclear energy plan for a five-year term on July 24, 1952. The plan sought to build two experimental reactors at the Marcoule nuclear site, and construction began in 1955. Shortly thereafter, the construction of a third reactor commenced. In addition to generating electricity, these reactors would produce plutonium in sufficient quantities to support a civil advanced reactor program and potentially a military one, at a cost three times lower than highly enriched uranium.[69][70][71] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_France%27s_civil_nuclear_program#The_deployment_of_the_nuclear_program_(1952-1969) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_France%27s_civil_nu... >> In 1957 Euratom was created, and under cover of the peaceful use of nuclear power the French signed deals with West Germany and Italy to work together on nuclear weapons development.[18] The Chancellor of West Germany Konrad Adenauer told his cabinet that he "wanted to achieve, through EURATOM, as quickly as possible, the chance of producing our own nuclear weapons". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_des...
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > And they cost us half a century of progress on decarbonization in the process. They also likely prevented more Chernobyls and Fukushimas. Whether that was a net gain is something that can be debated, of course.
    - palata 3y ago
      From my point of view, both those events did not have catastrophic outcomes. Also Chernobyl is a special case (nobody makes similar reactors, so it's not like it's an existing risk in every plant). Everything has an impact on the environment, you won't find a silver bullet here. But you have to compare the solutions. Fossil fuels are orders of magnitude worse than nuclear, even considering a Chernobyl once in a while.
- fulafel 3y ago
  Nuclear on the other hand cost "green meanies" a lot in that it sucked massive energy R&D investments and subsidies away from renewables since the 1940s, otherwise we'd had cheap solar and wind decades earlier and we could have fought the climate catastrophe much earlier.
irfwashere 3y ago
[flagged]
- bawolff 3y ago
  I always feel like these sorts of sentiments are a bit reductive. Citizens benefit a lot from not being on the losing side of a war.
  - vegabook 3y ago
    They benefit even more by not serially starting wars all over the world in the first place.
    - fabian2k 3y ago
      Which wars did Europe start recently?
      - irfwashere 3y ago
        Libya and Afghanistan?
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    do not discount the addictive qualities of endless budget. The same motivations are replayed again and again, with train loads of money attached, without ceasing over years. But the markets today have evolved -- budgets are used to purchase goods and services from companies.. that benefits the government that pays them, the immediate employees, and sometimes the general public. There has never been a time with so many people, and so few wars, relatively speaking. Why increase budgets? Why operate at an increasing loss each year waiting for giant monetary rescue? The reasons are as old as human failing, and as obvious as poor systems design, sometimes. Its a thousand roller coasters running without synchronizing, it seems.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      I'm not saying that every single dollar spent on defense is a dollar well spent. There are tons of priorities that governments have to chose between. All i'm saying is that citizens of a particular country do get some benefits out of appropriate defense spending, depending on the geopolitical situation.
louwrentius 3y ago
~~I admit to not reading the article as I don't have access.~~ (I read the article as I found a working link elsewhere) Still, I think nuclear is just not viable anymore. Here in The Netherlands for instance, we have quite a few days where energy prices are negative due to an (over) abundance of solar and wind energy. A commercial nuclear power plant is out of the question, as it won't be price competitive with wind or solar. So tax payers will have to foot the bill anyway. I'd rather foot the bill for something more economical, battery storage and other solutions. The 'real' problems we face in The Netherlands is that our grid can't be expanded fast enough to deal with increased wind and solar production. Yes, yes, wind and solar are intermittent and that's something that we have to deal with somehow. However, for the price of a nuclear powerplant (or four) you can buy ungodly amounts of battery storage that we very likely can do without nuclear. >The International Atomic Energy Agency convened a summit to build momentum for a low-emissions technology that many expect will be critical for hitting climate targets. A group of mostly Western countries pledged to triple nuclear generation by 2050. But lenders balked at the eyewatering cost of doing so. Why aren't lenders jumping at the opportunity? >Projects in Western economies have been plagued by construction delays and ballooning costs in recent decades. The newest reactor in the European Union — Olkiluoto 3 in Finland — started generating power last year, more than a decade late and three times over budget. That explains things yes. >“We need state involvement, I don’t see any other model,” Ostros said. “Probably we need quite heavy state involvement to make projects bankable.” If the state would be involved, please put the money in something else. Something better.
- jmspring 3y ago
  Here in the US, especially in western states, there are remote area where large solar arrays, nuclear could be placed away from things, etc. However, like you mention, infrastructure takes time. California is trying to mandate a high percentage of electric vehicles in a timeframe where they will not be able to keep up with electricity demand. We already have notorious brownouts when it's too hot, etc. Our electric providers have taken profits over infrastructure maintenance. Improving and expanding the infrastructure will take decades.
  - 3y ago
7952 3y ago
In large energy projects the bank or funder tends to take all the risk. If the project doesn't make enough energy the developer will go out of business and the bank will be left with an underperforming asset. And possibly a liability that would require deconstruction and maintenance. Of course they are going to be cautious.
- voisin 3y ago
  > In large energy projects the bank or funder tends to take all the risk. It’s almost like there should be a public institution that does things like this that are for society, with society taking the risks and getting the rewards. For ease, we could call it “government”.
  - neon5077 3y ago
    Ah, but how can politicians personally profit from this? It'll never happen
  - gotoeleven 3y ago
    And then it will never get done because its on spotted ring-tailed banana slug migratory pathway over an indian burial ground.
  - 7952 3y ago
    Yes I agree that it makes sense for energy generation to be in public ownership. Although they still have to make a business case that it will actually deliver rewards. And be mindful of the costs associated with a dangerous liability. And in most countries it will be money that comes straight from debt. The truth is that neither government or business have been that good at making these kind of decisions. I think the low recourse debt approach has some merits in that an institution is really forced to put skin in the game. And that due diligence is an integral part of making decisions. A nuclear power station that could be funded by a bank would probably be a pretty good design.
    - rayiner 3y ago
poutine 3y ago
There's no such thing as a low energy rich country. Making energy expensive risks dooming Europe to poverty and eventual conquest.
- stavros 3y ago
  We can solve the problem by continuing to burn fossil fuels, then there'll be nothing left to conquer.
  - wakawaka28 3y ago
    Shutting down life as we know it is not a realistic solution, no matter how much you whine about it. Everything except subsistence farming now requires fossil fuels. It is not strategically possible for everyone to go back to that without massive depopulation. If the elites really believed this was necessary to save the planet, they would murder most of the world's population. I can't say that isn't in the cards, but it isn't obviously happening. You should be glad that people with more information and power than us do not believe the worst-case scenario crap they push on the masses.
instagib 3y ago
“China and Russia are building the most reactors. But their state-owned model of development is at odds with the European and US emphasis on private capital. That will likely need to change if Western economies want to maintain nuclear’s market share.“ The government or a wealthy investment group would need to subsidize building and cover significant cost overruns to make a private nuclear power plant financially viable for banks to invest in them in the future. Their models fail because recent plants are years late to finish and up to billions over budget. Or make it state owned and eventually prove it to be profitable for them to divest from renewables. “The newest reactor in the European Union — Olkiluoto 3 in Finland — started generating power last year, more than a decade late and three times over budget. Similarly in the US, Southern Co.’s Vogtle facility came in seven years behind schedule and $16 billion over estimates.“
- bhc 3y ago
  I find it strange these types of articles never mention UAE's Barakah nuclear power plant (which did not source reactors from a nation unfriendly to the U.S.) and experienced only 4 year delay from the originally projected commercial operation start date and relatively limited cost overruns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
  - simfree 3y ago
    Using slave and indentured servitude labor certainly helps UAE contain costs!
    - neglesaks 3y ago
      Nice banger comment that doesn't address the lower cost imposed of regulatory tripwires.
      - mschuster91 3y ago
        Regulatory red tape often comes with very good reasons, particularly regarding safety. Authoritarian regimes don't need to concern themselves with such pesky things as nature protection or people dying in accidents, especially if the workers are basically modern slaves. If you want an example for what happens when you cut corners in nuclear, just look at Sellafield (UK) or La Hague (France). This shit is why regulations are so tight, and yet even that didn't prevent people from cutting corners which is why a lot of France's nuclear power plants were down for safety maintenance (corroded pipes) last summer, made worse by the drought that forced a lot of the remaining NPPs out of operation.
doubloon 3y ago
its funny because in 2008 we gave the bankers 2 trillion dollars to save their industry. regardless of my personal opinions on nuclear it is just a bit too ironic the way this article is worded. maybe we could package up nuclear power into bonds, sell them to people making minimum wage, then bundle those bonds into collateralized debt obligations, then create credit default swaps against different tranches of those CDOs, then we could bundle credit default swaps into a new security and call it a Synthetic CDO, then we could make Synthetic CDOs out of other Synthetic CDOs, then we could bring back Alan Greenspans ghost through an AI machine and he could get on stage at Davos and say there is no bubble in nuclear bonds and there is no such thing as fraud. Then the banks could sell these securities to pension funds of school teachers and firefighters as 100% safe investments, take huge fees, then also buy credit default swaps against these same securitie. Then the banks CEOs could all get 500 million dollar severance package. Do you think the bankers would go for that?
- voisin 3y ago
  Yes, I believe the bankers would go for that. This is, unfortunately, the most practical solution.
up2isomorphism 3y ago
If you want to transition into new energy, the most important thing is to keep current energy structure stable while you graduate replacing the old ones. Europe is doing a horrible job on this mostly because the the politicians are bad at thinking anything sophisticated. Of course I am not saying US is any better.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
neglesaks 3y ago
That's a clickbait headline.

35 points by guerby 3y ago

https://archive.is/0dh6E https://archive.is/0dh6E

This is just showing how late in the day it is for nuclear power. The putative green meanies barely have to lift a finger, nuclear is staggering so much.

rayiner 3y ago
The “green meanies” have been working in this for 60 years and already won. And they cost us half a century of progress on decarbonization in the process. What’s too late is decarbonization based on wind and solar. If everyone in the developed world had taken the same approach as France in the 1960s, the developed world would emit so little CO2 that the entire developing world could afford to come up to the same standard within the same total CO2 budget as today. We would have a decades longer runway to decarbonize the other aspects of the economy—construction, transport, etc. Instead, what’ll happen now is that developed countries will take until 2040 or longer just to decarbonize their grids, and developing countries will cause global CO2 emissions to blow by every target on the way to a 4C increase in average temperature.
- j-pb 3y ago
  I always find that argument flawed, because we could also have started investing much earlier into renewables too. Carter installed solar panels at the white house, Reagan tore them down. Wind turbines today don't have that much magic sauce and could have been developed much earlier. Let's not kid ourselves, Nuclear Plants are mediocre as a carbon-fee energy source, but really great if you want a nuclear arsenal, and france wanted one.
  - janmalec 3y ago
    I know this is the internet but you have no idea what are you talking about. Nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear arsenal as the spent fuel from modern reactor is not viable weapons material. There are many countires that have peacefull nuclear power programmes and no nuclear weapons and there are also countries that heave nuclear weapons or even their own nuclear weapon program, but no nuclear power. France has nuclear because oil was expensive and they didn't have many other alternatives like the Germans.
    - Kon5ole 3y ago
      >Nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear arsenal That's not true. Once you have the expertise and infrastructure to handle nuclear fuel and waste you can also relatively easily reprocess the fuel to create weapon-grade material. It's certainly much harder if you start with solar panels and wind turbines! :) Likewise if you have the facilities needed to create nuclear weapons, it makes sense to make some money on the side making electricity as well.
    - j-pb 3y ago
      __modern__ reactors are build to be rarely opened and burn off as much plutonium as possible. But that's obviously not how the french nuclear program started. Only doing nuclear research for military purposes is frowned upon by your neighbours and makes you look suspicous, and only having a civilian program is super complex and expensive and doesn't even make you untouchable. Luckily building the infrastructure for a nuclear arsenal goes hand in hand with building the infrastructure for civilian uses, so you have a buy one, get one free situation. >> The National Assembly approved the initial nuclear energy plan for a five-year term on July 24, 1952. The plan sought to build two experimental reactors at the Marcoule nuclear site, and construction began in 1955. Shortly thereafter, the construction of a third reactor commenced. In addition to generating electricity, these reactors would produce plutonium in sufficient quantities to support a civil advanced reactor program and potentially a military one, at a cost three times lower than highly enriched uranium.[69][70][71] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_France%27s_civil_nuclear_program#The_deployment_of_the_nuclear_program_(1952-1969) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_France%27s_civil_nu... >> In 1957 Euratom was created, and under cover of the peaceful use of nuclear power the French signed deals with West Germany and Italy to work together on nuclear weapons development.[18] The Chancellor of West Germany Konrad Adenauer told his cabinet that he "wanted to achieve, through EURATOM, as quickly as possible, the chance of producing our own nuclear weapons". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_des...
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > And they cost us half a century of progress on decarbonization in the process. They also likely prevented more Chernobyls and Fukushimas. Whether that was a net gain is something that can be debated, of course.
  - palata 3y ago
    From my point of view, both those events did not have catastrophic outcomes. Also Chernobyl is a special case (nobody makes similar reactors, so it's not like it's an existing risk in every plant). Everything has an impact on the environment, you won't find a silver bullet here. But you have to compare the solutions. Fossil fuels are orders of magnitude worse than nuclear, even considering a Chernobyl once in a while.
fulafel 3y ago
Nuclear on the other hand cost "green meanies" a lot in that it sucked massive energy R&D investments and subsidies away from renewables since the 1940s, otherwise we'd had cheap solar and wind decades earlier and we could have fought the climate catastrophe much earlier.

irfwashere 3y ago

[flagged]

bawolff 3y ago
I always feel like these sorts of sentiments are a bit reductive. Citizens benefit a lot from not being on the losing side of a war.
- vegabook 3y ago
  They benefit even more by not serially starting wars all over the world in the first place.
  - fabian2k 3y ago
    Which wars did Europe start recently?
    - irfwashere 3y ago
      Libya and Afghanistan?
- mistrial9 3y ago
  do not discount the addictive qualities of endless budget. The same motivations are replayed again and again, with train loads of money attached, without ceasing over years. But the markets today have evolved -- budgets are used to purchase goods and services from companies.. that benefits the government that pays them, the immediate employees, and sometimes the general public. There has never been a time with so many people, and so few wars, relatively speaking. Why increase budgets? Why operate at an increasing loss each year waiting for giant monetary rescue? The reasons are as old as human failing, and as obvious as poor systems design, sometimes. Its a thousand roller coasters running without synchronizing, it seems.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    I'm not saying that every single dollar spent on defense is a dollar well spent. There are tons of priorities that governments have to chose between. All i'm saying is that citizens of a particular country do get some benefits out of appropriate defense spending, depending on the geopolitical situation.

louwrentius 3y ago

~~I admit to not reading the article as I don't have access.~~ (I read the article as I found a working link elsewhere) Still, I think nuclear is just not viable anymore. Here in The Netherlands for instance, we have quite a few days where energy prices are negative due to an (over) abundance of solar and wind energy. A commercial nuclear power plant is out of the question, as it won't be price competitive with wind or solar. So tax payers will have to foot the bill anyway. I'd rather foot the bill for something more economical, battery storage and other solutions. The 'real' problems we face in The Netherlands is that our grid can't be expanded fast enough to deal with increased wind and solar production. Yes, yes, wind and solar are intermittent and that's something that we have to deal with somehow. However, for the price of a nuclear powerplant (or four) you can buy ungodly amounts of battery storage that we very likely can do without nuclear. >The International Atomic Energy Agency convened a summit to build momentum for a low-emissions technology that many expect will be critical for hitting climate targets. A group of mostly Western countries pledged to triple nuclear generation by 2050. But lenders balked at the eyewatering cost of doing so. Why aren't lenders jumping at the opportunity? >Projects in Western economies have been plagued by construction delays and ballooning costs in recent decades. The newest reactor in the European Union — Olkiluoto 3 in Finland — started generating power last year, more than a decade late and three times over budget. That explains things yes. >“We need state involvement, I don’t see any other model,” Ostros said. “Probably we need quite heavy state involvement to make projects bankable.” If the state would be involved, please put the money in something else. Something better.

jmspring 3y ago
Here in the US, especially in western states, there are remote area where large solar arrays, nuclear could be placed away from things, etc. However, like you mention, infrastructure takes time. California is trying to mandate a high percentage of electric vehicles in a timeframe where they will not be able to keep up with electricity demand. We already have notorious brownouts when it's too hot, etc. Our electric providers have taken profits over infrastructure maintenance. Improving and expanding the infrastructure will take decades.
- 3y ago

7952 3y ago

In large energy projects the bank or funder tends to take all the risk. If the project doesn't make enough energy the developer will go out of business and the bank will be left with an underperforming asset. And possibly a liability that would require deconstruction and maintenance. Of course they are going to be cautious.

voisin 3y ago
> In large energy projects the bank or funder tends to take all the risk. It’s almost like there should be a public institution that does things like this that are for society, with society taking the risks and getting the rewards. For ease, we could call it “government”.
- neon5077 3y ago
  Ah, but how can politicians personally profit from this? It'll never happen
- gotoeleven 3y ago
  And then it will never get done because its on spotted ring-tailed banana slug migratory pathway over an indian burial ground.
- 7952 3y ago
  Yes I agree that it makes sense for energy generation to be in public ownership. Although they still have to make a business case that it will actually deliver rewards. And be mindful of the costs associated with a dangerous liability. And in most countries it will be money that comes straight from debt. The truth is that neither government or business have been that good at making these kind of decisions. I think the low recourse debt approach has some merits in that an institution is really forced to put skin in the game. And that due diligence is an integral part of making decisions. A nuclear power station that could be funded by a bank would probably be a pretty good design.
  - rayiner 3y ago

poutine 3y ago

There's no such thing as a low energy rich country. Making energy expensive risks dooming Europe to poverty and eventual conquest.

stavros 3y ago
We can solve the problem by continuing to burn fossil fuels, then there'll be nothing left to conquer.
- wakawaka28 3y ago
  Shutting down life as we know it is not a realistic solution, no matter how much you whine about it. Everything except subsistence farming now requires fossil fuels. It is not strategically possible for everyone to go back to that without massive depopulation. If the elites really believed this was necessary to save the planet, they would murder most of the world's population. I can't say that isn't in the cards, but it isn't obviously happening. You should be glad that people with more information and power than us do not believe the worst-case scenario crap they push on the masses.

instagib 3y ago

“China and Russia are building the most reactors. But their state-owned model of development is at odds with the European and US emphasis on private capital. That will likely need to change if Western economies want to maintain nuclear’s market share.“ The government or a wealthy investment group would need to subsidize building and cover significant cost overruns to make a private nuclear power plant financially viable for banks to invest in them in the future. Their models fail because recent plants are years late to finish and up to billions over budget. Or make it state owned and eventually prove it to be profitable for them to divest from renewables. “The newest reactor in the European Union — Olkiluoto 3 in Finland — started generating power last year, more than a decade late and three times over budget. Similarly in the US, Southern Co.’s Vogtle facility came in seven years behind schedule and $16 billion over estimates.“

bhc 3y ago
I find it strange these types of articles never mention UAE's Barakah nuclear power plant (which did not source reactors from a nation unfriendly to the U.S.) and experienced only 4 year delay from the originally projected commercial operation start date and relatively limited cost overruns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
- simfree 3y ago
  Using slave and indentured servitude labor certainly helps UAE contain costs!
  - neglesaks 3y ago
    Nice banger comment that doesn't address the lower cost imposed of regulatory tripwires.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      Regulatory red tape often comes with very good reasons, particularly regarding safety. Authoritarian regimes don't need to concern themselves with such pesky things as nature protection or people dying in accidents, especially if the workers are basically modern slaves. If you want an example for what happens when you cut corners in nuclear, just look at Sellafield (UK) or La Hague (France). This shit is why regulations are so tight, and yet even that didn't prevent people from cutting corners which is why a lot of France's nuclear power plants were down for safety maintenance (corroded pipes) last summer, made worse by the drought that forced a lot of the remaining NPPs out of operation.

doubloon 3y ago

its funny because in 2008 we gave the bankers 2 trillion dollars to save their industry. regardless of my personal opinions on nuclear it is just a bit too ironic the way this article is worded. maybe we could package up nuclear power into bonds, sell them to people making minimum wage, then bundle those bonds into collateralized debt obligations, then create credit default swaps against different tranches of those CDOs, then we could bundle credit default swaps into a new security and call it a Synthetic CDO, then we could make Synthetic CDOs out of other Synthetic CDOs, then we could bring back Alan Greenspans ghost through an AI machine and he could get on stage at Davos and say there is no bubble in nuclear bonds and there is no such thing as fraud. Then the banks could sell these securities to pension funds of school teachers and firefighters as 100% safe investments, take huge fees, then also buy credit default swaps against these same securitie. Then the banks CEOs could all get 500 million dollar severance package. Do you think the bankers would go for that?

voisin 3y ago
Yes, I believe the bankers would go for that. This is, unfortunately, the most practical solution.

up2isomorphism 3y ago

If you want to transition into new energy, the most important thing is to keep current energy structure stable while you graduate replacing the old ones. Europe is doing a horrible job on this mostly because the the politicians are bad at thinking anything sophisticated. Of course I am not saying US is any better.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

neglesaks 3y ago

That's a clickbait headline.