skibidi

The conspiratorial thinking isn't helping your argument.

It's quite clear you haven't engaged with this topic outside of internet arguments. I sincerely hope you do some reading and learn more here - you clearly have the passion.

Until then, find someone else to harass.

You clearly didn't comprehend what I wrote. Educate yourself on this topic - not from forum arguments, but from TEA and policy papers.

For one, I said 'base load' generation isn't needed. Your thinking that is is means your thinking on the matter is 10 years out of date. If you insist base load is needed, then gas plants and carbon capture systems are far cheaper and faster to build.

You don't care, though, as you aren't seriously involved in the policy and just want to live in a world where you are right 🤷.

Base load is an outdated concept. It is cheaper, by an order of magnitude, to install surplus generation capacity using renewables and build storage to cover periods of reduced production.

Nuclear reactors actually make terrible 'base load' generation anyway, as large swings in output induce thermal cycling stress in their metal components AND the economics of these multi-billion dollar investments depend on running near max output at all times - otherwise the payback time from selling power will extend beyond the useful life of the plant.

The policy wonks shilling for nuclear are not being honest. The economics for these plants are terrible, they are especially terrible if The Plan (tm) is to use nuclear as a transition fuel to be replaced by renewables - as then they won't even reach break even. To say nothing of the fact that a solar installation in the US takes 6 months, while there have been two reactors under construction in Georgia for a decade...

50 years ago, nuclear was a great option. Today, it is too expensive, too slow to build, and simply unnecessary with existing storage technologies.

If y'all were really worried about base load power, you'd be shilling for natural gas peaker plants + carbon capture which has much better economics.

2020 was different from 2024. It was a very unique set of circumstances with an election in the middle of pandemic, with an incumbent who was never broadly popular, amidst utterly terrible economic conditions.

Still, Trump's base showed up, just as they did on Tuesday.

Biden had the benefit of all the unlikely voters not being able to ignore the country burning down around them, he got a lot of dissatisfied people who don't pay attention to politics to come out.

Harris didn't, she got the Dem base. People broadly dissatisfied at the state of things probably voted Trump since he isn't the incumbent.

Just how it works - voters don't have to be rational.

I really doubt double-digit millions of voters sat out because of Gaza.

Kamala's vote total is roughly in line with what would be expected looking at 2008, 2012, and 2016. The massive turnout in 2020 on the Dem side appears to be an abberation - it was unique circumstances with COVID and all that. On the Republican side, Trump ran slightly ahead of his 2020 performance, and well ahead of 2016.

It's basic electoral politics: Trump has succeeded at expanding his base of support and turning them out to vote reliably. The Democrats have not. No single issue is responsible for that.

You can blame protests or Gaza or third parties or whoever else you want - the truth remains that the Dem base from the Obama years is not large enough and not appropriately distributed to win an election against Trump's base; whatever else you think of the man, he has been very good at gaining and retaining support.

The momentum is the same, the impulse (and therefore forces) are very different. The bullet is propelled down the barrel gradually - the force is spread through the entire time it takes the bullet to travel the length of the barrel, the reaction forces are applied to the stock gradually, and spread over the area of contact between the shooter and the gun.

A bullet stopped by a vest/plate has a much larger impulse. The bullet needs to be stopped essentially immediately, rather than gradually slowed down over a length equivalent to a rifle barrel, otherwise it kills you. The force is also more concentrated, occuring over the cross-sectional area of the bullet, rather than over the entire contact surface with the rifle.

The issue isn't forwards, it is down.

You have a tungsten rod held in a clamp on a satellite in a nominally stable orbit. Releasing the clamp just means the tungsten rod is now in essentially the same nominally stable orbit as the satellite.

To deorbit it, you need to meaningfully change its velocity. As tungsten is very dense, that takes a lot of fuel. The more fuel that is used, the sooner the rod will hit the ground and the higher the angle.

Simply dropping it means you have to wait months or years for the orbit to naturally decay, a lot of energy will be lost to atmospheric friction, and there is little control over the impact point. Not exactly what you want in your WMD.

Dropping anything in orbit just means it is still in orbit.

You'd need a lot of fuel to deorbit that cube on a steep trajectory.

2000 Bezos or about 4x the GDP of the planet.

People just need to invest and stop blaming others for being broke SMH.

Invest one penny at 3% per year, who can't afford one penny? You'll have $68 billion in just one thousand years. Poverty is a choice.

Instead of looking at the number of closed plants, one should look at the sum of emissions

That was in the link I posted. Emissions are Currently at record highs.

Slowing growth isn't enough; we need significant, sustained, reductions in the very near future, and negative emissions and sequestering carbon in the medium term.

None of that is happening at a scale that would inspire optimism.

Building out more and more renewables doesn't mean anything if emissions aren't falling - and they aren't. Since 2021, nearly 4 full years, the world has closed less than 1% of active coal power plants.

The buildout of renewables has arrived hand-in-hand with an increase in total energy usage. The energy mix has improved greatly in favor of renewables, tons of CO2 per KWh is way down, unfortunately we just use more KWh so total emissions are still rising.

Everything in the meme is a leading indicator for positive change, which is wonderful, but the actual change needs to materialize on a rather short timetable. Stories about happy first derivatives don't count for much.

It depends on the type of fusion.

The easiest fusion reaction is deuterium/tritium - two isotopes of hydrogen. The vast majority of the energy of that reaction is released as neutrons, which are very difficult to contain and will irradiate the reactor's containment vessel. The walls of the reactor will degrade, and will eventually need to be replaced and the originals treated as radioactive waste.

Lithium/deuterium fusion releases most of its energy in the form of alpha particles - making it much more practical to harness the energy for electrical generation - and releases something like 80% fewer high energy neutrons -- much less radioactive waste. As a trade-off, the conditions required to sustain the reaction are even more extreme and difficult to maintain.

There are many many possible fusion reactions and multiple containment methods - some produce significant radioactive waste and some do not. In terms of energy output, the energy released per reaction event is much higher than in fission, but it is much harder to concentrate reaction events, so overall energy output is much lower until some significant advancement is made on the engineering challenges that have plagued fusion for 70+ years.