Point of order, Kamala didn’t “lead” anything, she was chosen by party insiders of the clinton wing to take over.

Also Aljazeera has always been highly critical of the US, I started reading them fairly regularly in the mid 2000’s as they were one of the only outlets criticizing Bush. (I don’t think the intercept existed yet.)

High-school memories of extracting gunpower from bullets and making pipe-bombs. I also experimented with electronic detonators. Fun stuff and blossomed a life-long interest in chemistry. But yea really dangerous.

“America” doesn’t have plans. It’s just a bunch of senile dumbasses passing public money onto their biggest donors.

Iran has to worry about self-preservation since Israel absolutely will use nuclear weapons.

The hippies were the scapegoats, fossil fuel companies, the richest companies in the world from basically the 1880’s until the 1970’s, absolutely didn’t want nuclear power to succeed.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Yes it’s an Israeli line. (This was from like 20 years ago.)

I’m a network engineer and I run ipv6 natively in all of our datacenters. There are even a handful of end systems that have ipv6 native networking stacks with ipv4 sockets for our non-ipv6 compatible applications. IPv6 issues are basically self-inflicted at this point by companies that see their IT systems as cost centers, or by basilisk directors who’s knowledge stopped in the 90’s.

That’s the point. Obviously having an ever expanding underclass that can be exploited with no risk is preferable to paying workers more.

This is a false dichotomy. Employers can’t find the staff they need at the wages they are willing to pay. Immigrants are the scapegoat, not the solution.

Don’t be too hard on entity’s that have zionist bias’ as Zionism and propaganda surrounding Israel has been ever-present since at LEAST the 1950’s in America, and similar in Europe.

That would be good, but it should rampup exponentally the heavier the vehicle is. So say a 3000lb vehicle is 50% tax, a 6000lb vehicle should be MUCH higher, maybe 500% or so. Make it really worth while to reduce weight, which is of course the number one issue for the safety of people outside of the car.

Did you miss this?

Some numbers. This facility stores 1400MWh, on 2,000 acres or (~8,000,000 sq meters) Much greater then your 40,000sq meter estimate. Plus you said about 33GWh for a day. Well you’d need ~24 of these facilities to cover just Berlin.

You estimated 40,000sq meters, but that is off by a factor 2000. This is for a facility that actually exists. Theoretically it could be improved, but those theories aren’t being built right now. So based on a grid storage plant that actually exists, berlin would need 48,000 times more square meters dedicated to energy storage then you estimated and in any case, THEY DON’T EXIST and aren’t being built.

Your only argument here seems to be space and I don’t see that as a big problem. A few soccer fields worth of land distributed in the vicinity of each bigger city doesn’t seem like a lot to me.

It’s 1000x “a few soccer fields” for a city like Berlin, and we have zero other working grid level storage facilities in the world at that scale. The handful that do exist are <100MWh, and are meant for specific situations, not for powering 100% renewable cities. No one is building grid-level storage, it’s a pipe dream. But it’s pushed as a solution because the fossil fuel industry knows it will never happen, but what will happen is more fossil fuel plants will be built.

You’d be wrong then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station This is a Nuclear power plant in the middle of a desert so no large bodies of water near by, though obviously the design could be adapted to places where water was more plentiful.

It takes up 4000 acres (16,000,000 sq meters) Produces (not stores) 4GW (~32,000 GWHrs annually) For comparison, the US Produces 42400000 GWhrs annually. And it cost $14Billion in 2023 dollars

If I were to replace all of the US’s generating capacity with nuclear, fully shunning renewables. it would cost ~$19Trillion and take up 5.3million acres (which is the minimum amount of land that could be taken up by any currently existing power generation system https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source ). But no one wants to do that (although it would be amazing for the atmosphere). Instead we merely need to supplement renewables with base-load power, and we don’t actually need power storage at all.

The ideal ratio between renewable power and base-load power I do not know. But during the day in Texas in July it’s about 50% higher then at night. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915

So even if we assume renewables don’t work at night, base-load only needs to account for ~33% of total electric production at the worst case. Much more manageable then the ~6.5hrs/6TWhrs of energy storage required for a 100% renewable grid to function.

The tl;dr, is that while renewable powered storage is possible, the magnitude of storage required to eliminate base-load generation is VASTLY larger then anti-nuclear advocates realize, and not feasible today (or possibly ever). This belief stems from is fossil fuel propaganda, especially in Germany where the fossil fuel interests understand they have nothing to fear from renewables because a renewable heavye grid is only possible with fossil fuel plants and every year every nation burns more fossil fuels then they did the year before*, Germany included. It will stay that way until mass famine hits and the human population of the earth collapses, unless we stop burning fossil fuels. The only viable non-fossil fuel replacement for our large and growing baseload capacity is nuclear power.

*note that fossil fuels aren’t only used for energy production, transportation and shipping are huge areas as well.

Unfortunately your rough math misses a lot of the picture. This is where the gotcha comes in.

https://electrek.co/2022/10/19/the-worlds-largest-single-phase-battery-is-now-up-and-running/

That is a currently realized grid storage facility, the largest and really only one of it’s kind. Today’s renewables do not do storage at all, they rely on fossil fuels to make up the baseload.

Some numbers. This facility stores 1400MWh, on 2,000 acres or (~8,000,000 sq meters) Much greater then your 40,000sq meter estimate. Plus you said about 33GWh for a day. Well you’d need ~24 of these facilities to cover just Berlin.

So now the big question, how much energy storage will be needed in a >90% renewable grid? It’s obviously a difficult question based on a lot of factors, but one such estimate I found here: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/01/24/us-zero-carbon-future-would-require-6twh-of-energy-storage/ ~6TWhrs for the US or about 4300 of those facilities.

Yes it wouldn’t have to be monolithic like that facility is, but regardless of how you distribute it, it’s a non-trivial amount of space taken up. Totally ignoring the costs, and sourcing the materials for the batteries of such facilities.

But just for fun that facility was ~$550M So you’d need to spend about $2.3T for the initial building of that storage.

It’s just the base-level unit I’m using to demonstrate the scale required. You can use any other number you want, but we need to multiply by the number of people and the amount of stored energy required for them.

Wind and sun will always supply a base level of energy.

That is objectively false. The sun doesn’t shine at night, and wind doesn’t blow 100% of the time. So logically there is some amount of time that you do not get a base load provided only by sun and wind. Hence the need for storage at all. And yes it is a gotcha question, because it’s something that anti-nuclear people hand-wave away as if the significant storage infrastructure to support a 100% renewable is just a rounding error, and not worth thinking about.

That happens literally every night though and wind also doesn’t blow 100% of the time. There are significant amounts of time where the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. The current solution to this issue that is used all around the world are fossil fuels. Renewables make up a trivial* amount of power production compared to fossil fuels, and as we phase out fossil fuels, the requirement for energy storage is going up drastically.

*<30% by 2030 is the prediction by the EIA

I’ll accept your math. So now in-order to solve america’s storage problem to convert to a 100% renewable grid, we just need to build (Population of the US) / (Population of NYC) = 340million / 8million = ~43 Hoover dams. Do you think that is maybe a non-trivial problem to solve?

Don’t forget that we also need the ~250sq miles of reservoir space for each dam. (technically it’s the volume that is important, but for reservoirs you are often limited by surface area because of the topology required)