Thanks for the explanation.

I agree with you about the need for distributed power sources. But maybe there would still be situations where such a large amount of power would make sense if it was feasible and economical. Aluminum smelters already have their own GW power stations.

The financing issues for fission reactors may be related to the problems of long term storage of large amounts of waste. Unfortunately too many people may simply have the idea that "nuclear" means bad.

The real irony is how much money is spent on research into better ways to kill other people, and in actually doing so.

I do not understand the compulsion of people to endlessly and vehemently complain about the impossibility of perfectly sound concepts

Maybe try talking to the guy who says the following

Tokamak fusion is not, and will never produce economical power, even if it works

(emphasis mine) Maybe he can explain it to you.

Maybe you'll claim that it's not a sound concept, but there are quite a few experimental reactors that exist now.

I like SABRE, I also like Tokamak. Will either one actually succeed? I don't know, but you seem to be making the same sort of complaints that you talk about.

You're right. Water has a high heat of vaporization. The amount of energy required to vaporize a given amount of water is close to 5 times the amount of energy that would be required to heat that same amount of water from 0 C to 100 C.

So think of it as being a bit like taking the amount of water in the condensate, heating that to 500 C* and adding it to your beer. (* heating to that temperature without vaporizing)

It does seem a bit funny to emphasize moving "individual atoms" when they are really molecules. I think manipulating a two element molecule is just as impressive, but why not just say that so as to be correct?

The first thing that struck me while watching the video is that many of the "atoms" appear to be a pair of dots, although one is much less prominent. I would have expected an atom to appear as a single dot. They say that you can only see the oxygen atoms, that the carbon atoms are "off screen". I wonder if the second dot is actually the carbon atom partially on screen.

Just think about it, it makes sense.

1. You use toothpaste to remove bad stuff from your teeth, like plaque.
2. Plaque also occurs in your arteries where it can block them, becoming a danger to your health.
3. Something blocking the tubes creating a danger to someone's health.
4. Sim City!

I'm pretty sure western spy agencies have access to much better tools than Google Earth. You probably could claim that Google Earth is a produce of tools for western spy agencies. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with Google Earth.

... we will put a kind of information on our website that would take people of the world towards reality

Wouldn't it be much simpler to just point out what part of Google Earth does not represent reality?

It's Schrodinger's war: neither peace nor war has ended

They're just threatening to open the box and have a look.

If sugar beets were a viable fuel source someone would be doing it already.

From the summary: "Europe already has more than a dozen such plants". So maybe it is viable.

In any case your argument suggests that anything that isn't currently being done isn't viable. So any sort of progress is never possible.

"Okay. Changing user profile settings to 'Mom', please wait"

"Are you heading to Kinky Sex Toys?"

Here's an interesting bit from the linked article:

Virtually everyone says that I should have plugged in the car overnight in Connecticut, particularly given the cold temperature.

Then that same paragraph finishes with:

... cannot realistically expect all 20,000 buyers a year (the Model S sales goal) to be electric-car acolytes who will plug in at every Walmart stop.

So the reviewer made an overnight stop at a Walmart in Connecticut? I'd say that if you have to exaggerate to that extreme to make you point, then you're pretty much admitting that you don't have point to make.

The reviewer's own argument (at least this part) makes me believe Tesla is right.

That was my first thought too. But then I noticed in the summary that it specifically mentions natural disasters. I think most people would agree that there's nothing natural about the disaster known as Windows 8.