But, nobody wants those nasty, polluting power plants (that have enough coal fuel to last another hundred years)... they'd rather burn the still-polluting NatGas that can be used for cooking and heating (and, you can get furnaces with 95+ efficiency). If you switch all houses to only electric everything, that power has to come from something. Nuclear power is better, fusion would be the best (if there was enough funding put towards it).

We want 100% renewables, so we will buy up every square inch of land to put up solar panels and wind turbines (great idea in the frozen North US where you have to deice the things daily in winter, and Tornado alley where you get to track down the missing panels a few counties over)... we don't want/need farms anymore, because we can get our ground beef from the farming land that used to be the Amazon and import garlic from China and import everything else from where ever it is that they grow it :-) and build the AI data centers (everybody needs "Clod" and all them all the time) on Ol' Farmer Joe's fourth generation farming land (and give him a couple hundred dollars to find a new place and 12 hours to get his stuff out of the house before the bulldozers start up). Hope you got to see those National Parks and got plenty of pictures, because if land is needed for 'renewable' energy production and AI crap, those might eventually be on the chopping block, too.

To power the entire USA through a winter night using only solar and lithium batteries, it would cost approximately $1.17 trillion for the battery storage alone.

I liked Jayson Adam's NewsGrazer on NeXT, and eventually learned to like trn. Feeds became out of control with spam, piracy, and worse, so I shut the nodes that I ran. I do miss Ludwig/Archimedes Plutonium.

Ah, PolitiFact. Where "we couldn't find any good data" is proof that a claim is false. Note, I am not suggesting that the claim is true, either--I also don't have any actual data to bring to the table. While I agree the burden should rest on the person making the claim, the actual status here is "undetermined" rather than "false."

I would also note that your 13% number, picked from that "fact check" is sources from data that is specifically marked as "unreliable" which is a pretty strange thing to do when "checking facts":

With all of the above said, I felt motivated to try to answer this question. Like Politifact, I, too, found that this data is simply not reported in any kind of standardized way. You can, however, find some if you look--some jurisdictions DO do this work on their own. Contemporary with the data in the PolitiFact article is the Chicago PD's 2011 murder report. The conclusion drawn from this (data on pages 27-28) is that a full third of murders in the city of Chicago were "gang related" (either "gang altercation" or "narcotics.")

There are no specific "murder reports" available post 2011. However, data does exist in their annual reports. The most recent of which, for 2021 states on page 85:

While this is certainly not 90%, it's almost four times your claimed number. Further, that 49% number is a floor as of those 800 homicides, a full 35% of them have motive listed as "unknown."

While Chicago is certainly not a proxy for the entire US, and "the murder rate would drop to almost zero" if you "removed with an x-acto knife specific neighborhoods" is at the very least hyperbole, the data suggest that "gang related" is certainly a major contributing factor, to a far greater extent than you claim in an attempt to refute "lies and utter nonsense."

I'm sure they had some kind of theories as to why certain things worked and others didn't, but ultimately their process would be well refined, but highly empirical.

Unless you're a member of congress... Works very well for them, and their spouses

Tesla Model S: 4,323–4,960 lbs 2 door sedan (3 if you count the lift back

Nissan Maxima: 4,685 lbs

"Even with storage, wind is cheaper than nuclear," No it isn't. For baseload you need about 60 hours of storage, using the optimal mix of solar and wind. The optimal system comes in at about $32 billion for a 1 GW baseload system, of which 43% is batteries. Nuclear is about $10 billion if you do it the silly way, $6B if you are more sensible. Gas, for reference is about $1 billion. In my opinion the correct solution is to have an hour or two of batteries, massive overbuild of wind and solar, and then use a gas peaker 20% of the time. Compared with coal this reduces the CO2 emissions to 10% of what they were. That system would cost about the same as nuclear.

Speaking of "oops", you dumbass, do you have any idea how food is made? Here are some hints from people with actual knowledge of the issues.

Russia and China have imposed export restrictions on fertilizer. Both are, or were, big exporters of plant food. The decline in exports makes getting the vital nutrients harder across the globe. China and Russia account for 29% of world exports for nitrogen-based plant food.

The move by China earlier this week to ban phosphate exports until at least June of next year puts even more pressure on global phosphate trade. The U.S. doesn't buy much phosphate from China, but the country represents about 30% of world trade. Now China's traditional buyers will be looking elsewhere.

3 year ROI? Really? I currently spend approximately $150 a month on Electricity (highest, $200, lowest $100, depending on season) and highest average rate of approximately 6.7 cents/KwH (~3000 KwH). Given solar power costs are typically 8 cents/KwH or higher, not quite sure how I could ever reach a reasonable ROI, and that is before even thinking of maintenance issues --which just seems likely to cost more then nothing, and also doesn't take into account related costs like roof maintenance/replacement (my current roof will probably need to be replaced in the next 5-10 years -- replace it now, or remove the solar and replace it in 5-10 years and replace solar then? At the end of the day, people don't normally undertake expenses which provide no advantage and increase costs...

Tesla doesn’t make batteries or solar panels.

250 is what I would call roughly average, so what a approximately 10% difference? That's not that much. https://www.statista.com/stati...

Fastest car? You seen the Ring times on that thing?

https://www.businessinsider.co...

Meanwhile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It's only ~8s faster than an old Camaro Z/28. Please.