Good thing we hardly are made out of any bacteria.

Wait...

In which subfield is development not happening rapidly?

Won't you want those things to be software upgradable?

That's so little that it is completely lost in the statistical noise.

First, a natural gas turbine *also* requires hundreds to thousands of gallons of oil for lubrication every year. All turbines do. So with the exception of solar, no matter how you produce your power, you're going to use about that much oil.

An average onshore wind turbine produces 6 million kWh per year. (Offshore turbines produce more.) Petroleum-based generators use about 0.08 gallons per kWh. So if you used oil to actually produce the power, that generator would use 480,000 gallons of oil. By comparison, even if the fossil-fuel-based turbines somehow magically used a tenth as much oil, that would just mean the oil-based generator uses 479,730 extra gallons instead of 480,000.

In other words, the *tiny* amount of oil changes the greenness of wind farms relative to fossil fuels by about 0.06%, well within any reasonable margin of error.

It's noise.

A nuclear power plant uses 200,000 to 500,000 tons of concrete and produces a gigawatt of electricity. A utility-scale wind turbine might use 1,500 tons to produce 5 MW. So it's about the same amount of concrete per megawatt, to within a single-digit factor, depending on the duty cycle of the wind turbine.

And the foundation can usually be reused for the next turbine, so that concrete also lasts many, many decades, typically. They don't remove the entire structure when they replace the turbine.

Also, you didn't factor in all the extra concrete for building long-term offsite storage facilities for the nuclear fuel, or the concrete for the sarcophagus if things go sufficiently wrong. :-)

If blades are failing after a decade, then either A. something was wrong with them to begin with or B. the company that owns them stopped servicing them after a decade because of expiring tax credits. And that second one actually is plausible, but that's not a failure of the technology; it's a failure of U.S. energy policy. Why spend money repairing it when they can wait for it to completely fail and then replace it and then get the tax credit again?

I would argue that nuclear power stinks on ice. The cost per kWh is considerably higher than wind, and it requires continuous staffing and oversight to prevent things from going horribly wrong, whereas wind farms are almost entirely passive other than minor routine maintenance until something breaks and has to be replaced. Nuclear also requires transporting dangerous materials by truck or rail to storage sites, requires building storage that can safely contain the spent material for millennia, etc.

Also, every 40 to 80 years, the nuclear plant's equipment has to be replaced, and all of the removed material is contaminated, which means long-term storage of the reactor, pipes, concrete containment vessel, etc. You can't even recycle the raw materials like you can with wind, because nobody wants radioactive metal or concrete. And even if your blades are made of a material that can't be recycled easily, you can still landfill it instead of basically burying the entire plant in a no man's land for tens of thousands of years. If you think the waste from wind farms is bad, it pales in comparison with the cost and storage requirements for shutting down a nuclear plant.

If we get fusion working at an industrial scale, then we'll talk, but fission just isn't worth the hassle when there are other, much cleaner solutions.

No they didn't, because Congress set the limit by statute and did not give the FCC authority to override it. This isn't complicated but you're still getting it wrong.

Some give him planes, some want him to build a resort on top of their genocide...

At this rate we will end ourselves with AGW before we achieve AGI.

But if not that, it'll be nukes or biotech.

It's looking increasingly like the great filter is that ambition exceeds ability while ability also exceeds restraint, and at the same time, a species gains the ability to destroy itself. TBF our sample size is small, but it remains compelling...

Really? They were deliberately choosing genes? They selected them from a list? We usually only see that in science fiction, please provide more information on this amazing technological development!

They're all part of one creature with an inadequate brain and too many assholes. It's money and power (but I repeat myself) versus humanity and always has been.

Is someone paying you to say stupid shit? How do I get that deal?

[citation needed]

Uh yeah, a bunch of years ago. That's why they removed the evil canary from their mission statement.

I like how zionists insisting that other people are mentally ill can only suggest horrible things and then think that proves anything other than that they are terrible

This tells you how important he is to the function of Azure, a "service" which has been hacked multiple times so badly that there are no logs and Microsoft doesn't know what happened.

They hired him for his recognizable name, and he's so involved with the business that he has time to do... this.

Perhaps Microsoft should try to find someone who can solve Azure's problems to run it.

OK, but our legal system doesn't actually permit us to punish the people who did it with as much harm as they doled out...