We've seen nuclear power plants built in three years.
https://scienceforsustainabili...

If the Trump administration wants to get power plants and data centers online before the end of the term in office then it's possible. Perhaps unlikely, but possible as it's been done before.

The claim of it taking 20 years to complete a nuclear power plant is losing its edge with every year that we see nuclear power plants come online around the world. Even the troubled Hinkley Point C plant is expected to be putting power to the grid after 18 years of construction. The plant at Sizewell C is expected to take 12 years. If the UK can keep their poop in a group then I expect they will meet that deadline. Then is China showing that nuclear power plants can go from breaking ground to power on the grid in seven years.

Small modular reactors that don't require large forged parts, built on federal land where it is insulated from interference by state governments, and people motivated in the government and private industry to see completion, can do a lot to keep everyone on schedule. The link I gave above pointed to matters of policy and public opinion causing increased construction times, not any technical limits. Remove these policy and opinion barriers and nuclear power plant construction can stay on schedule.

I'd expect that when the AI bubble bursts there would be a reduction in electricity production, and the first to the chopping block would be the low profit coal power plants. Any new nuclear power that comes from this means low CO2 energy, and electricity production that is more reliable than coal.

Where's the downside in this? The taxpayer being stuck with the bill? If I'm reading this correctly the primary funding is from private corporations seeking reliable electricity production. Maybe they collapse as AI data centers but they can shift to other services, or even sell off the electricity production to other energy consumers. This has happened before, I can recall contracts for electricity being sold off at a profit to a third party because an aluminum refinery or something found there was more profit in selling electricity contracts than producing aluminum.

There's enough growth in energy demand that I don't see a problem here.

We get a vote on federal energy policy every two years. The people are still in control here.

Do you have a better system in mind? I'd like to learn what others have in mind. I'd also like to know when "cooperation" turns into "collusion". Collusion implies something done in secret but this is out in the open. I don't follow where mention of bitcoin comes in since that wasn't mentioned anywhere that I could see but in the ravings of randos on the internet. Mention of a need for public ownership and communism leads me to believe this is a call for the USA to become a communist nation. Maybe I'm not picking up what you are putting down, but I'm not liking where you are going. I don't see a problem, and that is largely because we still have a vote. The people voted for this, and if you don't like it then get people to vote differently next time.

I understand that, but without a means to sustain an economy the end result is much the same, then end of human civilization as we know it.

But they will have a return in other ways. Ways that could be measured in a financial return. There's no financial gain in me buying a movie ticket but I'd still buy that ticket since it means I'd be entertained for a couple hours. The theaters can measure this return on enjoyment in ticket profits.

There's nothing wrong with the internal combustion engine. The problem lies with the fuels we use. Bans on the ICE means removing many options for carbon neutral and sustainable fuels. Those looking to ban the ICE are people with myopia or some agenda.

We could... but in any kind of democracy that would be difficult. People aren't going to vote themselves into rationing energy, not unless facing a clear and immediate danger like that seen in World War Part Two. People can certainly be convinced to use alternatives to fossil fuels if presented with something that offered lower costs, or perhaps some other benefit that makes the higher cost worthwhile.

Precisely. So with that realization why fight a battle that you know you cannot win?

I believe that we can reach lower CO2 emissions, see profits from it, and that it will happen once some basic lessons are learned. People need to learn that nuclear power is safe, isn't a path to nuclear war, can be profitable, will lower CO2 emissions, can free us from getting tangled in resource wars in far off places, and more.

If you want to see lower CO2 emissions, and therefore avoid environmental ruin, then demand more nuclear power. If for some reason you oppose use of nuclear power then you are asking for the impossible. You know people won't just volunteer to enter poverty and scarcity, it would have to be imposed on them by some outside threat or a tyrannical government. If we rule out some tyranny then what is left is either nuclear power or a continuation of burning fossil fuels. If there is some other option in the future if only we develop a new technology then we must still choose fossil fuels or nuclear fission to fill in where renewable energy sources are insufficient until that new technology comes.

I'm seeing nations all over the world come to realize that there's a national security issue in leaving so much of their economy reliant on imported fossil fuels. If there is a concern on CO2 emissions then that is second to maintaining their access to energy. It just happens that the solution to both problems can be found in nuclear fission. There's no technology that can replace coal and natural gas for reliable electricity production like nuclear fission can. In theory there may be an option for wind, solar, and batteries to replace fossil fuels but that is using technologies that require far more resources, and have a lower return on investment, than nuclear fission so it's nuclear fission or fossil fuels until there's some new technology to provide another option.

I don't know what you want, and I'm getting the impression you don't know what you want. I want more nuclear power as that means lower CO2 emission, more energy independence, less leverage from outside to get sucked into resource wars, cleaner air, cleaner water, greater safety, likely lower energy costs, and more. I can see the path out of this dilemma. Those that don't see the path are likely being lied to on what options we have before us today.

There was an article showing that on Slashdot just last month. Are people's memories so short?
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

That's great but this is about a new battery with a different chemistry, and with that comes new questions on fire safety. If you want to argue that not all BEVs carry the same fire hazard then that's fine, just don't use that to claim some new chemistry must be safer. We don't know what these new batteries would do in a fire. It's likely we will find out any time soon either. And when we do find out that could mean another ship, and possibly lives, lost at sea.

I didn't watch the entire video but I believe I got the idea on what was tested from the intro. The testing was on what would happen if there was damage to the batteries, which is a fair test because I would hope no battery would start on fire unless it experiences physical damage. Further, the concern is on battery safety while parked, such as in someone's garage or on a cargo ship. If there was unseen damage prior to being parked and it simply took some time to end up as a fire then there's a concern on how that fire behaves, such as if there a flame shooting out of some hole punched into the casing.

Attacking the battery with a power drill does seem to me to be a reasonable analog to seeing damage from a collision while driving, or seeing the vehicle exposed to damage from falling debris in an earthquake, or perhaps something like damage from a fire outside of the vehicle though I'll conceded that there's room to argue otherwise.

Nobody doubts that water will extinguish an EV battery fire, with enough water the fire will go out or at least have the fire contained to that battery until it burns out on its own. The issue is that with such a large battery it can take more water than existing fire suppression systems can provide. This can be a greater problem as in an EV the fire can build up considerable heat before being detected as it will be a bit buried in the vehicle, which is understandable for protection against collisions, and there may not be obvious fumes or smoke like with burning engine oil, tires, or most hydrocarbon fuels.

I got my prior comment marked as trolling for pointing out a concern among shipping companies on moving EVs. It would appear an "inconvenient truth" is considered trolling here. Is anyone claiming this is concern has no basis in fact? It would seem that seeing several EV fires causing considerable damage to ships carrying them, including total loss of the ship, should be cause for concern. Maybe this can be traced to a single battery chemistry, where LFP is safe but NMC is not. Okay then, if the plan is to move to a third kind of battery chemistry then there is still cause for concern until there's been some testing and real world experience to show this new chemistry isn't creating the same hazard, or some new hazard. Part of what makes LFP safer than NMC is the lower energy density, and with a new battery chemistry with a higher energy density than NMC then that should raise all kinds of alarms. For all we know the batteries won't burn, instead they explode. I doubt that is the case but it is within the realm of possibility.

The batteries we produce today have an energy density on par with ammonia nitrate, and there's been instances of ammonia nitrate causing damage in shipping. There's reason to have concerns on any new batteries with a higher energy density until there's been testing to demonstrate the safety of these batteries. Like ammonia nitrate a battery doesn't need air to undergo a chemical reaction that produces heat. That heat can set other things on fire, such as the battery casing wire insulation, and so on. Depending on the chemistry of the battery the battery could provide oxidation for feeding the flames fueled by other materials. There's many unknowns here, and until they are worked out there's clear evidence of concern over EV battery fires.

If we don't limit the alternatives to fossil fuels to those that provide a financial return then that is the path to economic ruin.

The term "sustainable energy" gets tossed around a lot, and part of being sustainable is getting more out than we put in. If there's no return on that investment then it cannot be sustained. We can do experimentation on new energy sources while not expecting an immediate return but we do so only in the belief and hope that there's a return later on. At some point such experimentation needs to end, or at least be paused for some new technology or such to catch up, or it's a waste of resources.

If there's no money in alternative energy then it cannot be sustained.

This is like seeing carbon taxes used to prop up the wind and solar industry only to later realize that is only creating a new level of dependence on fossil fuels. Without the tax revenue on fossil fuels to prop up an industry that cannot produce a profit will only create new advocates for fossil fuels from those in the wind and solar industry.

That's not me claiming that wind and solar power cannot make a profit, only pointing out that if there is no profit in wind and solar power then propping those industries up with subsidies or such will only make things worse. It discourages seeking out other energy sources by the economic and regulatory barriers that are inherent to such subsidies.

What is it with you and Patrick Moore? Has anyone seen him speak publicly or write anything in the last five years? By all appearances he's retired. I tried to bring up his website to see if he's published anything recently but the site appears to be down, another sign he's no longer making any public statements.

How does someone point to the bullshit of "denialist tropes" without mention of the trope being called out? Calling the problem "climate change" is going to reflexively bring up that the climate is always changing. Then will come the people pointing to their experience on the weather during their life on how the weather varies from year to year, using that as evidence of constant change.

The "denialist trope" is use of the term "climate change". The term "climate change" came from the deniers, and using the term to argue for action is feeding the denial. I don't want to feed the denial so I use "global warming" as that is the more accurate description of the problem, the problem is warming from human activity not that the climate changes because the climate is always changing.

I don't like "climate crisis" either because that feeds into the denial, people can deny there is a crisis by looking around and seeing that the world isn't burning. Things aren't perfect but also not a crisis. So I'm not going to use hyperbolic claims of a crisis to get people to act.

With allies like these in the fight against global warming who needs enemies?

You have that backwards, the refineries in the USA were built for the sour crude so they buy the cheaper sour crude from overseas while letting the domestic sweet crude get exported overseas.

https://www.fuelstreamservices...

In spite of the title on the article the USA can refine the oil it produces it is that the refineries choose not to over economic reasons.

What is a "fair share"? That's such a subjective statement that there's no way to prove it either way. If anyone believes there is an objective means to determine "fair share" then I'd like to see an argument to defend the claim that the "capital class" (another subjective measure) hasn't paid their "fair share" in taxes. To get to "fair share" in taxes we'd need an objective measure for "capital class". My guess is the "capital class" would be relative, as in who has more capital than some average or such than an absolute value on how much capital they have as measured in some commodity like gold or oil than a fiat currency.

What could possibly be a less subjective measure on "fair share" is how many ships benefit from lower cost registrations under a "flag of convenience" than pay the higher rates in the USA, they will still see benefits of the funding of the US Navy to patrol dangerous waters but provide little to no funds to the US Navy themselves.

That's great but the EV market is much larger than you.

I get your point, and I can be convinced to agree if shown polliing or such to back that up.

Whatever the miles per charge for any EV there's the potential to not have 600 miles of range but instead less mass and cost for the EV. That means sportier performance, less tire wear, and potentially other advantages.

Military deployments out of the USA to the Persian Gulf was not about guaranteeing supply. The USA produces plenty of crude oil and so there could be benefits to the USA in not running to the Persian Gulf to provide military assistance to allies. If European allies can't bring in crude from the Middle East because of some war breaking out or whatever then by Americans not running to the Persian Gulf there's a larger market for crude out of the USA.

I can imagine some doubts on this helping out the USA since if there's crude leaving the USA then that can mean higher prices in the USA. That can happen but with the higher price and taxes based on some percentage, then it is in the interests of some people in the federal government to keep our own military on our side of the Atlantic ocean so the tax income increases. Some other politicians will send military forces to the region out of some implicit or explicit obligation to provide aid to our allies.

Those that add military expenses to the oil and gas subsidies is doing so only to deceive. If it follows to include such expenses as a subsidy or fossil fuels then we need to include some of the Coast Guard and Navy budget to other energy sources because there's pirates and other threats that need addressing for bringing in raw materials or parts for alternative energy sources. There's a large number of Navy sailors keeping the shipping lanes open due to recent events. We'd not have to spend that money if we had our own mines and refineries for commodities like lithium and rare earth metals.

That doesn't address the concern on battery fires. The concern is that once started the usual efforts of fighting the fires don't work, specifically any effort to starve the fire of oxidizing agents.

There's been ships lost to EV fires because burning batteries are so hard to put out. If I recall correctly there's been crew lost and presumed drowned at sea due to one such recent fire, so this is more than just concern on lost property. Ships carrying cars will have the means to seal off sections of the ship and flood the area with CO2 or N2 to starve the fire of air. I believe most every large cargo ship will have the means to pump in seawater to fight fires but that's not the preferred method for extinguishing a car fire on a ship as that is adding weight to the ship, the salt water can damage the cargo and lead to rust on the ship, among other hazards. If sealing off the compartment means the fire can burn itself out then that's less water used to put out the fire and so means there's more water for spraying on hot metal decks to cool them off and avoid warping and possible structural damage.

Even when not on a ship there's problems with putting out an EV fire as it can take a lot of water to cool the battery down to where it will stop burning. Not every fire department has the large fire engines needed to put enough water on the fire to stay ahead of the heat produced. There's been other tactics considered, such as burying the vehicle in sand to contain the fire. The sand can soak up a lot of heat which could put out the fire. If the sand doesn't put the fire out then at least there isn't an open flame that could start something else on fire, or cause more damage to a road surface.

Firefighters are still working on the best means to put out an EV fire. Until they have a handle on the equipment and training required to effectively respond to an EV fire there's going to be concerns over those fires. If there's a new battery type, especially one with a higher energy content per mass and/or volume, then that's going to create even more concern. That's adding more variables and the kinds of batteries already in use already give firefighters nightmares.

I'm not sowing doubt, it appears you misunderstood.

I don't like the term "climate change" as it leaves an opening for denial. I prefer the more accurate and desriptive term "global warming". What would be better still is "anthropogenic catastrophic global warming" but that is quite a mouthful.

The issue is not that the climate is changing, it is that there's warming. But then is an argument that warming could be beneficial so we must be clear that the issue is that the warming is bad, or the warming is to such a degree that it is bad, so we should specify we wish to avoid catastrophic warming. Even if there's global warming, and it is bad, then to be absolutely clear on the issue we must specify that the warming is from human activity or "anthropogenic".

Don't call me a "denier" because I prefer to avoid the term "climate change" as I find it imprecise. The issue is not change in the climate, it is that the climate is warming, so I choose "global warming" to describe the issue. I'd use the full phrasing I gave above if it weren't so long and hard to spell. I'd use an acronym like "CAGW" to save on typing but that is not a well recognized and I'd likely end up defining it every time I use it, and if I have to define it every time then I'm not saving on typing.

If you believe that using "global warming" than "climate change" reveals some "denialist leanings" then consider that "climate change" was used by deniers to dismiss human activity having any impact on climate. Why fear "climate change" when we know the climate has always had natural variations? That's the kind of question I'm trying to avoid.

My guess is you believe I'm a "denialist" because I do not like the term "climate crisis" either. To deny the presence of a crisis is not denying there is a problem, only the scope and scale of the problem has not (yet) risen to a crisis. We have time to change our ways still. It's going to take decades to see any meaningful reduction on CO2 levels to reverse any warming we've seen, not without some global event that kills off billions of people and/or reverts human civilization into the Bronze Age.

While not a prohibition there's a lot of regulations on producing ethanol that makes ethanol as a fuel out of reach for many. Before Prohibition there was something of a cottage industry that was producing ethanol fuel for cars and tractors. That had to go, or at least go underground, with Prohibition. After Prohibition ended a great number of rules were put in place that made it difficult for anyone but the largest distilleries to produce ethanol for sale. No more small time stills, or farmers making ethanol fuel on the side to supplement their income.

I've talked with people that produce ethanol, for human consumption and for fuel both, and the ATF loves to poke around to look for people trying to divert alcohol for sale without denaturing and without paying taxes. It's apparently a real pain in the ass to pass inspections, and can mean needing full time employees to keep records in order for these inspections.

It's not just alcohol that can get people in trouble. I've heard of troubles with people producing their own vegetable oils as a diesel fuel alternative. There's taxes on fuel that must be paid, and the taxes can vary based on application. There's no real difference between the undyed diesel for over the road trucks and the red dyed diesel for off road use but the taxes paid on it. If someone wants to make their own vegetable oil for running a diesel truck on public roads then taxes need to be paid. I've heard of some local people that do just that. Few people bother because if their "papers are not in order" then that can lead to some very expensive fines.

I believe most forms of biomass fuels are effectively burning food and so I'm opposed to the practice, though I could possibly be convinced of making exceptions where the fuel is using inedible plant material and not taking land or other resources we'd need for food production. Biomass fuels are very resource intensive with not much to show as a return on that investment. We'd likely be better off making conversions to natural gas, or producing synthesized hydrocarbons, to reduce CO2 emissions and reduce air pollution.

There's more ways to murder someone than with a firearm.

If the murder rate in the USA upsets you then I'd suggest looking for motivations, law enforcement, and all kinds of other places before looking a gun control to lower the murder rate. Also, there's more to violent crime than murder, there's battery, assault, rape, and more. I'd expect a good way to reduce rape is having more armed women. Because the USA is so large and has states with variation in gun laws that it would be enlightening to look at which states have the most restrictions on firearm ownership and violent crime rates. As part of a statistics assignment at university I made a statistical analysis between violent crimes and restrictions on firearm ownership, states with the most restrictive gun laws tended to have the highest violent crime rates. Do note that this was on all violent crime, not just "gun crime" like the Brady Campaign likes to do.

I believe that prohibitions on some drugs is playing out a lot like the prohibitions on alcohol a century ago. People without access to drugs that are sold under government supervision and regulation only leads people to seek black market drugs with varied potency and potentially containing poisons. I'd expect that if we were allowed to run some experiments on this we'd find that prohibition leads to far more deaths than would be seen if we hadn't taken drugs like laudanum off the market.

I'm not sure what to think about automobile deaths. Stuff happens and we can't bubble wrap the world. People play stupid games with cars and they can get stupid prizes as a result. We've gone a long way to make automobiles safe, at some point it's all down to people doing stupid things and random chance events we can't do much to prevent. I guess this applies to drugs also, some people do stupid things, and sometimes there's random chance events we can't do much about.

I've lost loved ones. I'd rather not talk about it.

As if removing firearms would remove the means and motives of suicide. I can recall a recent local case of suicide where someone stepped out into rush hour traffic. I have a problem with that, as I would with any suicide, I just don't see how removing firearms would have kept this troubled person from suicide by automobile. I can recall Japan having problems with suicide, and there's very restrictive rules on firearm ownership, yet people there still find a way. If the fix to suicide is removing access to firearms then what is next? Remove automobiles so people can't step out into traffic?

How can you be so callous to remove effective medications from people in need of them?

If someone wants cold medicine that is better than a placebo then they need to visit a physician, and that costs money. Given the bullshit from the DEA crawling around looking for reasons to lock up physicians on bullshit charges of peddling drugs it can mean a physician could be reluctant to prescribe anything but what is over the counter, as in a patient is having a real hard time with a bad cold or flu but the physician refuses to offer anything but over the counter shit. So people suffer, and they have to pay for a visit to a physician on top of that. Even if the physician agrees to prescribe something useful for their ailments then that's money spent on a visit for something that should be over the counter, something that was over the counter until people without medical training decided to limit access to medications that have been deemed safe and effective by the FDA.

We don't have a drug abuse problem in the USA, we have a problem of a government getting in between physicians and their patients. We have DEA agents, people with no medical training, charging physicians with prescribing "too much" of controlled substances. Of course the DEA won't tell anyone how much is "too much" because if they did then they'd know there would be little for the DEA to do, we'd see physicians following the DEA rules so as to avoid arrests in the future. If the goal was to keep people safe then the DEA should be publishing guidelines on prescriptions for all to see than leave everyone guessing. It's not the DEA's job to keep people safe from drug abuse, their job is to justify their existence as a law enforcement agency distinct from the FBI by making some arrests.

Then we get to the ATF, their job is to justify their existence by arresting people for "moon shining" and possessing firearms without serial numbers. I question the value in most anything the ATF does. I recall the ATF runs a top notch arson lab and I'd hate to see that go, but the rest the ATF does is likely not helping us in reducing the deaths and injuries to innocent people and therefore is wasted tax revenue that could be put to better use elsewhere.

I believe there was a certain Dr. Franklin that warned us of trading liberty for safety. The government doesn't exist to make us safe, that is our own responsibility. The government is there to do a lot of things, bubble wrapping the nation is not part of the government mandate.