That is complete BS.

You mean I didn't read your propaganda? We can call nuclear power safe once Chernobyl has been re inhabited and there haven't been any more similar events. Or worse, since there is really no reason to think Chernobyl is the limit for how much damage can be done. And then there is the challenge of waste from existing plants that needs to be permanently stored in a manner that will protect future generations.

The fact that cuts heal even on people who are parapalegic for one. You think the cells aren't receiving data and acting on it? How do they know there is a cut to heal. Beyond that, there is a lot of evidence that all sorts of parts of the body including individual cells take in information and act without any involvement of the brain.

The US produces more oil than it uses and imports oil from Canada while exporting to the rest of the world. Moreover, we hardly use any oil to produce electricity. What do Suez, Panama and Ukraine have to do with it? The answer is nothing, they are just emotional propaganda.

We aren't. We are building solar a lot faster than we can ever build a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power is a fantasy sideshow in march to replace fossil fuels.

Experience has proved that isn't true.

No, its assigning emissions to people rather than based on national borders. Whether those people are Chinese or Americans is irrelevant. Beyond that, the problem is not just current emissions, its past emissions. If you look at the current carbon in the atmosphere I think you would find the US economy has produced more of it than China's. And, as always, deciding whose emissions those are is a political act. Is the United States responsible for all the emission for the oil and natural gas it exports? Is it responsible for the emissions used to create products it imports?

Your hypothesis is correct. There have been actual numbers crunched (I don't remember the source) that show the US as a net importer of emissions while China is a net exporter.

Now apply that to personal carbon footprints. Who is responsible for the emissions from you driving to work? You or your employer? I think the natural way to assign those are based on who gets the wealth and other benefits created. So if Bill Gates hires a gardener for one of his mansions, the emissions associated with that gardener's work are attributable to Bill Gates.

Which makes "per capita" not very meaningful because a very large percentage of any country's emissions would be attributed to a small wealthy elite.

Not even close. The United States has by far the higher per capita emissions no matter how you assign them.

That depends on how you account for emissions. As the discussion here makes clear determining who "owns" emissions is not easy. Are the oil producers responsible or their customers?

The United States is the largest oil producer in the world and one of the largest producers of LNG. On the other hand, we buy a lot of stuff from China that is produced with coal power. The United States imports a lot of emissions, while China exports a lot of its emissions.

Bill Gates pays someone to offset the emissions from his private jet so those emissions are actually "owned" by someone else.

Regardless of who "owns" the emissions, the climate effects are the same of course,

There is actually lots or evidence that is not true.

Can you explain in a non-scientific way why electronic brains would be capable of intelligence whereas biological brains would not?

Let me suggest that "intelligence" is a human invention that is completely non-scientific to begin with. Objectively, intelligence is just whatever IQ tests measure. AI is simply making whatever IQ tests measure less and less important. So perhaps the question is can we create an AI that has compassion, love and faith and is physically attractive.

There is no danger from nuclear power as long as perfect humans are involved.

We do when the individual failures add up. The reality is investors decided the risks of investment in nuclear power were not worth the value created.

Which is one way the cost of individual failures add up. A lot of nuclear power plants removed themselves from the electrical grid. Which is why people stopped investing in them.

All of them built with enormous government subsidies. Which is why there is this full court press PR campaign for nuclear power, they need to get public subsidies to attract any new investments.

We have a giant natural nuclear reactor called the Sun. We have proven technologies for using it to produce electricity that are cheap and reliable.

And then Chernobyl proved them right,

But what really happened was that nuclear power was not really commercially viable. The industry was relying on government subsidies and was costing far more than the hyperbolic claim of power "too cheap to meter." Plants were far more expensive to build, had huge construction lag times and many turned out to be unreliable. By the time you added all the costs no commercial companies were willing to continue to bet on them with the huge investments required.

Then Fukushima proved them right again.

More importantly, we have realistic immediate solutions rather than nuclear power which has become a pie-in-the-sky option being hyped by investors like Bill Gates.

Exactly. So what does this mean?

The total amount of power a battery can provide depends on the rate at which it provides power. In other words, 200mw for 2 hours is not the equivalent of 100mw for 4 hours. The battery will be able to provide 100mw for more than 4 hours.

When anyone uses MW as a measure of battery capacity they likely don't know what they are talking about. Unless they are a grid operator talking about the rate the battery can provide power to the grid at a moment in time. Battery storage is always measured as a combination of rate and time that rate can be sustained. ie. MWH..

No, it isn't. There is plenty of crappy research that has been peer reviewed. The peer review process is pretty much broken. The more accurate statement is that absent peer review, you should assume its crappy research and ignore it.