351–360 of 585 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big solar plant they made in between Cali and Las Vegas one, it wasn't online more than a few years? It shut down...
You're thinking of an actually quite small solar-thermal plant, which is bankrupt because solar-thermal is a dumb idea.
I looked into this a little because I was curious. I guess the ostensible "national security" rationale (which clearly is not the only reason!) for this is that turbines severely degrade the utility of radar surveillance along the coastlines. This is particularly relevant for low-altitude incursions and drones. Now, other large governments (UK) have resolved this in several ways, including the deployment of additiona…
I feel like the defense against drones is denser, sharper turbines.
You could mount interceptor drones on them though. Like https://youtu.be/bsy5xzdKahU?t=80
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How come Sweden as cheap nuclear power? The main reason electricity is kinda expensive in Sweden is because the EU forces is to export our cheap nuclear energy to Denmark and Germany.
Paid off nuclear plants produce quite cheap electricity. The problem is that it takes 10-15 years of building and then 40 years of paying $180-220/MWh to get a paid off nuclear plant as per modern western construction costs.
However, ‘Paid off nuclear’ in terms of construction costs still needs to worry about decommissioning, and their maintenance costs keep increasing every year.
Several power plants have looked at going offline for potentially years and spending billions at around year 40 to get to year ~60 as not being worth the investment. That’s the issue with projecting those long lifespans, the buildings/containment structure/cooling tower may be fine but that doesn’t mean the pipes, pumps, turbines, and control systems etc are still fine.
It's interesting that people are very incredulous of there being a legitimate defense reason for this when we have had unilateral unanswered drone incursions all over Europe and the US. There's obviously some sort of arms race occurring and some of it is public. The world in on the precipice of many technologies advancing at an all too rapid pace. The idea that technology will become tightly regulated isn't inconceiv…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Americans love to remove regulation to make things cheaper Americans have no broad idea how anything works. Decades of attacks on our education system have left us civically illiterate (and for a lot of people, actually illiterate too.).
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that the strawman framing of my argument that you want to stick with? https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/11/11/why-swe...
You framed it that way. This is an article about how the US shut down every offshore wind farm project. People are here discussing the fact that the us shut down every offshore wind project. You came in and said Sweden did it too. Setting aside the fact that they did not do that, they blocked some projects, not all - you don’t even know what “it” is because the US did not give a rationale.
It's not comparable at all. US defence agencies have had thorough involvement in the permitting process of these US developments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BPA is a federal agency. The Trump administration has been very supportive of zero carbon nuclear i believe they have promised $80 billion dollars to build new nuclear plants. Staff cuts dont mean they oppose using those energy sources.
on the nuclear front, the administration has cut investment and reduced action in exchange for cheap promises. judge actions, not words.
Fascinating, I haven’t heard this from anywhere else is there something specific you are referring to?
Maybe this? https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2...
Its not clear what specific programs this $408 million cut would affect but frankly ARDP and Gen III+ reactor development are not needed. What is needed is large construction investment in existing approved designs like AP-1000 and BWRX-300 which is what the $80 billion pledge is for. “The full details of the $80 billion deal, including the precise allocation of financing and risk-sharing, have not been specified.” With no contract signed your skepticism is warranted. https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it was truly irrelevant, then there wouldn't be billions being thrown at it.
It's the airport TV's and doctor's office waiting rooms that they are bidding for at this point.
There is no utility in pissing off 75% of your customers. I'm thrilled that my kid's doctor doesn't even allow patients that aren't vaccine schedule compliant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like "national security" has become a phrase that can be used to circumvent many laws, facts, and balance checks. Just like the word "terrorist." It seems like if these ever get challenged to the Supreme Court the current judges will rule with something like it being at the president's discretion. So obviously the government can spend some of that $1T military budget on fixing their coastal radar. I thought Mas…
Don't forget "war on" something that isn't a nation state.
I looked into this a little because I was curious. I guess the ostensible "national security" rationale (which clearly is not the only reason!) for this is that turbines severely degrade the utility of radar surveillance along the coastlines. This is particularly relevant for low-altitude incursions and drones. Now, other large governments (UK) have resolved this in several ways, including the deployment of additiona…
Result first (kill anything not carbon-based), find rationale later. Same applies to how this admin forced layoffs at the green energy (hydro + nuclear) behemoth BPA [1] (which was funded entirely by ratepayers, not the federal government) then claimed an energy emergency to keep open coal plants serving the same geographies, coal plants that were already uneconomical and planned for shut down (or re-tooling to gas i…
Also killing all humans, what idiots.