Why did they bother bypassing congress? I assume just for expediency, cause it’s not like congress wasn’t going to send unlimited aid without conditions anyway. Maybe this way Trump got to pick the grifters and so congress-critters are upset about that?
Either way, who the fuck cares.
New York City is beholden to the Governor of New York for a lot of stuff. Governor has a huge amount of authority over the MTA, Metro North, tolls into the City and I’m pretty a huge amount of city tax revenue is only authorized by the governor. It makes a lot of sense to be friendly even if she is a neo-liberal ghoul. An endorsement is pretty much the least he can do.
It would be nice if China recognized that cars aren’t the future at all. Every car produced has been a waste of resources and has created pressure for unsustainable suburban development. Every mile of road built represents 25,000 square feet of space that will never be reclaimed, never be useful again.
That’s cool, too bad they are apparently as morally bankrupt as the USA leadership otherwise they would advocate for the utter destruction of israel and the public execution of any Chinese citizen who had ever invested a single Yuan into genocide.
Why is profitability a requirement for infrastructure? Is mass-transit profitable? Is air travel profitable? Are highways profitable? Are suburbs profitable? Why is that even a concern? Would coal or gas plants be profitable? Hell, are solar panels actually profitable? I’m not so sure.
I literally started this conversation with a source, you responded to a post containing a link from a clean energy government group that shows how fossil fuels have remained static in very few states, one of which is a net-exporter of nuclear energy, whereas everywhere else has increased the amount of fossil fuel generation, while simultaneously increasing the amount of renewable energy they have built. Rather then digesting this data and seeing that fossil fuels have NOT been displaced by renewables, you ask for a “source” for the claim that says exactly what the data shows.
Here is the source again. https://cleanenergy.illinois.gov/tracking-illinois-progress/electricity-generation-mix.html Notice it’s a not a wikipedia link with a quote that says exactly what you already believe.
deleted by creator
We are constantly expanding the amount of energy we use. Right now we build lots of solar/wind, but also still build a magnitude more fossil fuel power plants (by generation capacity). Since we are still building power plants, in addition to solar/wind it’s obvious that solar wind cannot replace the need for power plants, otherwise we wouldn’t be building power plants at all. So if we do need to build power plants, the only comparable non-fossil fuel option would be nuclear reactors.
I am talking about the reality here. We obviously cannot build enough solar/wind at this moment to replace the base-load generation that we have, otherwise we would, so I guess to answer your question YES there is apparently an upper limit we can build these things. What else are you looking for?
There is no limit to the amount of nuclear reactors we could build, but that is neither here nor there.
We are constantly expanding the amount of energy we use. Right now we build lots of solar/wind, but also still build a magnitude more fossil fuel power plants (by generation capacity). Since we are still building power plants, in addition to solar/wind it’s obvious that solar wind cannot replace the need for power plants, otherwise we wouldn’t be building power plants at all. So if we do need to build power plants, the only comparable non-fossil fuel option would be nuclear reactors.
So? If you charged per ton of CO2 that was produced with fossil fuels and also didn’t subsidize their extraction they wouldn’t be profitable either? Neither would Air Travel. So what’s your point?
Can you point to a single instance of a power plant being decommissioned and replaced with renewables?
But you realize that if you don’t build new nuclear plants, you are going to get fossil fuel plants instead right?
Look at this: https://cleanenergy.illinois.gov/tracking-illinois-progress/electricity-generation-mix.html
Since the 90’s almost every state has increased their fossil fuel based generation even as they have increased solar and wind deployment. Only Illinois kept their fossil fuel generation static while also increasing nuclear generation by 25Million MWhrs (in addition to an extra 30Million MWhrs of mostly wind) But even within their static fossil fuel generation, they still built A LOT of new fossil fuel plants in the form of natural gas plants. Imagine if they had replaced those coal fired-plants with nuclear while also continuing to build out their wind power? The states fossil fuel burn rate for electricity would be <15% as opposed to the 30% it is today and will be in the future. And of course if they had built like 10 new 4GW plants in the 90’s then all the surrounding states wouldn’t be building fossil fuel plants as they wouldn’t need them. They would be free to focus on just Wind/Solar while letting nuclear be their base load.
We do not live in a world where Solar/Wind can replace fossil fuels, only nuclear can actually do that.
Subsidize nuclear over renewables? No
Allow nuclear to be used as a wedge for the fossil fuel propaganda machine to keep their emissions going, since building nuclear takes decades and costs far more than renewables, displacing potential investment in renewables? Not a chance in hell
You are literally doing what you claim to decry. Anti-nuclear means you are supporting fossil fuels. No one except people whose trigger word is “nuclear” thinks we should build fossil fuel power plants. The reality is that every time a nuclear powerplant is decommissioned it’s not replaced by wind/solar, its replaced by fossil fuel plants. If you don’t care about the environment at least be honest, since i really doubt you are being paid by the fossil fuel industry, no need to push their anti-nuclear propaganda.
He lives in Illinois, the state with over 50% of it’s electricity provided by Nuclear Energy. I really wish people who are all about renewable energy would acknowledge the extremely important role nuclear power should hold even in the future. He mentions nuclear as an aside, but there really should be a wider push amongst environmentalists for emissions free nuclear reactors.
The 3d printed gun fear mongering is the opposite of “common sense gun control” though. It’s like tryign to mandate government backdoors for encryption, it’s intellectually bankrupt and the politicians and lobbyists who push for that crap shouldn’t be allowed to live on their own, let alone run a government.
Nah. Trump will bomb a couple of random Iranian targets, claim that the grand-pumbah of islam was killed and then he’ll declare victory and leave, just like last time. Iran will shoot 1000+ missiles at Israel, Israel will spend $200million of US military AID to blow up 90% of the missiles and the remaining missiles will kill 17 people and then Iran will declare victory. Israel will sortie 2 American f-16’s to blow up some long abandon “nuclear sites,” and then Benjamin will get his propaganda win.
At the end of the day a few billion dollars will be wasted, and literally nothing of substance will happen.
I think there are some printers that refuse to print pictures of currency.
For currency that was a specific feature built into the currency itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation
Guns/Weapons cannot have such a thing built into them as they are non-functional elements that can easily be omitted in whatever design you print. And since General AI isn’t real, you can’t expect any system to recognize if you are tryign to print a weapon. Honestly this is the same kind of intellectual bankruptcy that backs anti-cryptography bills.
I too put exactly 3 chemicals into my body.