Atom

And they'll only get better with time. I think It'll be a little rocky the next four years in the US. But still, they are great. My house is 100% wind powered and I regret not putting solar on 5 years ago

Great points! Wind and solar are far easier to scale. Their main issue is land use, but when applied properly (with appropriate environmental impact assessments) that's not a major concern on its own, really it's transiting that power to use centers. Dealing with the individual property rights for a transmission line that doesn't benefit the person under it is and has been enough to kill energy projects.

In my opinion, nuclear's strength lies in its energy density. You could replace a coal or gas plant with a nuclear plant. This is an option being explored by a couple companies because it enabled them to use land no one wants that already has the cooling and transmission connections.

I support nuclear and it was a recurring theme in my environmental policy degree, but I am by no means against wind and solar. I think they are fantastic sources. They each have their trade offs. But we will need to make use of everything in the face of climate change.

One small note, nuclear is expensive, however be cautious when researching cost per Wh produced and look for the time scale. Wind and solar projects are often forecasted to run for just 20 years, they can certainly go longer though. Nuclear runs for 50+ years. Cost comparisons always use the lowest time scale. Nuclear obviously has a very high upfront cost that makes it stupid expensive for a 20 year plan, but over 50 it can reach parody or undercut renewables. Renewables are also done a disservice by these same reports by locking them to the low timescales when their leases are easily extended. But leases are also a large expense so renewal does bump the cost. Things get difficult to forecast with those known-unknows, so it's easier, and more accurate to take the lowest scale and say "this is the cost for 20 years" and let the reader decide if they want to math out the 2.5 multiplier. But then it wouldn't be accurate to the 20 years since renewal costs and...well, you see why we use the lower scale.

Kyle Hill has done a fantastic job discussing nuclear energy, if anyone is interested in learning more about its viability. https://youtu.be/J3znG6_vla0

Also, I'll leave this safety study here as well because nuclear safety is, and should be, a top concern.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Shhhh. I don't want these two anywhere near an office or department with merit.

One more I've heard from the MAGAs in my workplace: Trump did not actually get a first term because the Democrats obstructed him so 2024 is actually his first term

He's been campaigning for head of the USDOE for years. His time in Oklahoma office has just been bouncing from one GOP hot topic to the next, trying to catch Trump's eye. This is just another "daddy please" from him. Unfortunately it'll probably work. But at least the whole US will get to use his brilliance that brought Oklahoma's education system from 49th all that way to 49.5...

Providing he doesn't become a dictator, which is certainly probable, his impacts on the environment will be bad, but not catastrophic.

Historically, when the incumbent is out, the president flips to the other party. Businesses plan strategy out for 5-10-20 years. Trump dismantling regulation won't force them to reconsider their strategy entirely. They'll use the 4 years as breathing room knowing it's probable a democratic executive will return in 2029. They'll slow walk progress, but they aren't going to abandon everything and start ramping up emissions. They still have to sell products in CA and the 16 states that follow CA emissions rules. We already saw that in 2016, auto makers stayed the course. They enjoyed the extra time to get their fleet MPGs up, but they knew time would eventually out and they'd need to be competitive when that happened.

Trumps "drill baby drill" plan sounds good to idiots, but oil is still subject to supply and demand. They already lease more land than they could ever use. They'll use trump to buy up leases that would otherwise go to renewables, but they aren't going to start pumping oil past demand and driving their profits down. Especially considering retaliation tariffs could cut into exports as well.

The IRA benefits red states more than blue and they are already begging GOP leaders to leave it alone. Trump might be able to cut individual tax credits for the middle class. Slow some solar and EV purchases, buy that'll cut into Elon's business as well, so maybe he won't even get that done.

Of course, if he goes full dictator, we're fucked anyway. But if he stays within the confines of our flawed democracy, and money prefers he do so they can continue to buy laws forever, then there's a chance his damage will be confined as well.

Well, yes, of course this is assuming he is stopped from going full dictator. That could easily happen, but it would be terrible for the economy so...and I never thought I'd say this...but thankfully deep pocketed lobbyists will mostly be trying to keep the current state of democracy intact. If we go full monarchy, it's not great for business...

But again, coin flip, end times, and we're all super fucked anyway so the ACA is the least of our concerns.

Yep, it will be up to 5 republicans in the house to save anything, ACA, IRA, Medicaid, etc. Our only hope is that they remember the blue wave rebuke of Trump in 2018 and choose to be moderate. But they can easily flip the coin the other way and know this is the end times and they need to ram through all the terrible shit fast.

I wouldn't bet on that gun part*...he wanted to take guns away in his first term through executive action. I doubt two assassination attempts will have mellowed him out in that.

"I like taking guns away early" Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/28/trump-says-take-guns-first-and-worry-due-process-second-white-house-gun-meeting/381145002/

You are not correct. There are several forum posts complaining about this issue. One of which is linked below.

You can disable it on your profile, but to switch back and forth you have to stop the car, place it in park, switch to FSD, accept the agreements, re-apply all your personal settings for traffic lights and such. At this point, the double or single pull activation greys out and you are stuck with single pull, all or nothing FSD. When the car screws up and you don't want FSD anymore, you must again navigate to the autopilot menu and disable it.

Or, like me, you can do this once in a safe location, save a second profile for FSD and switch immediately with two clicks from memory.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/fsd-12-5-4-no-longer-allows-double-click-to-start.334535/

Fully agree. The sort of good news for driving around them is that most of my frustrations come from it being overly cautious and almost getting rear-ended because it decided to stop for a green light or some other odd decision. It's rare to have it interact poorly with someone that is driving predictably. Like, cut it off without a signal and you have introduced something has not already accounted for. Driving alongside it on the highway, it sees you and knows where you are. But people are unpredictable and it only takes one mistake.