Your video, What This Superconductor Means For Nuclear Fusion, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I don't know, but there's a few things that concern me:

1. Underestimating your advisory. We did this with Japan in the lead up to WW2. Great powers always fight the last war they won. In our case, that's WW2. China learned from the war they lost as well: WW2, and they're not going to make the same mistakes twice.

2. Ambiguous defense posture. This is how England got dragged into WW1 due to an uncertain position if Germany invaded France. Germany gambled that England wouldn't get involved because it had no spoken mutual defense agreement with France. Had the defense pact been made readily clear, it's possible Germany wouldn't have invaded.

2. Use it or lose it weapons. In WW1, one of the main issues with the initial invasion was train schedules. Things had to go perfectly to get men and material to the front line and any hiccup could delay a military victory. Once the very first German troop train left the station, there was no way to stop the invasion. Now we've got a situation where a war over Taiwan would be won or lost in about an hour of the first shot. China knows that should the US get involved, China's military assets are going to be blown up and fast. This puts China in a situation where they might choose the launch everything in a maximum impact first strike. Faced with overwhelming damage, the US would be forced to make some hard choices about how to respond. Would it go nuclear? It's according to how much Taiwan means to us.

"It won't happen". Go to Europe and see how many tombstones bear that inscription.

I'd say 50/50.

Can we please have a practical outlook for the next 20 years instead of all this theoretical ideology.

It takes 20 years to build a nuclear power plant, in 20 years we hope/expect/pretend to believe only electric cars will have been sold for 5-10 years so maybe half of all cars in Europe will be electric.

I plan to open a beer and sit back and watch how society handles that. And no I am not worried about Norway and Switzerland or rich people in general.

This is propaganda from an oil company. Carbon capture technology is bullshit to distract you from thinking it is okay to continue drilling oil at a rate that will cause catastrophic harm from global warming. Solar, wind, nuclear, and battery powered electric vehicles are how we get off of our addiction to oil.

so is she trying to get to a "a ha! gotcha!" moment? or what's the point of this inquiry?
someone just realized submarines are expensive?
or she is pro-nuclear submarine?
being that Australia is a giant island, makes a lot of sense for them to have a few subs.

To be totally honest, I'm disappointed the national guard didn't show up 30 minutes in guns blazing, wounding every person who had smashed their way in. I didn't cheer it, but I was extremely relieved when the police finally seemed to start fighting back instead of just stepping aside for the coup....but I certainly don't represent Democrats or any group.

Just like I'm disappointed we are ignoring our treaty with the Ukraine in which we agreed to defend them militarily from any invasion in exchange for them surrendering their nuclear weapon stockpile. We welched on our clear responsibility to defend them with force, just as the police and guard welched on their responsibilities to defend the building and representatives with deadly force, imo.
Many reports indicate that was following an executive order, or really an unofficial order from the executive (a distinction without a difference), but that's no excuse true or not.

What in the ever loving fuck are you talking about?
You mean they're upset that N Korea became a far more dangerous nuclear power under Tiananmen Trump, with multiple bomb and missile tests going unanswered, extending it's nuclear capabilities to be able to directly attack America and likely selling nukes to Iran while Trump dined with Kim and praised his dictatorial leadership? LMFAHS!

🤦‍♂️

So this is the kind of stupidity the right is spouting now, the nonsense only Trumpists are dumb and ignorant enough to swallow? Thanks for the heads up.

My understanding was that the areas that rely on wind for up to 25% of their power were not the areas that had power shortages but on the contrary were some of the only generation still happening in the state....of course, if Texas wasn't so obstinate they would agree to meet federal standards, would have upgraded both their wind and fossil fuel generation to withstand hard freezes, and would have had access to power from their neighbors if they still failed, and would have had billions of federal dollars to make it happen, but noooooo.....

Truth be told, Texas expected only 7% of total winter generation to be renewable/wind and got much more than that. They lost nearly half of their wind generation capabilities temporarily at the peak of the freeze, 16GW, but that loss was only half what was lost from natural gas and nuclear coolant freezing, 30+GW, and it was down longer.

(btw, I was born and raised in Texas)

Not in this climate of fear over all things Nuclear post-Chernobyl. Besides, with so much de-regulation and lack on competency & accountability, would you trust the 21st-century private Nuclear energy sector MORE than the 20th century's? We really need to leverage as much renewable energy sources like Wind/Solar/Hydro first and use nuclear as backup. Fossil based must be the dead-last option for those places that got no other viable means...

I'm all for nuclear, but what's the reality of that happening in the states anytime soon or at all? Are there plants being built right now or planned to be built?

Indeed, amazingly the wind power in Texas actually met expectations of the power it would provide in the cold snap.

The trouble is wind is so undependable they only counted on there being about 10% of capacity available. Wind gets absolved of blame by having almost no expectation that it will be available in the first place.

I say screw wind, build nuclear reactors instead and get the job done properly.

Depends on your definition of "need", and your definition of "stopping" climate change.

Because I'm convinced enough natural feedback loops are in effect that there's no chance at all of stopping further climate change, and only a slight chance of slowing the rate of change and only if humanity fundamentally changes first, I find the question flawed.

I find it odd that tidal energy (different from hydro) is never considered in these debates. It's simple, relatively cheap, easy to maintain, and best of all predictable and consistent. All you need is a shoreline with a relatively large tide swing, a small inlet, and a tidal flat.

At best, nuclear is a stop gap measure that trades one planetary poison for another.....largely because we aren't responsible with it....building on shores in earthquake zones for convenience, banning fuel recycling, having no long term waste plan and handling waste insanely (Japan, I'm looking at you and your plans to dump Fukushima irradiated water into the ocean)....It's far from "green" the way we do it.

Your video, Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Right now we are in that position, but it's the minority that benefits unequally. Under Republican rule, how many bills were killed by democrats threatening a filibuster? Certainly less than under Democratic rule, republicans love to kill bills so much McConnell is known as the grim reaper for killing legislation as both the majority and minority leader.
When one party, a party that has millions fewer votes for their representatives btw, has the power to stop all legislation as the majority or minority and abuses that power in a partisan way to the detriment of the nation, it makes sense to rewrite the rule changes that put us in that position.
McConnell has threatened exactly that, scorched earth, destroying the legislative process if he can't call all the shots as the minority leader.
As you mentioned, there are ways around it if the leaders are underhanded and purely partisan....democrats have not shown the spine to do that in recent memory, I hope they do now if they don't regulate filibustering.
Time for the nuclear option, whatever that is so long as it stops obstructionist republicans from controlling as the minority. Republicans use it whenever it's convenient, Democrats don't seem to do that, but it's fine to stop them from starting...but requires a rule change to make it unnecessary. Obstructionism has harmed the nation badly, and is the mantra of Republicans....has been all century.

I also have a thin hope that at least two of Trump's appointees to the supreme court can be removed for perjuring themselves at their confirmation hearings, fbi reports declassified since Trump left prove Kavanaugh and Comey did.

If you crossed Olympia with Salem, you'd have the reason we need nuclear weapons.