> and the fact that FSD works so well without it proves that it isn't required
The reports that Tesla submits on Austin Robotaxis include several of them hitting fixed objects. This is the same behavior that has been reported on for prior versions of their software of Teslas not seeing objects, including for the incident for which they had a $250M verdict against them reaffirmed this past week. That this is occurring in an extensively mapped environment and with a safety driver on board leads me to the opposite conclusion that you have reached.
The problem you are encountering is how you are discussing superconductors. If you want to convince people that they are relevant you should explain how they would be used. You haven't done that at all, you just keep repeating "superconductors".
And it would be helpful if you showed some uses of superconductors in space similar to what you propose and not some vague proposal for research that would take decades to realize. I'm not familiar with any use of them relevant to this application and I take the other people responding to you are not either.
A puzzling statement, could you explain? Most of their revenue now comes Starlink which is mostly private clients. Also it's trivial to look at their launch history and see they have plenty of private clients. For sure the USG is their most important client but "entirely" is flat out wrong.
There's reason to suspect that the one's leaving are more likely to be top performers. First, top performers are the most likely to be able to find another job easily so they would take the voluntary buyout or just leave when things get crazy. Also, some of the DOGE cuts targeted probationary employees which include those that have recently been promoted or recently hired, both are classes of employee that the department explicitly wanted to keep.
The largest such effort is China's South - North Water Transfer Project, look into that if you are interested in the subject. Its unbelievably gigantic in scale, yet the amount of water moved is relatively modest compared to the amount of consumption.
More than 50% of cars sold in China now come with a plug, on top of the most of the buses and 2 wheelers. Most analysts say they have plateaued and will begin declining in the next few years. They also are beginning to ramp up EV exports to other developing economies.
Even in China the case for nuclear isn't overwhelming. They are building a lot of nuclear relative to the rest of the world but its not that much compared to how much wind and solar they are deploying.
Yes. Mostly because of inland ban. Costwise their nuclear is extremely cheap, probably even cheaper than ren, but it's harder to scale (or unwillingness). But per capita they don't even match french deployments during messmer or swedish bwr units during peak
No. They are afraid to pollute downstream. Nuclear doesn't require that much water. Worstcase you can even deploy dry cooling or wastewater like palo verde
The US gave the nuclear industry a chance for a nuclear renaissance with the subsidies they asked for towards the AP1000. The industry whiffed big time. Looks like nuclear will get another chance with the increased subsidies begun under Biden, the deregulatory approach of Trump and the huge demand spike in electricity. Its an open question on whether they'll be able to deliver.
The US is in a bit better position on more nuclear than Europe, because the EPR was an overdesigned mess, while the AP1000 was just badly executed. The AP1000 is actually quite a nice design (it actually has a completed design now). The Chinese are offering a version of it for sale abroad; they tried the EPR too and have done nothing more with it.
If the US is for some reason to do nuclear going forward, just building AP1000s would probably be the least insane way to do it. These SMRs? Maybe investigatory builds but don't count on anything.
I admit I thought the fiascos that the 2 AP1000 projects were would forever kill the design in the US. But it now looks like the AI craze will give it another shot.
The US produces an unbelievably enormous calorie surplus way beyond what is needed for the health of the country and in fact its detrimental.
The biggest is not even used as food, over half of corn acreage is used for ethanol. That's an amount of land that's truly beyond comprehension. Its a horrible program as well, corn ethanol is worse than the gasoline it replaces in terms of carbon footprint when taking land use into account. And it raises the price of food. And we even subsidize it multiple times, we subsidize the crop as corn and then we subsidize it as ethanol. Biodiesel and renewable diesel (different products) have spiked in recent years as well, most of that is made from soy, canola, or corn oil. They have similar problems though aren't as bad as corn ethanol.
Another huge negative surplus is the amount of liquid calories, mainly soda, that are consumed. Most nutrition science that I've read points to the enormous amount of liquid calories as the part of the US diet that is driving obesity epidemic. There are of course other aspects to the obesity as well.
Finally, substituting some of the US consumption of beef with chicken and some of the chicken with beans.
To recap US overproduces calories to the point that it hurts the country. It damages the land, the ocean with dead zones, the climate with carbon. We pay for it multiple times in subsidies and with higher food prices. It hurts our health which we pay for in suffering, shortened lives and health costs.
That doesn't mean much without more details. Corn is used as a tool in the crop rotation to enable growing foods for humans to eat. As we learned before ethanol's time in the sun, farmers are going to grow it anyway to support their rotations. The only question is if it is better to recapture that into usable energy or to let it rot out in the field.
> ... when taking land use into account
But if not taken into account? The harsh reality is that ethanol plants are unable to pay cost-of-production-level prices for corn. It now typically costs $5+ to produce a bushel of corn, while ethanol plants generally start to lose money as the price rises above $4.50 per bushel. You're not growing corn for ethanol. You accept selling corn to ethanol buyers when you can't find a better home for it.
Corn especially is a tough one to predict. A couple of years ago yields around here were nearly 100 bushels per acre higher than normal! Even if we put in the mightiest effort to grow exactly the right amount of corn for reasonable food uses, that 100 bushel surprise means a good 1/3 of your crop has no predetermined home right there. Of course, it can go the other way too. If you end up 100 bushels per acre short of what you expected...
Between needing to grow extra to protect against unexpected low yields, combined with unexpected high yields, half to the corn crop having no home (and therefore ending up as ethanol) isn't that far outside of what cannot be reasonably controlled for.
> To recap US overproduces calories to the point that it hurts the country.
That's fair. We don't have the technology to do better, unfortunately. Maybe once LLMs free up software developers once and for all they can turn their focus towards solving this problem?
> Corn is used as a tool in the crop rotation to enable growing foods for humans to eat. As we learned before ethanol's time in the sun, farmers are going to grow it anyway to support their rotations. The only question is if it is better to recapture that into usable energy or to let it rot out in the field.
This doesn't make sense in light of the large expansion of corn acreage that corresponds to ethanol policy.
Corn acres have expanded, but the same is also true of other crops. Given corn's role in the crop rotation, it stands to reason that when other crops expand, corn comes with it. There are a lot more mouths to feed nowadays. The world's population has grown by approximately 30% since the last change in ethanol policy.
> that corresponds to ethanol policy.
The ethanol subsidy in the last policy change ended in 2012, yet, as you point out, corn acres have continued to expand, which seems contrary to what you are trying to suggest. What specific correspondence are you finding?
corn->ethanol is government subsidized robbery. I paid for those nutrients let them rot. Now consumers have to buy more and eat more calories to get the same nutrition. All so we can have net negative ROEI ethanol?
There was that brief period where subsidies were enacted to spur on construction of ethanol plants to take up the excess corn that was rotting leading up to that time. They have long since come to an end. You could still call E10 requirements a subsidy, but you'd only be paying for that if you willingly chose to consume the product.
> Now consumers have to buy more and eat more calories to get the same nutrition.
Why?
> All so we can have net negative ROEI ethanol?
I'm not sure your math is mathing. Recapturing something, even with some marginal loss, is still a greater return than nothing.
The reports that Tesla submits on Austin Robotaxis include several of them hitting fixed objects. This is the same behavior that has been reported on for prior versions of their software of Teslas not seeing objects, including for the incident for which they had a $250M verdict against them reaffirmed this past week. That this is occurring in an extensively mapped environment and with a safety driver on board leads me to the opposite conclusion that you have reached.