5
points
thinkcontext
Joined 2,770 karma
- thinkcontextI have seen no indication that any of those 3 wouldn't. And in general the GOP is pretty virulently against wind power, take the false stories about them causing whale strandings or the Texas winter power outage. Its true no one has had quite the sustained, obsessive, demented hatred that Trump has ("windmills cause cancer"). But would you be willing to bet $Bs on them being any better?
- There is certainly a case to be made for efficiently managing resources but DOGE's chainsaw methodology was a disaster. It had no comprehension whatsoever of what it was cutting, as we saw with frequent firing of vital divisions and then having to hire them back, its keyword approach to grant cancelling which resulted in trans-panic resulting in genetic research that included the word "transgenic". Worst of all were its broad workplace policies of offering deferred retirement and firing probationary employees. These disproportionately effected the most talented employees who could find employment in the private sector.
- Even if a Dem is elected in '28, who is going to make a multi-year investment with the chance that JD Vance/Trump Jr/MTG could be elected in '32?
- Its fair to do an accounting of externalities. However, I generally find those raising externality issues with solar and wind wildly overestimate their impact and wildly underestimate the externalities of fossil fuels. You mention the 20 year lifespan, this is a huge benefit compared to fossil fuels. The externalities of oil and gas add up for every second they are used.
- Looks like the feed is 95% glucose derived from corn starch[1]. They claim to have 1/4 the carbon footprint of chicken[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusarium_venenatum
[2] https://eathealthy365.com/quorn-vs-meat-the-2025-environment...
- 3 points
- Like I said it's stolen customers from incumbents like Hughesnet and Viasat and expanded the market to customers who did not previously have satellite internet. They were able to do it because their low orbit service is significantly better than geostationary services.
They have made explicit from the beginning that they are not competing with wired internet service.
- It made an impression on me when Musk invited the world's press to Texas and stood them in front of MK1, pointed at it and said it would go to space that year. It also made an impression when it and the next few fell apart on the ground.
After that I decided I wasn't going to count Musk's eggs before they are hatched. What has been accomplished with Starship so far is impressive, that should be acknowledged. But big todo items, heat shield, refueling and reusability are still to be proved and we'll have to wait and see if and when they are achieved.
- > routine satellite launches
The launching is routine, the landing and being able to turn around the same booster again in a few weeks is a capability no one else has. Their ability to launch so often came in handy over the past few years when other providers faltered. They were able to, on short notice, take over launches from Ariane 6, Vulcan, and Antares because of development delays and Soyuz because of political problems. No other medium launch provider can fit a launch in on short notice, they need years of lead time for one, let alone multiple. For SpaceX they just bump a Starlink payload a few months from now and replace it with the new one.
> all for their not as good as fiber internet
Starlink is making money. Its not just stealing market share from the incumbents but its significantly expanded the market.
- I wonder if this has more to do with XAi than SpaceX. He recently had SpaceX invest $2B into XAi due to the AI arms race. If SpaceX had unneeded cash sitting around why raise money now?
- I have criticized Musk plenty and have been skeptical of the Starship timelines from the beginning, however, SpaceX has launched over 150 times this year. That's more than the entire rest of the world. Surely they must be doing something right?
- > Traditional stereo won't help you localize them
Wouldn't making a quick circuit around the house before landing allow wires to be observed from multiple angles be enough?
- Its recent performance against Russian S-300 anti-aircraft systems over Iran made its case in a very public way.
- EPR has shown that the French have lost the ability to build reactors rapidly and on budget.
- I personally think Trump loves Russia and Putin and generally wants to do business with them. He has wanted a Trump Tower in Moscow for decades and probably still wants that to happen.
- Intelligence, targeting info and selling (no longer giving) weapons are all important support but sanctions is the really big one. The most recent round in particular has really bit into Russia's oil revenue.
Of course it would be absolutely disgraceful for the US to drop sanctions on Russia and have normal relations with it while it continued its invasion. But that's what the US voted for.
- Seems like a big part of Tesla's speculative value is undermined by other companies advancing rapidly in self driving vehicles.
- 2 points
- The US Navy doesn't build them, private companies do. None of the SMR companies that I am aware of have attempted to use designs from naval reactors. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they use highly enriched fuel which is a no-no for civilian reactors.
In any event, if your more general point is that naval reactors indicate its possible that SMRs can be built on time and budget, I don't disagree. It certainly is possible. NuScale was the furthest along of the SMR companies and had their project implode before it got off the ground. So, its also possible for them to crash and burn.
So, I'll stick with my classification of SMRs as "maybe it will work out, maybe not".