thinkcontext

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.

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.

> 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.

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10323 https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_corn_acres_planted

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.

> a better option still is to use the vehicle you already have for as long as reasonable

I've gone back and forth on this. When you buy an EV your old ICE vehicle is not destroyed, it continues it's lifecycle when it goes to someone else. Moreover, there's value in sending a market signal in buying an EV, which is important at this stage of transition.

Maybe the argument is about average age of the road fleet? That a used ICE vehicle should be replaced with a used EV?

> The embodied carbon of a Rivian for example is never paid back by operations

Really? I could imagine it being significantly longer than an average EV, but never? Regardless of driving pattern? Got a link or can you show your math?

Putting a lot of words I did not say in my mouth.

I don't necessarily agree with calling it "kidnapping" but the current administration is different in their use of profiling (racial and otherwise). That is new, previous court rulings had blocked that kind of behavior.

Elon Musk is a walking talking advertisement for the dangers of social media rotting your brain. But now I'd like to talk to you about white genocide in South Africa ...

> Anecdotally

Then it is of no interest

> Ask yourself, if you believe vaccines aren't more dangerous than any other pharmaceutical product, then why not support removing the blanket liability immunity given to vaccine makers, that no other medical product needs?

Because vaccines aren't all that profitable compared to other pharmaceuticals but produce disproportionate public good.

Colombian narcos have been using drones against the state, they tally 58 dead, 400 injured. This is a big problem that is going to get a lot bigger quickly. Colombia likely can't afford many fancy defenses and anyway they are likely to be of limited effectiveness where there are no front line.

https://archive.md/pW3kL WSJ

Individual trees are short term storage which is why its important to create healthy ecosystems for them to live in. Turning denuded farmland back into a forest buffers carbon from the atmosphere for as long as the forest stands. It could stay there for centuries or return to the atmosphere if it gets bulldozed for a subdivision.

I think this loses the forest for the trees. That is, a single tree rotting isn't what matters its how long the ecosystem the tree is part of lasts. Consider a square kilometer of denuded land turned back into a forest. You can think of the forest as a temporary storage for carbon, its stored in the trees, soil, animals, insects, etc in that square kilometer. Individual trees may die but on average if the forest remains in good health there will be a number of tons of carbon kept out of the atmosphere.

Chemical reduction of CO2 is a very hard problem since it takes a lot of energy. There's an enormous amount of research in this area. Storing it costs money, so most of the research focuses on turning the C into a useful product.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemical_reduction_of_c...

I 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...

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_in_spaceflight

> 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.