He testified in court his brainworm had damaged his brain so much he could not reliably work and pay alimony to his ex wife. I don't think it's too much to say people who have had debilitating brainworn infections should not be in charge of public health.
She totally did. She was the crystallography expert, she understood the meaning of the results immediately. She died and had no one to defend her so W&C were left with the credit, as was normal in the 50s and 60s (and 70s, 80s, 90s, etc).
Not really. The market is still moving quickly towards renewables. It's only some conservative politicians in the US that are making noise about fossil fuels, not the market.
The market does not fix the administration paying wind projects billions of dollars to stop development.
The market does not fix the administration forcing coal plants to stay open even when they are losing money.
The market does not fix the administration cancelling grants for clean energy projects and subsidies for electric cars, and adding tariffs to solar panel imports.
And US car manufacturers are enthusiastically moving away from their efficiency goals. That market is not moving quickly to renewables.
The market is doing its best to ignore the administration.
Most of the coal plants forced to delay retirement aren't producing energy. They sit idle with minimal staff.
The US manufactured 70 GWh of grid battery storage in 2025 and is expected to make 145 GWh in 2026. That still does use a lot of imported cells, but US cell production is expected to reach 96 GHw per year by the end of this year.
Recent polls found that 47% of Americans plan to buy an EV within the next 5 years, and 35% say they are seriously considering one for they next car.
By age 75% of 18-34 year olds expect to buy an EV in the next 5 years. 23% of those 65 and older expect to.
I don't think US car makers are going to ignore that.
They are currently beefing up their hybrids. Ford expects by 2030 for about half its cars to be a mix of hybrids, extended range vehicles, and EVs. GM says they plan to introduce PHEVs across the lineup by late 2027/early 2028.
Ford and GM also are using the time between now and when we get an administration that is sane to divert the engineering teams that worked on their first generation EVs to skunkworks projects to design small very cheap EVs that can compete on price with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean cars by 2028.
They also believe that when sanity returns they will be able to scale up their new EVs fast enough to not lose out.
> The market does not fix the administration paying wind projects billions of dollars to stop development.
This would be the politicians I mentioned.
> The market does not fix the administration forcing coal plants to stay open even when they are losing money.
This would be the politicians I mentioned.
> The market does not fix the administration cancelling grants for clean energy projects and subsidies for electric cars, and adding tariffs to solar panel imports.
This would be the politicians I mentioned.
> And US car manufacturers are enthusiastically moving away from their efficiency goals.
I was unaware car makers were part of the energy supply industry.
> That market is not moving quickly to renewables.
Most car makers are creating more and more electric cars, some makers are committing to 100% electric soon. Increasingly energy efficient ICE cars take engineering time and money to make, money they'd rather not spend. By not making them spend it, they won't. They'd do the same for safety features if we let them.
And none of that results my core statement which is the energy supply market (and you knew that's what I was talking about because that's literally the topic) is still moving to renewables. More renewables come online every month.
The politicians are not "making noise", they have actual power and are making a real difference. (Except for the coal plants, so far, that hasn't held up in court.)
I know you were talking about energy industry, but I think mypalmike was being broader. That's why I called out that I was switching to talking about a different industry.
Efficiency goals are for the whole fleet of cars and don't just include making efficient ICE vehicles. They are moving the target average from 50 MPG to 35 MPG by 2031. That means fewer electric cars. “The standards finalized under the previous administration effectively required a switchover to electric vehicles that was out of step with market realities and customer demand. Today’s final rule is an appropriate course correction” --John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. https://abcnews.com/Business/trump-administration-rolls-back...
They ARE making noise because they can't actually turn back the tide. They can try, but they can't succeed. There's too much money in renewables and the momentum is too much to change now.
The US is switching to cleaner (coal -> gas) energy, renewables (solar and wind), and BESS almost entirely because it's cost effective and cheaper than the alternative.
Not a response to this comment's author but, I'm always apprehensive that other people read comments like this without the context or history of how cleantech has actually developed and internalize these overly reductive views which make us think our political system is less flexible than it really is, or that past actions are somehow divorced from what progress we do have.
> ... because it's cost effective and cheaper than the alternative ...
The wind, solar and ess manufacturers got down the learning curve largely because of industrial energy + market transformation policy. You can literally see wind installations just go to near zero whenever the PTC doesn't renew in annual installations numbers. It's great that these technologies have matured and are now the least cost resource (in some models, new solar + storage even outcompetes existing natural gas which is very exciting), but market development is a public/private partnership. I can't see what good it does to talk in broad unfounded aspersions.
On Windows there are lots of fully features features/applications people turn off. It's not all trial versions and it's disingenuous to pretend it's just that.
I would compare it to reselling mortgage bundles before 2008 crash. It is about moving risks to those who are more comfortable with it. Not a great sign but doesn't really indicate that sky is going to fall any time soon.
Yes. This is the bit of the movie where everyone is offloading crap off their balance sheets to limit the blast radius before allowing the market to reprice anything. Once the big players have cleaned up their balance sheet they’ll let the bottom of the market drop out.
Expect earnings calls to become a lot more skeptical about the future of AI once the balance sheet cleanup completes.
Sounds like a ponzi type scheme to me. The will "sell" installed existing chips to investors and then lease them back. So when the chips are obsolete or replaced, what will happen to the investment ?
Sounds very shady to me. But also sounds like what companies do with real estate, except land does not get obsoleted.
It’s atypical to do leaseback for objects with a shelf life that’s as short as that of GPUs, but in the end, leaseback is not very different from long term renting.
It does signal that Amazon needs more cash fairly soon, but _if_ that is because they plan to invest lots of money, that need not be a problem.
If, on the other hand, it’s because they’re running out of cash, that is a problem, as leaseback solves that in the short term, but makes that problem more dire in the future.
if investors buy the chips and lease them back... and the investors are also owners of the company via shares... ??? a lot of the investors is pop amd mom retirement funds... is this a way to funnel even more people money into the friking machine?
I find AI written stuff to be hard to read. Part of my career is being a writer and I take great pride in my outout. AI written materials is a slog because you can see how it's pumping out words to hit various metrics rather than what's needed for the task.
I'm not that commenter, but I wouldn't were I that person. There's a lot more self-responsibility involved with a Comma system than what Tesla advertises as "Full self Driving." It's the difference between blaming Ford for bad factory breaks versus aftermarket parts the consumer made themselves.
> It seems like it would be more effective to simply put all the solar panels in a field, and construct a cheap shade over the entire canal no?
No because now you're using land that could be used for other things, which is exactly what this avoids. This takes existing land that loses water and costs money, and makes it lose less water and make money.
Did anyone else get weird deja vu from the sibling comment? And I can't figure out which one is the clone. cryptolobster posted about 1 hour after zdp7, but they both have good posting history.
Yes, you are right. There's a comment further above to cover the canal but not with solar panels and have the panels in a solar park. The covered area in that solar park could then be used for agriculture - and maybe irrigated with the water from the covered canal.
Yes, we could also put the canal underground in a tunnel and build a nuclear plant, but none of that is relevant either. The article isa bout what we learned by putting panels on canals, not looking for alternatives.
You are assuming that land is expensive and forgetting that building and maintaining panels over long a canal is harder than building over a large plot.
No I'm not. I'm assuming that existing unused land should be reserved for better projects when we have currently used land that both can do more and where this helps save water. My comment had absolutely nothing to do with the price of land. Everyone else is missing the "water conservation" part because they're distracted by the solar panels and are getting nerd sniped. This isn't a solar first project, it's a water first project.
Harder but obviously not physically impossible either. From the image I can't imagine what the showstopper would possibly be. Technician on a little dinghy instead of a stepladder doesn't seem like a big deal. Presumably they make it where you can pull the panel off easily if you need to.
You're talking about something that is probably at least 10x the cost to build and maintain. You're making something simple, like swapping a single solar panel, from a ground-level one-man job into now a multi-person job with specialized equipment and water hazards.
Thats 10x the cost somehow? I doubt it. They put solar in all kinds of awkward areas where a technican can't just show up and turn a screwdriver from ground level. Seems it works somehow. Chances are if they go with this, they will have some maintenance craft like a barge platform I'd guess, where the job would be made effectively no different than a ground level job (aside from bringing over the barge which could be quite simple in design, e.g. wood platform raft made from drums and a cheap outboard motor on one end, it's only in the aqueduct after all not in any open water or current.)
Many of those installations end up abandoned when the cost to repair them exceeds the value of the output of the panel.
You just typically don’t notice it because unless the panel is severely damaged, a non-functional panel doesn’t look much different than a functional one.
You're also not getting the free cooling capacity of the water which makes the panels more efficient - though that probably only drops the total cost 5% or so, but how much extra the heavier supports cost may not be much more...
Both are fascinating. I've had a pet theory for 30 years that there is not a single "mind" but that we're made up of more isolated aspects that do different things and working in concert we come up with our idea of "a mind".
Have you ever done any mindfulness meditation? I hit on a similar idea while meditating. My analogy is the brain is like the full spectrum of radio frequencies, but there's a "main station" that is "I". From time to time you lose that signal and tune into something else. And just because you're not listening to it, it doesn't mean the other stations aren't still broadcasting.
I have no idea if there's a biological origin for any of this, but it definitely fits with my experience of meditation and awareness training.
When you turn your thoughts inward you're depending more heavily on the Default Mode Network. I'm not well versed in it, but I believe conditions like anxiety and ADHD are partially caused by "too much" activity from this feature of the brain. With meditation you learn to adjust how much activity is occurring here by (not?) focusing on it.
reply