History ended sometime around 1990. It was determined at that time that civilization could not substantially change any further, for better or worse. No Mad Max or Terminator dystopias, but also no Star Trek type societies in which both social systems and technology become highly advanced. No, just a Sisyphean nightmare in which nothing meaningfully changes and an infinite, perpetual constant is maintained and managed, forever and ever, until the heat death of the universe. Instead of either dystopia or utopia we have an ever present, oppressive malaise that only the sweet release of death can liberate us from.

The CATL TENER grid battery system contains 6.25 MWh capacity in a single storage container that is 20’ long.

A 6.25 MWh battery can output 6.25 MW continuously for 1 hour, or 1 MW continuously for 6.25 hours.

We would need 148,800 TENER batteries to output 930 GW continuously for 1 hour. We would need 3,571,200 TENER batteries (22,320 GWh of storage) to output 930 GW continuously for 24 hours. However, the average continuous power demand in the US in 2025 was 466.21 GW. Now, that is an average, so the continuous power demand is sometimes higher than that but also sometimes lower than that. According to the EIA, the peak continuous power demand in the US in 2025 was 759.18 GW. We also have to understand that there would never be a time when all the electricity demand is coming only from battery storage. Between hydro, wind, solar, geothermal and all other renewable power sources, we would always be generating some electricity somewhere. Still, we would want a significant buffer, though we probably wouldn’t need 22,320 GWh of capacity. But, yes, we would likely need at least a million of CATL’s TENER batteries to meet current power demand. That’s a lot of batteries, for sure. Although, not an unfeasible number, imo.

That said, I think renewables with battery storage plus nuclear is the best course of action.

^sorry if any of my math is wrong^

I am so sick of these hyper rich psycho assholes.

Rob or kill the successful

Famously self made success Tsar Nicholas II.

The fourth major US city is Springfield. Which Springfield, you ask? Any and all.

What makes you think they’re pretending? Do you think all politicians are ideological nhilisists? That no politician, ever, anywhere, actually adheres to an ideology? Because I’m pretty certain that most do. And I think it matters what ideology guides a politician. I mean, I want to know that before I decide to vote for someone. I want to know what their guiding philosophy is. I think that’s important information.

The liberal dream. (I use liberal in the classical sense. Here in the US - where people don’t know what words mean - instead of “liberal” folks here might refer to them as “centrists,” “moderates” or “neoliberals.” Interesting that neoliberals are somehow not liberals here in the US, even though “liberal” is IN THE DAMN NAME!)

Marxism-Leninism is a dead-end.

I have never refunded a game on Steam. But then, I usually wait to buy a game until it’s been out for a while and usually on sale.

I found this in 30 seconds.

It’s more than a little disingenuous to pretend that Bernie Sanders hasn’t received significant criticism from the left, especially on matters related to race and gender.

Even if he was completely free of controversy, you’d find something to disqualify him. Maybe even just the fact that he’s white and/or a man. Men are inherently sexist and white people are inherently racist, so either of those characteristics alone would be enough.

But I will concede that there could potentially be a candidate who could be deemed acceptable, but such a candidate would necessarily hold limited appeal to the working class broadly, and especially the white working class, specifically, thus making them not a threat to capital. So, yes, liberals might allow a candidate who fails to meet their unattainable standard, but only if that candidate poses no threat of actually organizing the working class.

The standard is perfection. You establish that any and all leftists must attain this standard, or they are not true leftists. This works because perfect is an unattainable standard for every single leftist (and in fact every human, everywhere), so all are guaranteed to fall short of it. It’s such an easy, effective means of suppressing actual leftist movements. Remember, liberals are not new to this. They’ve been doing this for the better part of a century now, and they’ve gotten quite good at it.

Just keep waiting for that glorious international proletarian revolution. I’m sure it will start any day now.

I should clarify. I think increasing technological complexity can lead to progress, but I don’t think it always does. I think progress from increasing technological complexity often follows an s-curve. I’m not denying the progress that has come from the significant technological advancement of the last few centuries, I’m just not sure continued technological advancement will lead to that same level of progress over the next few centuries.

Technological progress isn’t free.

I’m just not convinced progress scales 1:1 with increasing technological complexity. In fact, I think progress might be better achieved by lowering costs and complexity, rather than increasing them. Maybe more isn’t always better.

Extremely complex and expensive engineering and technology development for 400 MW of net electricity generation. Why not just build a 400 MW solar farm (with battery shortage, of course)? There’s a massive, natural fusion reactor in the sky blasting the Earth with petawatts of energy every day, for absolutely free.

Nah, the bubble will have popped by then. Honestly, most people will probably be using fewer resources because the post bubble recession could be severe.

When people finally realize that AI, robots, big space rockets, and self driving cars are not feasible and/or not enough to sustain our infinite growth economy, it’s going to be kinda like realizing you forgot your parachute just after you jumped out of the plane.