If base load isn’t required, where are these grid level storage facilities? Last I checked there were <100 and they are handle a fraction of a percent of the US grid load.

How many does china have? They have a much larger solar/Wind installation then the US so surely they should have hundreds of thousands, and yet?

In ths US as of 2022, 66% of natural gas facilities are for Base Load generation, something that you claim isn’t needed. Maybe you should let the engineers and grid planners know? https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61444

Can you provide a link showing the huge amount ofenergy storage that has been built alongside wind and solar? Surely such a huge undertaking would have at least a wikipedia page about it? Maybe a graph showing the increase in storage capacity over time? Afterall, base load isn’t needed anymore, this seems like a huge development in the past 10years! I’d love to learn about the inflection point where base load was no longer required.

Carbon capture is fossil fuel industry green washing. It doesn’t exist and completely ignores other greenhouse gases that are endemic to natural gas extraction and use. Again the purpose of base load, which is needed regardless of the propaganda, is to have a stable grid. The only way base load won’t be needed is if grid-scale storage both could be built (it can’t) and was built (it isn’t). So conveniently natural gas plants are built instead and now the US is the world’s number one producer of fossil fuels.

Isn’t that interesting?

If y’all were really worried about base load power, you’d be shilling for natural gas peaker plants + carbon capture which has much better economics.

Ah there it is. Another anti-nuclear shill for the fossil fuel industry. Sprinkling nebulous “economic” claims.
Storage at grid scale doesn’t exist, and probably never will, but natural gas peak plants exist today and are extremely lucrative for the fossil fuel industry. Every watt of solar or wind has a built in fossil fuel component that is necessary for grid stability. Nuclear eliminates the fossil fuel component, why would you be against that?

The purpose of nuclear power is zero-carbon emissions. That is the most important part. The economic value of them is secondary.

Withdrawing from NATO, I could see Trump entertaining that (wouldn’t actually happen).

Fire a bunch of the top leadership? For sure. That would both be something Trump could “order the military to do,” as well as something he might do, and it would also harm the US military’s capability to wage war.

Zero out Pentagon funding? Not possible for trump to do alone, but depending on the congressional make up, it could be done and would severely limit the ability of the US Military to wage war. They could even do it without affecting enlisted personnel enrollment. The Pentagon has their own funding 100% separate from military spending.

Could also deny all future discretionary spending for the military/pentagon.

Disband 20% of it’s career leadership.

Zero out pentagon funding.

Withdraw from NATO.

Replace Jewish with Israeli, or Zionist, and you are 100% accurate about what is happening.

Death to Israel. However Iran is as big a threat to Israel as the average US citizen. They should probably work on reforming their government from a strongman theocracy to something closer to china. Having a “spiritual leader” is alone worthy ridicule, and revoking of international recognition.

Point of order, Kamala didn’t “lead” anything, she was chosen by party insiders of the clinton wing to take over.

Also Aljazeera has always been highly critical of the US, I started reading them fairly regularly in the mid 2000’s as they were one of the only outlets criticizing Bush. (I don’t think the intercept existed yet.)