Olivia
Online
Dan Bender
@danbender71
Product executive in automotive technology, connected platforms & AI | Building trust through operational discipline
Michigan
Joined June 2012
634 Following
105 Followers
1.3K Posts
"What is this? Is this a dunk tank?"
Marco Rubio doesn’t hold back after Democrat Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove cuts him off and refuses to let him answer her questions during a House Foreign Affairs hearing:
"Why am I here if I don’t get to answer your questions or your defamatory statements?"
"You get asked questions for five minutes and you don't get time to answer? It's not a hearing!"
President Trump secured the southern border.
Now let’s CLEAR the northern sky!
Make Michigan’s Air Great Again!
James Madison described the powers of the federal government as “few and defined” and those reserved to the states as “numerous and indefinite.”
We’ve been dangerously drifting from that understanding since the 1930s.
The drift has been most evident in areas now most fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse.
If we honored the Constitution’s limits on federal power, there’d be very little waste, fraud, and abuse in our national government.
Share if you’d like to see a “constitutional reset,” in which any government function that’s not obviously and necessarily federal under the Constitution would be returned “to the states respectively, or to the people,” as the Tenth Amendment specifies.
I love the Olympics. Winter, summer, every single games, I tune in.
I love it because we see how sports bring us together.
I love it because we are reminded that sports are the ultimate equalizer. Look at weightlifting in the summer Olympics or downhill skiing now. The weights and the mountain don’t care what country you come from, how much money you have, or what religion you are. The weights and the mountain are the same for every single competitor.
I love it, most of all, because the Olympics remind us of a core life lesson: greatness and heartbreak live right next door to each other.
You can’t find greatness without a few meetings with heartbreak and failure.
We saw this very clearly over the weekend.
Like many of you, I’ve been following my friend Lindsey Vonn’s inspirational comeback. She’s 41, one knee is completely rebuilt, and now she went into the Olympics with a freshly-torn ACL.
As storylines go, you can’t get any better. It is gutsy. It is brave. It is a little bit crazy.
And it brings out all of the losers to do their naysaying.
“Why would she do this?”
”She must be missing something in her life.”
“It’s irresponsible.”
What these people don’t understand, because they’ve never tried anything great, because they’ve never pushed themselves to the absolute edges of their limits, because they’ll never know their real potential, is that there is no such thing as risk-free greatness.
Yesterday, when her Olympic dreams ended in that horrible crash that left all of us praying for her in front of our televisions, the haters were out in full force.
I don’t need to repeat it. Twitter has given losers enough of a platform; I won’t be amplifying them in this newsletter.
(1/x)
Terrion Arnold shares a message after his season-ending injury news 🙏
“Keeping trusting God, keep having faith”
This Is What Hard Feels Like
lol
This Is America.
https://t.co/7EUqdn11zk
🎯
Stephen Miller: "You won't get an ounce of sympathy from this administration."
Milton Friedman was ahead of his time.
"Keep your eye on how much the Government is spending, because that is the true tax."
Reuters was paid millions of dollars by the US government for “large scale social deception”.
That is literally what it says on the purchase order! They’re a total scam.
Just wow.
Milton Friedman was spot on
Victory! Shell abandons whale-killing wind project & writes off $1 billion. Another company abandons $250 million plant to make subsea cables that would have wrecked the sea floor. And a wind project in Maine is on the ropes. The fight's not over so please share the truth!
Do you like math?
Do you like making climate activists cry?
If so, this post is for you. 🫵
They advertise utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind as being “eco-friendly” energy technologies because they emit less CO₂ over their total lifecycle. Emissions is all the “greens” like to jack their sausage holsters about. But, when you point out to them just how land intensive their “green” energy technologies are, they squirm trying to justify being vehemently opposed to nuclear fission — a near-infinite, carbon-free, energy-dense electricity source — and working to destroying the landscape with massive amounts of solar cells and wind farms to save the planet.
Let's run the numbers, shall we?
𝐍𝐔𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐑 𝐅𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍 ⚛️
The standard nuclear reactor has a 1,000-megawatt (MW) rating. This means that each plant is, on average, installed with 1,000 MW of power capacity. A 1,000-MW nuclear facility occupies, on average, just over 1 square mile (640 acres) of land.
To figure out just how many homes a single 1,000 MW plant could power, we can start by using the following equation,
𝑬 = 𝑷 × 𝒕, where,
• 𝑬 = energy (megawatt hours, MWh)
• 𝑷 = power (MW)
• 𝒕 = time (hours, hr)
If we assume a 1,000 MW nuclear reactor operates at FULL power during an entire calendar year, it will produce ~8.76 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year.
𝑬 = 1,000 MW × 24 hr (1-day) × 365 [days] (1 yr) = 8.76 million MWh / yr (8.76 TWh / yr)
However, reactors do 𝒏𝒐𝒕 operate at full power 100% of the time because they come offline for refueling or to undergo maintenance. Therefore, we must take the capacity factor into consideration in our calculation.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), nuclear power has the highest capacity factor of any electricity generation source in the U.S. at 0.93 in 2023.
🔗https://t.co/Y938aQqT9G
What this value means is that nuclear reactors in the U.S. operated at full installed power for about 93% of the calendar year in 2023.
So, to figure out how much electricity that each plant produces in a year, we must multiply the previously calculated value of 8.76 TWh by the capacity factor of
0.93. If we do that, we get,
𝑬 = (8.76 TWh / year) × 0.93 ≈ 8.15 TWh / yr
Now, to determine just how many homes this powers, we must divide 𝑬 by the average amount of electricity U.S. homeowners purchase in a year. According to the EIA, that number is ~10,500 kilowatt-hours (KWh) or 1.05 × 10⁻⁵ TWh.
🔗https://t.co/9vca2DxIP6
Thus, dividing 8.15 TWh / yr by 1.05 × 10⁻⁵ TWh / yr gives us about 776,190 homes.
Therefore, a 1,000 MW nuclear electricity generation station occupying one square mile of land, operating with a capacity factor of 0.93, can power more than 775,000 homes throughout the course of a year based on U.S. data.
Now that is pretty energy-dense, eh? Why would any climate activist be opposed to that?
Let's now compare nuclear to the greens' preferred solar and wind technologies.
𝐒𝐎𝐋𝐀𝐑 𝐏𝐕 ☀️
A utility-scale solar PV array requires at least 1 MW of installed power.
🔗https://t.co/SygGgNZgYB
A1 MW solar PV array requires about 5-7 acres of land according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).
🔗https://t.co/LSMv9n25wR
And, according to the EIA, solar had a capacity factor of 0.232 last year in the U.S., by far the 𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒔𝒕 of any energy source. What this means is that solar PV arrays only operated at full power 23.2% of the year in 2023 due to variable weather conditions and sky cover.
By using the same calculations as above, a 1,000 MW solar PV array would occupy some 5,000-7,000 acres of land (mean of ~6,000 acres), all the while powering 193,523 homes, some 582,667 fewer homes than if it were nuclear power.
Yikes, that doesn't sound very efficient. 😬
𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐃
A single utility-scale wind turbine occupies ~80 acres of land, which each turbine given a 2.5 MW rating.
A 1,000 MW onshore wind farm would require about 400 2.5-MW turbines occupying some 32,000 acres of land area.
And, according to the EIA, wind had a capacity factor of 0.332 in 2023, meaning that U.S. utility-scale wind farms operated at full power capacity for 33.2% of the year last year.
If we employ the same methods as before, we'll find that a 1,000 MW wind farm could power about 277,143 homes for one year. Therefore, a 1,000 MW wind farm would power 499,047 fewer homes than a 1,000 MW nuclear facility while occupying over 50 times as much land area.
That's not exactly efficient either, now, is it?
𝐒𝐔𝐌𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐙𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐓 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐔𝐏
In order to power the same number of homes that a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant can, it would require either:
• For 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐏𝐕: Approximately 4,000 MW of installed power (equivalent to four nuclear facilities) and 24,000 acres of land (some 37.5 × as much land area than a nuclear plant).
• For 𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐝: Approximately 2,800 MW of installed power (equivalent to 2.8 nuclear facilities) and 89,600 acres of land (some 140 × as much land area than a nuclear power generation station).
But, I should caution you that these estimates are in fact conservative. Why? Because they do 𝒏𝒐𝒕 take into consideration land area required for battery storage due to their intermittency in overcast sky conditions, low wind speed and/or overnight.
Based on land requirements alone, if climate activists were serious environmentalists, they would support deployment of more nuclear power. Some of them do, but most I have interacted with don't and find terrible excuses to support massive amounts of solar PV and onshore wind farm construction.
Nuclear power represents both continued economic growth and a clean energy future.
But, many climate activists don't want continued economic growth. They want to abolish capitalism and overturn western culture.
![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. Do you like math?
Do you like making climate activists cry?
If so, this post is for you. 🫵
They advertise utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind as being “eco-friendly” energy technologies because they emit less CO₂ over their total lifecycle. Emissions is all the “greens” like to jack their sausage holsters about. But, when you point out to them just how land intensive their “green” energy technologies are, they squirm trying to justify being vehemently opposed to nuclear fission — a near-infinite, carbon-free, energy-dense electricity source — and working to destroying the landscape with massive amounts of solar cells and wind farms to save the planet.
Let's run the numbers, shall we?
𝐍𝐔𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐑 𝐅𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍 ⚛️
The standard nuclear reactor has a 1,000-megawatt (MW) rating. This means that each plant is, on average, installed with 1,000 MW of power capacity. A 1,000-MW nuclear facility occupies, on average, just over 1 square mile (640 acres) of land.
To figure out just how many homes a single 1,000 MW plant could power, we can start by using the following equation,
𝑬 = 𝑷 × 𝒕, where,
• 𝑬 = energy (megawatt hours, MWh)
• 𝑷 = power (MW)
• 𝒕 = time (hours, hr)
If we assume a 1,000 MW nuclear reactor operates at FULL power during an entire calendar year, it will produce ~8.76 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year.
𝑬 = 1,000 MW × 24 hr (1-day) × 365 [days] (1 yr) = 8.76 million MWh / yr (8.76 TWh / yr)
However, reactors do 𝒏𝒐𝒕 operate at full power 100% of the time because they come offline for refueling or to undergo maintenance. Therefore, we must take the capacity factor into consideration in our calculation.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), nuclear power has the highest capacity factor of any electricity generation source in the U.S. at 0.93 in 2023.
🔗https://t.co/Y938aQqT9G
What this value means is that nuclear reactors in the U.S. operated at full installed power for about 93% of the calendar year in 2023.
So, to figure out how much electricity that each plant produces in a year, we must multiply the previously calculated value of 8.76 TWh by the capacity factor of
0.93. If we do that, we get,
𝑬 = (8.76 TWh / year) × 0.93 ≈ 8.15 TWh / yr
Now, to determine just how many homes this powers, we must divide 𝑬 by the average amount of electricity U.S. homeowners purchase in a year. According to the EIA, that number is ~10,500 kilowatt-hours (KWh) or 1.05 × 10⁻⁵ TWh.
🔗https://t.co/9vca2DxIP6
Thus, dividing 8.15 TWh / yr by 1.05 × 10⁻⁵ TWh / yr gives us about 776,190 homes.
Therefore, a 1,000 MW nuclear electricity generation station occupying one square mile of land, operating with a capacity factor of 0.93, can power more than 775,000 homes throughout the course of a year based on U.S. data.
Now that is pretty energy-dense, eh? Why would any climate activist be opposed to that?
Let's now compare nuclear to the greens' preferred solar and wind technologies.
𝐒𝐎𝐋𝐀𝐑 𝐏𝐕 ☀️
A utility-scale solar PV array requires at least 1 MW of installed power.
🔗https://t.co/SygGgNZgYB
A1 MW solar PV array requires about 5-7 acres of land according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).
🔗https://t.co/LSMv9n25wR
And, according to the EIA, solar had a capacity factor of 0.232 last year in the U.S., by far the 𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒔𝒕 of any energy source. What this means is that solar PV arrays only operated at full power 23.2% of the year in 2023 due to variable weather conditions and sky cover.
By using the same calculations as above, a 1,000 MW solar PV array would occupy some 5,000-7,000 acres of land (mean of ~6,000 acres), all the while powering 193,523 homes, some 582,667 fewer homes than if it were nuclear power.
Yikes, that doesn't sound very efficient. 😬
𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐃
A single utility-scale wind turbine occupies ~80 acres of land, which each turbine given a 2.5 MW rating.
A 1,000 MW onshore wind farm would require about 400 2.5-MW turbines occupying some 32,000 acres of land area.
And, according to the EIA, wind had a capacity factor of 0.332 in 2023, meaning that U.S. utility-scale wind farms operated at full power capacity for 33.2% of the year last year.
If we employ the same methods as before, we'll find that a 1,000 MW wind farm could power about 277,143 homes for one year. Therefore, a 1,000 MW wind farm would power 499,047 fewer homes than a 1,000 MW nuclear facility while occupying over 50 times as much land area.
That's not exactly efficient either, now, is it?
𝐒𝐔𝐌𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐙𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐓 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐔𝐏
In order to power the same number of homes that a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant can, it would require either:
• For 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐏𝐕: Approximately 4,000 MW of installed power (equivalent to four nuclear facilities) and 24,000 acres of land (some 37.5 × as much land area than a nuclear plant).
• For 𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐝: Approximately 2,800 MW of installed power (equivalent to 2.8 nuclear facilities) and 89,600 acres of land (some 140 × as much land area than a nuclear power generation station).
But, I should caution you that these estimates are in fact conservative. Why? Because they do 𝒏𝒐𝒕 take into consideration land area required for battery storage due to their intermittency in overcast sky conditions, low wind speed and/or overnight.
Based on land requirements alone, if climate activists were serious environmentalists, they would support deployment of more nuclear power. Some of them do, but most I have interacted with don't and find terrible excuses to support massive amounts of solar PV and onshore wind farm construction.
Nuclear power represents both continued economic growth and a clean energy future.
But, many climate activists don't want continued economic growth. They want to abolish capitalism and overturn western culture.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GgDoUjQWEAAUT19.png)
After joining us at practice, Sylvia got another surprise from our captain!
@MakeAWishMI
China emits more CO2 than the rest of the developed world combined. But hey, let’s blame it on UK cow burps and wood burners…
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.2M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.6M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
109.1M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.3M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.6M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
86.9M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
80.7M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.3M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.4M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
68.7M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.6M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.5M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
61.3M followers
X
@x
60.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60M followers