Recursive pockets
The implementation isn't working yet, I'll give you an explanation once I find the time to fix it.
Oh thanks, I'll make note of that in the implementation.
You can thank MOSFETs for that.
The alternative would be using BJTs (bijunctional transistors) which are far less efficient because whichever mode the transistor is conducting in, there will always be a 0.7 voltage drop from the gate to the emitter (since after all they are diodes). In N-channel MOSFETs there is no voltage drop from gate to source. There's also no current going into the gate, where as with BJTs there are.
I like my definition better 😂
What the hell does slammed mean?!
No wait let me guess, there was so much pressure in the carcass that it imploded into a black hole and sucked the human into its singularity.
Instead of eating 6 devilled eggs, Try drinking a jug of eggnog!
You assume that by increasing gas prices it would result in people not buying it and hence less CO2 emissions.
The production process for gasoline also contributes in CO2 emissions whether or not humans use it.
The current issue with gasoline (and why prices are increasing) is that gasoline companies aren't opening up more reserves, because by doing so it will decrease their revenue. I'm not sure what will happen once US gas reserves are finished.
You're right that it is helping the climate, not for the reason gas prices are expensive.
Each uranium rod has a life of around 6 years before needing replacement, the relative abudance of uranium-235 is about 0.9% compared to uranium 238 which has 98℅
Sure, the decay chain of uranium 235 is long, but the usability of in converting it to nuclear power the uranium rods last 6 years, not billions.
Even if we take all our uranium-235 reserves (which is about 56,304 kilo-tonnes of uranium-235)
1.) It's unrealistic because we use U-235 for other things 2.) This is a global reserve. Countries haven't made peace with another yet.
I know niche points, i'll admit I really dug through the barrel with this one. Nuclear power plants are also quite expensive to maintain and build since these are often built based on the selected site. Also very inefficient as each reaction loses 1.4 neutrons (or else kaboom).
These reasons are why (despite it generating 17℅ of the US electricity with only 92 reactors), countries don't invest more into nuclear power. Inefficiency + large costs make it unappealing compared to wind which generates 40℅ or even 60℅ (with offshore) of the energy the wind pushes.
I think there's a very simple explanation, the renewables as in solar and wind energy generation methods show that the world isn't perfect, that even ignoring the basic notion that natural gas and coal generate CO2 emissions; natural gas, U-235 (used for nuclear power generation), and coal are of a finite supply.
That destroys their ideology that we live in this perfect world with infinite resources, because most conservatives come from a religious background. They are beyond condescending (I know this because I lived in one), even with the world crumbling from gas prices and food, I don't think they'll even give a damn that prices are exponentially growing. They live in this fabricated environment abstracted away from the rest of the world.
I recently attended a lecture on dynamic charging of EVs. Theoretically speaking slapping a solar panel on a car to charge it is feasible, but by putting on solar panels it will add a lot more additional weight and will result in larger wind resistance.
The car would ultimately use more if not the same energy (with the additional energy supplied by the solar panel) then if it didn't have it in the first place.
