Storage production capacity is still rising much faster than energy consumption in all those nations, and the situation is probably quite similar with other pieces of infrastructure that last for decades; replacing all big electric transformers would similarly need many years of production.
Primary energy considerations are also somewhat iffy if the first step involved is often a ~40% efficient conversion into a form similarly "valuable" to electricity (like gasoline => motion).
Electricity consumption isn't linear (people use far less when they are sleeping), and production isn't zero at night (wind and hydro exist). Covering 12 hours is almost certainly overkill.
"640k ought to be enough for anybody" :) I'm sure with more electricity available, prices would drop, meaning people will use more electricity and so on. Just like desktop applications and available system RAM, I guess some things just consume what becomes available.
Of course. It just means the estimation of "years of battery production" (and its implicit "we can't possibly produce that much so the transition is doomed to fail") isn't as big of a deal as it might seem at first glance.
Maybe a business, certainly not the average person. And whether or not they use it will be determined by price more than anything. If the added batteries and renewables don't translate to appreciable decreases in energy prices then I don't see people using more electricity just because it's available.
The other thing that prevents an individual from using more is that electricity usage creates heat.
US government is very interested in any kind of uranium mining, processing, enrichment or plutonium breading. For example in 1944 US wanted to control world-wide uranium mining.
"The NSG was founded in response to India's first nuclear weapon test in May 1974. It first met in November 1975. The test demonstrated that certain non-weapons specific nuclear technology could be readily turned to weapons development."
I read a high-school chemistry book describing the synthesis of nitroglycerine, it's not complicated. I would not recommend to try the synthesis in any significant amount.
He hoped to create a breeder reactor, but he was very far creating a working breeder reactor.
Also:
"EPA scientists believed that Hahn's life expectancy may have been shortened due to his exposure to radioactivity, particularly since he spent long periods in the small, enclosed shed with relatively large amounts of radioactive material and only minimal safety precautions, but he refused their recommendation that he be examined at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station."
Simple gun-type fission weapons, don't require very sophisticated physics. I heard a story about from physics professor who said: If my physics students could not do calculations for a simple nuclear weapon, I would require them to return their diploma, because they didn't learn enough physics.
"Little Boy" was exploded in Japan without previous full scale testing, so confident were the physicists in 1945.
"Unlike the implosion design developed for the Trinity test and the Fat Man bomb design that was used against Nagasaki, which required sophisticated coordination of shaped explosive charges, the simpler but inefficient gun-type design was considered almost certain to work, and was never tested prior to its use at Hiroshima."
"The experiment consisted in paying three young physicists who had just received their PhDs, though they had no prior weapons experience, to develop a working nuclear weapon design, using only unclassified information, and with basic computational and technical support."
Now in 2026, the access to nuclear weapons is restricted by restricting access to materials necessary to build nuclear weapons: highly enriched uranium or plutonium.
"The production, import, and export of maraging steels by certain entities, such as the United States, is closely monitored by international authorities because it is particularly suited for use in gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment."
That’s ~true for now but keep the date someone said it in mind. It’s really easy to keep thinking technical limitations still true when they are wildly out of date.
Like for many kind of technology the are both advantages and disadvantages to offshore wind farms.
"Advantages:
Offshore wind speeds tend to be faster than on land.1 Small increases in wind speed yield large increases in energy production: a turbine in a 15-mph wind can generate twice as much energy as a turbine in a 12-mph wind. Faster wind speeds offshore mean much more energy can be generated.
Offshore wind speeds tend to be steadier than on land.1 A steadier supply of wind means a more reliable source of energy.
Many coastal areas have very high energy needs. Half of the United States’ population lives in coastal areas,1 with concentrations in major coastal cities. Building offshore wind farms in these areas can help to meet those energy needs from nearby sources.
Offshore wind farms have many of the same advantages as land-based wind farms – they provide renewable energy; they do not consume water; they provide a domestic energy source; they create jobs; and they do not emit environmental pollutants or greenhouse gases.2
Disadvantages:
Offshore wind farms can be expensive and difficult to build and maintain. In particular:
It is very hard to build robust and secure wind farms in water deeper than around 200 feet (~60 m), or over half a football field’s length. Although coastal waters off the east coast of the U.S. are relatively shallow, almost all of the potential wind energy resources off the west coast are in waters exceeding this depth.3 Floating wind turbines are beginning to overcome this challenge.
Wave action, and even very high winds, particularly during heavy storms or hurricanes, can damage wind turbines.1
The production and installation of power cables under the
seafloor to transmit electricity back to land can be very expensive.1
Effects of offshore wind farms on marine animals and birds are not fully understood.4
Offshore wind farms built within view of the coastline (up to 26 miles offshore, depending on viewing conditions5) may be unpopular among local residents, and may affect tourism and property values.3
https://www.ipaidia.gr/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/117-2020-f...
reply