Except of course that the parent poster was actually talking about national average gas prices (though they were rounding up to $6 from around $5.50). I am guessing you are talking about gasoline, not diesel but, either way, the national average for those was never as high as $9 or even $8+ in 2022.

You do realize that falls a bit flat because of the fact that Trump was a rich Democrat. There is a significant overlap between that period and his affiliation with Epstein.

Have to comment on that. Natural Gas is by no means more efficient for either cooking or heating. I mean, let's start with heating. With a good electric heat pump in an environment like the UK, you're going to get an average COP of something like 3. So, in terms of energy in the original source compared to the amount of heat energy entering your home, you could look at that as 300%. For natural gas heating, the best you can get is about 98.5% because some heat goes out with the exhaust. Even just electric resistive heating is higher at effectively 100%.

As for cooking, the most efficient way to cook is actually usually small, well insulated electric appliances. Pressure cookers, convection ovens ("air fryers"), etc. Basically systems where the heat is generated from electricity on the inside of an enclosed vessel rather than having to make it from the outside in. One easy way to tell is if you notice your kitchen heating up significantly during cooking. If you use one of those small electric appliances you'll notice that the air in the room doesn't heat up that much because most of the heat energy is going into the food. With the gas oven or stovetop, it does tend to heat up more because a lot of the energy that you want to go into the food is going into the air instead.

On another point you brought up, on what you do with the excess power, I brought this up in more detail in another post so I'll just cover it briefly here. One thing you can do is use it to make methane/natural gas to reduce your need to get it from fossil sources. As for it being polluting, yes it is, but the primary way it is comes from the greenhouse effect of the CO2. In combined cycle plants, most other exhaust cases like nitrogen oxides are eliminated. Coal, despite scrubbing of the exhaust, releases a lot more in terms of both undesirable gases and particulates.

I thought it might be something like that initially, but it seemed likely it would create a compiler error or warning on a system with 16 bit ints.

While having power usage patterns follow generation is a good thing, it's a lot more effectively accomplished with a smart grid/smart appliances. What I don't get is, the UK still uses natural gas. The number one cost factor in the production of synthetic natural gas is the hydrogen and the number one cost factor in the production of green hydrogen is the electricity. Why aren't they using the surplus to make hydrogen which they can then use to make methane and reduce their requirement for things like LNG imports?

The actual equipment for electrolysis can take a pretty wide range of current and there isn't much of a sweet spot where gas production is greater. It's pretty much linear with the current. So, you can have an electrolysis plant that just runs part time generating hydrogen whenever there's surplus. You can store the hydrogen and use it in a methane synthesizing plant that runs pretty much continuously on the stored hydrogen. The cost of the methane from such a system might be more than fossil fuel methane technically, but only by assigning a cost to the surplus electricity that might otherwise just be wasted.

To me, this seems like a better idea. Using the surplus to offset other energy sources. Not to mention that, if you have natural gas plants for generating electricity, then it becomes an electricity storage system. The round trip efficiency isn't great. Maybe about 50%, but the storage capacity can be a lot better than batteries and longer term, so it could function as a back-tier storage system supplementing a primary storage system based on batteries.

Codebase7 pretty much covered it. To make an analogy for my position, if I were to build a house, the jurisdiction I am in and nearly every other one would require plans on file for a number of very good reasons and it would not be allowed for me to build the house instead to secret plans that no-one knows about. Similar logic applies to bioengineered cells, especially ones that will be used medically. I could also compare to right to repair. Or to being a computer repair technician who hacks systems that are dropped off so that they can secretly get in and turn on the microphone and the camera without the light coming on. Etc.

Seriously, that didn't clarify whether this is satire or not. "Information decimation"?

Odd thing to say about someone who is literally questioning you because I don't believe what you're saying can be serious.

And also:

Once again, the stunning apparent lack of self awareness screams satire.

Just so you know, it looks like ambrandt12 replied to you, but as AC. Thought it might be to hide their identity, but I realized it might be so that you don't get a notification that you were replied to. I don't know. Seems weird to me.

"Derisiveness"? How the heck did I get that from corrosiveness? I must have blindly autocorrected. Anyway, apologies to all for the error.

More specifically, high pressure CO2 is a solvent. It can be used as an eco-friendly dry cleaning solvent, for example. At the temperatures and pressures on Venus a lot of materials are vulnerable to it.

So about 14 square feet of ballroom then.

Among the ways that the surface of Venus is a hell world, being radioactive is not one of them. It's exactly the opposite.

Insertion is absolutely not an issue. You can slow something right down using the same techniques as in Earth's atmosphere in the upper levels of the atmosphere of Venus before you get to the hell layers. Then you just drop from there. You don't even need a parachute since the atmosphere is so dense. As you said, it's the extreme heat and pressure. Of course you were also right about the derisiveness, just not from acid rain. Other things that would not be problematic at Earth pressures are corrosive on Venus, such as CO2.

Depending on the scale of your operation, there is always the possibility of an HVDC cable from around 50+ KM. With the heat, etc. it would lose a fair amount of power before it got to the ground, but it would mean you wouldn't need special batteries.

Replying as AC apparently to hide that you're ambrandt12... you know that's kind of weird, right? Are you trying to act like you have some sort of community support in your assertions? I mean, I'm not even bothering at this point with what either you or drinkypoo are actually claiming. It just jumped out at me when an AC suddenly jumped into the conversation with the exact same writing style.