Always thankful to God for the Life he gave me - I never ask him for anything else (that would be presumptuous) because all of the rest is on me.
Not Banned Yet
Joined August 2023
- Tweets16K
- Following290
- Followers744
- Likes28.3K
To estimate the value of the copper at the Resolution Copper Mine, we need to consider the current copper price and the total copper content in the deposit:
Current Copper Price: As of the latest data available, copper prices are around $4.31 per pound (from the web result dated January 10, 2025).
Copper Grade at Resolution Mine: The Resolution Copper Mine has an estimated copper grade of 1.5%.
Total Mineable Resource: According to reports, the Resolution Copper deposit is one of the largest undeveloped copper deposits in the world, with estimates of 1.8 billion tonnes of ore at 1.5% copper.
To calculate:
Copper Content:
1.8 billion tonnes * 1.5% = 27 million tonnes of copper.
Convert tonnes to pounds (since price is given in $/lb):
1 metric tonne = 2,204.62 pounds
27 million tonnes * 2,204.62 pounds/tonne = 59,524,740,000 pounds of copper.
Value Calculation:
59,524,740,000 pounds * $4.31/pound = approximately $256.5 billion.
Therefore, at current copper prices, the estimated value of the copper to be mined at the Resolution Copper Mine is roughly $256.5 billion.
Keep in mind that this is a simplified calculation and does not account for mining costs, recovery rates, or fluctuations in copper prices over the mine's operational lifespan.
Thanks Mr. Elon Musk for saving the world from the darkness of the government speech police.
3 years of breathing free.
#MyXAnniversary
Tanque Verde Falls - Oct. 13, 2025 - TS Raymond
nitter.cf/i/status/1977914272782…
To estimate the cost of building a 21,744 MW utility-scale solar facility with full battery backup in Georgia, excluding land costs, we need to consider the costs of solar panels, inverters, wiring, battery storage, and other infrastructure, based on 2025 data.
The facility must match the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant’s continuous output (~4,530 MW net summer capacity), as calculated previously, requiring 21,744 MW of solar nameplate capacity and ~86,976 MWh of daily battery storage for 24/7 reliability. ### Key Assumptions
1. **Solar Installation Costs**: - 2025 utility-scale solar costs in Georgia: $0.98–$1.36 per watt (nameplate capacity), based on recent data.
- Midpoint estimate: $1.17/W (average of $0.98 and $1.36).
- Costs include panels, inverters, wiring, and installation but exclude land.
2. **Battery Storage Costs**: - Utility-scale battery storage costs in 2025: ~$300–$400 per kWh of storage capacity, based on industry benchmarks and Georgia-specific data.
- Midpoint estimate: $350/kWh.
- Required storage: 86,976 MWh/day (from prior calculation) to cover 16 hours of non-solar generation plus a 20% buffer.
3. **Additional Costs**:
- Balance of system (BOS) costs (e.g., racking, electrical equipment, labor) are included in the solar cost per watt.
- Permitting, grid interconnection, and engineering costs are variable but typically 10–15% of total project costs. We’ll use 12.5% as an estimate.
- Battery installation and integration costs are included in the per-kWh cost.
4. **Exclusions**:
- Land costs are excluded, as specified. - Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are not included, as the question focuses on construction.
- Federal tax credits (e.g., 30% ITC) are not applied, as the question asks for gross costs.
### Step-by-Step Calculation
1. **Solar Facility Cost**:
- Solar nameplate capacity: 21,744 MW = 21,744,000 kW. - Cost per watt: $1.17/W (midpoint).
- Total solar cost: 21,744,000,000 W × $1.17/W = **$25.44 billion**.
- Range:
- Low-end ($0.98/W): 21,744,000,000 × $0.98 = **$21.31 billion**.
- High-end ($1.36/W): 21,744,000,000 × $1.36 = **$29.57 billion**.
2. **Battery Storage Cost**: - Daily storage requirement: 86,976 MWh = 86,976,000 kWh.
- Cost per kWh: $350/kWh (midpoint).
- Total battery cost: 86,976,000 kWh × $350/kWh = **$30.44 billion**.
- Range:
- Low-end ($300/kWh): 86,976,000 × $300 = **$26.09 billion**.
- High-end ($400/kWh): 86,976,000 × $400 = **$34.79 billion**.
3. **Additional Project Costs**: - Permitting, interconnection, and engineering: 12.5% of combined solar and battery costs.
- Midpoint combined cost: $25.44 billion (solar) + $30.44 billion (battery) = $55.88 billion.
- Additional costs:
$55.88 billion × 0.125 = **$6.99 billion**.
- Range:
- Low-end: ($21.31B + $26.09B) × 0.125 = **$5.93 billion**.
- High-end: ($29.57B + $34.79B) × 0.125 = **$8.05 billion**.
4. **Total Cost**:
- Midpoint: $25.44B (solar) + $30.44B (battery) + $6.99B (additional) = **$62.87 billion**.
- Low-end: $21.31B + $26.09B + $5.93B = **$53.33 billion**.
- High-end: $29.57B + $34.79B + $8.05B = **$72.41 billion**.
### Considerations -
**Economies of Scale**: A 21,744 MW project is unprecedentedly large (the largest U.S. solar farm is ~700 MW).
Bulk purchasing and streamlined installation could reduce per-watt costs slightly, but logistical challenges (e.g., supply chain, labor) may offset savings.
**Battery Sizing**:
The 86,976 MWh assumes 16 hours of storage with a 20% buffer. Smaller storage (e.g., 4 hours) would reduce costs but compromise continuous output, failing the “full battery backup” requirement.
- **Georgia-Specific Factors**:
Georgia’s high solar potential and existing utility-scale expertise (e.g., Silicon Ranch projects) support the cost estimates.
However, grid interconnection for such a massive project could increase costs beyond the 12.5% estimate.
- **Cost Trends**: Solar costs have declined (~$0.98/W in 2025 vs. $1.06/W in 2023), but battery costs remain high due to lithium-ion demand. Future innovations (e.g., flow batteries) could lower costs but aren’t standard in 2025.
### Final Answer Excluding land costs, building a 21,744 MW utility-scale solar facility in Georgia with full battery backup to match Vogtle’s 4,530 MW continuous output would cost approximately **$62.9 billion** in 2025, with a range of **$53.3–$72.4 billion**, depending on solar ($0.98–$1.36/W) and battery ($300–$400/kWh) cost variations.
If all the water from Earth were somehow transported and deposited onto the Moon’s surface, it would lead to a cascade of fascinating and dramatic effects. Let’s break this down step-by-step, considering the science behind it.
First, the sheer volume of Earth’s water is massive—about 1.386 billion cubic kilometers (332 million cubic miles), covering oceans, lakes, rivers, ice caps, and groundwater.
The Moon, with a surface area of roughly 37.9 million square kilometers (14.6 million square miles), is much smaller than Earth and has no atmosphere to speak of. Dumping this amount of water onto its airless, low-gravity surface (1/6th of Earth’s gravity) would create some wild scenarios.
Initially, the water would behave chaotically. Without an atmosphere to provide pressure, water on the Moon would start to boil and evaporate rapidly into space due to the vacuum. On Earth, water boils at 100°C (212°F) under standard pressure, but in the Moon’s near-vacuum (about 10^-12 bar), its boiling point drops drastically—close to freezing temperatures. Much of it would turn into vapor almost instantly and escape into space, since the Moon’s gravity is too weak to hold onto a substantial atmosphere or water vapor for long.
However, not all the water would vanish immediately. The Moon’s surface temperature varies wildly: up to 127°C (260°F) in sunlight and as low as -173°C (-280°F) in shadowed areas or at night. In sunlit regions, the water would boil off quickly. In colder areas—like the permanently shadowed craters near the poles—some water could freeze into ice before evaporating. Over time, though, even this ice would sublimate (turn directly from solid to gas) due to the lack of pressure, unless it were buried or shielded from sunlight.
Now, let’s assume for a moment that all 1.386 billion cubic kilometers of water were somehow contained on the Moon’s surface long enough to interact with it. If evenly distributed, it would form a layer about 36.6 kilometers (22.7 miles) deep—far thicker than the Moon’s thin regolith (loose surface dust and rock, averaging 5-10 meters deep).
This would flood the Moon’s craters, maria (basalt plains), and highlands, creating a temporary “ocean” landscape. The famous Mare Tranquillitatis, for example, could become an actual sea, albeit briefly.
The added mass would also affect the Moon’s structure. Earth’s water weighs roughly 1.386 x 10^21 kilograms.
The Moon itself has a mass of 7.34 x 10^22 kilograms, so the water would increase its mass by about 1.9%. This isn’t enough to drastically alter its orbit around Earth right away, but over time, it could subtly shift tidal interactions and the Earth-Moon gravitational dance.
The extra weight might also stress the Moon’s crust, potentially triggering moonquakes or volcanic activity in its ancient lava tubes, though the Moon is considered geologically inactive today.
Chemically, the water would interact with the lunar soil (regolith), which is rich in oxides like silicon dioxide and iron oxide. Some minerals might dissolve or react, especially if the water carried Earth’s salts and sediments.
This could leave behind new deposits as the water evaporated or froze, altering the Moon’s surface composition.
In the long run, though, the Moon can’t hold onto this water. Without a magnetic field or sufficient gravity, solar wind—charged particles from the Sun—would strip away any remaining vapor or ice exposed to space. Within days to weeks, most of the water would be lost, leaving behind a slightly altered, perhaps icier Moon with some new surface features.
So, in short: the Moon would briefly become a chaotic, wet world—boiling, freezing, and evaporating all at once—before reverting to a dry, barren state, with maybe some ice lingering in shadowed craters.
It’d be a cosmic spectacle, but the Moon’s nature means it wouldn’t stay “Earth-like” for long.
If you showed me this video 5 years ago, you couldn't convince me it was real, let alone a shot our team could capture. So proud of the Everyday Astronaut / @considercosmos team for continuing to up our game every launch to capture these historic moments @SpaceX @elonmusk
The theory suggesting that the Moon was formed through the explosion of a georeactor on Earth involves the idea that the Moon could have originated from a natural nuclear explosion within Earth's mantle. Here's how it's generally described:
Centrifugal Forces and Element Concentration: This theory posits that early in Earth's history, centrifugal forces would have concentrated heavy radioactive elements like thorium and uranium at the Earth's equatorial plane and at the boundary between the core and the mantle.
Nuclear Explosion: If these elements were concentrated enough, they could have led to a nuclear chain reaction becoming supercritical, resulting in a massive nuclear explosion.
Ejection of Material: The explosion would then eject material from Earth into space, which would coalesce to form the Moon. This hypothesis attempts to explain why the Moon and Earth have similar isotopic compositions for both light and heavy elements, suggesting that the Moon was essentially formed from Earth's own material.
Evidence: Proponents of this idea, like researchers Rob de Meijer and Wim van Westrenen, suggest that this explosion could leave behind evidence such as high concentrations of isotopes like xenon-136 and helium-3, which would have been produced in abundance by such a georeactor.
Comparison to Other Theories: This theory contrasts with the more widely accepted Giant Impact Hypothesis, which suggests that the Moon formed from debris after a collision between Earth and a Mars-sized body called Theia. The georeactor theory aims to address issues like the isotopic similarity between Earth and Moon that are challenging for the impact hypothesis to explain without additional assumptions.
This theory, while intriguing, is considered less mainstream and is not widely accepted within the scientific community compared to the giant impact theory. However, it has been discussed in various scientific forums and publications, contributing to the ongoing debate about lunar origins.
Timescape cosmology is an alternative cosmological model that challenges the standard assumptions of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) model, particularly the reliance on dark energy to explain the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. Here are the key aspects of timescape cosmology:
Inhomogeneous Universe: Unlike the standard model which assumes the universe is largely homogeneous on large scales, timescape cosmology posits that the universe is significantly inhomogeneous, with vast voids and dense regions (like galaxy clusters) influencing the local physics, including how time and space behave.
Time Dilation: The model suggests that time flows differently depending on the local gravitational environment. In less dense regions (voids), time would run faster compared to denser regions (like inside galaxies), which could lead to misconceptions about the rate of cosmic expansion when observed from our position in a dense area.
Alternative to Dark Energy: Instead of invoking dark energy to explain why the universe seems to be expanding at an accelerating rate, timescape cosmology attributes this to the variations in gravitational energy across different spatial regions. The acceleration observed might be an illusion caused by how we calibrate clocks and measure distances in different gravitational contexts.
Observational Implications: This model has been tested against various cosmic observations, like the redshift of supernovae. While some studies suggest that the timescape model can fit observational data without dark energy, others argue that the standard model still provides a better fit, depending on the data sets and analysis methods used.
Controversy and Debate: The timescape model is not universally accepted. Critics point out that it requires our solar system to be near the center of a large void for its mechanics to work, which seems unlikely. Additionally, fitting this model with other cosmological observations like the cosmic microwave background (CMB) data poses challenges.
Recent Developments: Recent discussions on platforms like X have highlighted that new data might support the timescape model by suggesting that cosmic expansion is not uniform in all directions, which aligns with the model's premise of an inhomogeneous universe. However, these discussions are part of ongoing debates and not conclusive evidence.
The timescape model thus provides an intriguing alternative perspective on cosmic evolution, potentially doing away with the need for dark energy, but it also faces significant challenges in fully explaining all observed phenomena in cosmology.
arxiv.org/pdf/0909.0749
Orbiting about 1 million miles away from Earth, NASA's EPIC camera onboard @NOAA's #DSCOVR satellite captured the shadow from Monday's total solar eclipse!
In this imagery, you can see the moon's shadow pass over the Pacific Ocean and through North America. #TotalEclipse2024