The fuel becomes hot because the nuclear reaction in it is producing both light (eg: gamma rays) and fast-moving subatomic particles. These both interact with the rest of the fuel to heat it up.

In most places, at most times of day, a lot less.

Why? First, because a lot of electricity is generated using wind, water, solar, and nuclear. Those don’t have that problem (ok, nuclear wastes a lot of heat, but really, who cares). The second reason is that power plants that burn stuff tend to be a lot more efficient than internal combustion engines; the best case is combined-cycle gas turbine power plants, which turn over 60% of the energy available into electricity, as compared with a gasoline engine which turns about 20% of the energy in the gas into motion.

It’s “a shipload full of solar panels can provide the same amount of energy over 25 years as the many ships of LNG or coal would when burned”

I included the context quote making this sort-of clear quite intentionally.

About 40% of shipping by tonnage today is moving fossil fuels around. If we move to renewables, this pretty much goes away.

About two more years I think. I’m expecting there to be enough solar to decarbonize by 2050 if we also ramp up wind turbine manufacturing. The latter part is important because the different intermittency of the two renewables sharply reduces the amount of storage needed.

Mostly, because the manufacturing capacity is constrained still. If the factories currently being built actually go into operation, we’ll end up with enough solar to meet peoples’ needs (though not enough wind turbines)

Yeah, there’s an upper limit of ~70m average global sea level rise if all the ice melted.

Can’t speak for the upthread poster, but I keep a portable 20w solar panel around to charge my cell phone and satellite transponder in emergencies.

The move they’re making is to claim that Democrats control the weather and inflict storms like this on people. It’s bullshit, like most of their other claims, and really reeks of desperation.

Yeah, hearing similar things from others; it takes a really long time to fix the utilities when the roads are washed out all over the place, and need to be repaired to even bring heavy equipment in to many locations.

That’s a very very tiny part of the problem for fireflies

Per the article, viability is caused by an inability to afford oil, so electric becomes appreciably more reliable by comparison.

It’s pretty clear that a lot of them are a result of processing and packaging, though I’d be surprised if zero were in the plants themselves.

Yeah, unprocessed foods contain the least, with the notable exception of shrimp, which tend to contain significant amounts.

Total return weakens Israel. Basically because it leaves the country as a fairly narrow strip that’s easily cut apart in an attack.

Getting land in the west Bank returned means significant security concessions from whatever government is left. Last time this was tried it led to Hamas winning an election

Mostly concern that it weakens their position militarily. Get a genuine willingness for peace from a posr-Hamas Palestinain government and some sort of land-for-peace becomes thinkable

Netanyahu looks to lose the next Israeli election. Hamas doesn’t bother holding them

Hamas has been a problem for a long time

If you just send in food, Hamas will take the bulk of it, same way they supplied the tunnels in the first place. Only real way to solve the problem is to get rid of Hamas.

Pretty cynical when Hamas and Islamic Jihad could release the hostages and surrender and end all the fighting instead of giving people a choice over how they die