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)

The existing large-scale batteries are largely lithium. There are a bunch of iron-chemistry ones and sodium-ion ones which have been deployed over the past year, with factories going up to scale them up. I’m not expecting to be limited by lithium availability for stationary batteries.

They’re talking about 5+ years on the new nuclear in these. And they haven’t done it before, so a 30% deadline slip is realistic.

You can put up a lot of wind and solar in that time.

Mostly:

• New nuclear is really expensive
• It also takes a long time to deliver
• The new reactor examples in here consist of reactors from suppliers who haven’t done that before

So it has the feel of a plan to promise to spend a lot of money several years from now, and get a lot of PR points today, and quietly cancel the project later.

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.

Yes — also non-native speakers of a language tend to follow similar word choice patterns as LLMs, which creates a whole set of false positives on detection.

“filter out” is an arms race, and watermarking has very real limitations when it comes to textual content.

It doesn’t take people on the internet saying it though; just an association with people saying something and the name, which happens to people who write news articles about something.

The bots are not reliable summarizes like that. They often can’t tell the difference between the author and the subject of a piece of writing.

I was surprised by that too.

All of them. I can post other sites just fine; it’s only washingtonpost.com and wapo.st links that are blocked.

Or from your ISP. The Washington Post ran an article about that today, but links to them get blocked by some sort of filter on lemmy.world

I don’t think that’s tractable.