Overzeetop

See Also: Apple Vision users after playing Fruit Ninja for the first time.

Solid fuel for rockets burns relatively slowly at 1 atm and in solid form, much like a flare, though still faster than I would expect you'd want for a hot pot unless these were a hybrid (so no oxidizer in the pellets, just a solid fuel source like modified PVC, with a separate oxidizer like nitrous oxide). The water was replacing the jet fuel, which - assuming it was similar to Jet A - is basically kerosene. Though I'd be worried what modifiers or stabilizers were used for a green flame if I were cooking over it. I've made green flames with boric acid and methanol for Halloween decorations (outdoor, of course), but who knows what is causing it in their fuel.

A Bell, Book, and Chicken in a Hatbox

I mean, that's a weird-ass AI prompt. But if fascism wins and you voted third party, yes - it's partly* your fault unless you're too stupid to understand how first past the post voting works.

*conditionals against massive fascist party majority states notwithstanding.

It took me searching the blacks to notice. Where I play there's usually enough glare I wouldn't get good blacks if you swapped the LC layer for vantablack.

My only reason to believe that is not what is happening is that China, and the Chinese, are too smart to using coal as a peaking or emergency source of power. The only thing worse than coal for peaking is nuclear. Oil, Gas, and hydro are all much better for short-to-mid term peaking and batteries - something they're very good at and have vast resources for - are perfect for short term emergency/failover loads. I believe (without documentation) that they are building extra capacity for the possibility of another expansion - the incubation of so many "third world" economies and partnerships across Asia and Africa to spur demand for their domestic production. If they don't use it, it was a jobs program; if they find they need it, they will accept short term cash and economic power for a worsening of the world environment. In a way, the largest communist country on earth is also the largest capitalist power. Ironic.

his past year, China couldn’t run their hydro at peak capacity because of a drought.

Well, yes. The simple facts we have are that fossil fuel use is up. What happens next year will be speculation, but what we know is that they are using more coal this year, and they are hedging their future bets by building out their coal generation capacity. So if climate change means a further drop in hydro output, or more cloud cover where they install solar, or they need to make more power than they're installing because the world wants more steel (I'm in the building industry and steel supply is still a bit tight) - they can start belching out a massive amount of CO2.

Only time will tell - and I hope you turn out to be the one who is right :-)

China has increased their coal generation in terms of absolute GW, and increase the coal usage per GW this year. I'm not sure where your data is from. Here's mine:

"China’s CO2 emissions have seen explosive growth over recent decades, pausing only for brief periods due to cyclical shocks." and "...CO2 is rebounding in 2023 from zero-Covid lows (see: Why emissions grew in Q3 of 2023)..."

both from a link in the original posted article, https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/

"Domestic coal output tonnage has continued to grow in 2023, following the steep increase in 2022 resulting from government efforts to boost output. However, coal quality has declined, resulting in a much smaller increase in energy supply from domestic coal. Poor quality of coal supplied has also pushed users to shift to imported coal for blending, the result being a record surge in imports."

https://energyandcleanair.org/china-energy-and-emissions-trends-june-snapshot

The analysis points to a reduction in 2024, but that is speculation. What is clear is that 2023 is higher. And if the Chinese economy should pick back up and steel and concrete production come back up to recent historic levels, the CO2 is definitely going go continue to go up for a while. They're bringing renewables online, yes, but if we look at what is actually happening the CO2 is currently increasing. Both of us would be speculating beyond that.

That says nothing about reducing total energy output, though. They're only talking about paying back installation costs for additional capacity. Adding 50% more capacity and then running everything at 80%, for example, still means burning more coal and making more power. And, often, running a plant at below optimal will decrease it's efficiency, leading to a higher CO2 load for every kWh. It's an incentive for growth and surplus capacity, not an incentive to lower carbon emissions.

I presume "decline" is used in the percentage sense and not the absolute sense. If the total power amount of carbon-based fuel generation plants is increasing, and the fuel is coal (C), then the carbon emissions must go up in an absolute sense. But the rapid deployment of non-carbon fuel power sources are increasing faster than the the carbon based, so percentage will go down. Am I reading this wrong?

Also, in a linked article: "And, as Myllyvirta highlights, numbers in the communique stating that coal consumption rose 4.3% in 2022 and total energy use rising 2.9% “appear to contradict weak or falling industrial output”

So consumption of coal - the most carbon-producing fuel - rose in 2022, and according to this article their energy consumption jumped again after Covid restrictions were lifted this year. Renewable installation is rising faster than carbon installation (280GW installed this year vs 136GW of coal "under construction"). The data given in these articles seems intentionally inconsistent, from annual installation (only given for renewable) to total capacity (only given for future Coal). One has to wonder if The Guardian is running their articles through some kind of Donald Trump AI filter to ensure that no verifiable content gets printed.

Its a joke - yes.

Though, realistically, an empathy test would probably filter out a large portion of the haters. It's harder to hate when you internalize the condition of others.

Sad, but true. About the only way to control it would be to require online comments to be directly identifiable to the person. Even Republicans appear to be embarrassed - and attempt to expunge their vitriol - when their homophobic, misogynistic, and racist comments and activities online are publicized. And even that wouldn't eliminate it, it would just push it back underground to further fester.