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.
41
Nine wealthy families, foundations commit $405-million over next decade to Canadian climate action
(www.theglobeandmail.com)
37
Climate and Conservation Ballot Measures Approved Even in Places Trump Won
(www.scientificamerican.com)
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.
Sure. Still means that a ton of Americans were trying to figure out what it meant the day after the election. Which is a day later than they needed to.
As others have mentioned, this doesn't actually change much. Something near 90% of Chinese emissions are to support Chinese consumption
They do...and they appear to have just started reducing their greenhouse gas emissions as their wind and solar buildout is happening fast enough to displace fossil fuel use. They're also the main exporter of those technologies, so a push for decarbonization will both cut their own emissions and those of the rest of the world.
It's a real indictment of the American Republicans that they chose to fight renewables every step of the way — the US could have been in an incredibly strong leadership position had they chosen to support them instead.
The benefit mostly accrues to the people using the electricity solar and wind generate. If you're making decisions for a society, instead of on behalf of rentiers who can donate, there are strong reasons to choose it.
If they actually worked, it would be payment to somebody who has taken an action to prevent emissions they otherwise would not have prevented. In practice, it's 90% middlemen who claim to have paid somebody to take such an action, but no such action actually occurred, or a completely ineffective action occurred.
Part of that might be a result of much of the population not being tuned in to factual media. The right-wing outlets do a cover-for-30-seconds approach to any bad thing Trump does.
Probably Putin, who vetoed any suggestion of other locations.
They were talking about it before the election. I even posted a link, but people didn't care as much.