Multiply them together to make a crude estimate for energy. For a nuclear power plant 95% capacity is attainable, for a big solar farm 20% might be all you could hope for.

My guess is that China sees strength in diversity. More solar yes, and more wind, more nuclear, even more hydro, to the extent that's possible. This has been what they were doing for a decade, but they're now deploying enough that it outpaces their system demand reducing the use of coal.

That 1% finger in the air estimate is what installers or sales people tend to use to give people a vague idea what to expect. Your panels will not make as much power in 25 years as they do today. But because weather happens the hypothetical input power - sunlight falling on the panels, can vary maybe 5% from one year to the next, larger than the degradation in any single year no question. So it's very possible a solar PV roof has its "best" year in year two or three even though that's not intuitive.

Sol ("the Sun") is a ball of hydrogen so ludicrously massive that its own gravity compresses it to the point where nuclear fusion occurs. The fusion produces ludicrous amounts of energy and so in some sense the hydrogen is from our point of view very, very hot, however it's not on fire because fire needs Oxygen and there is none.

500GW of power at 40% utilisation gets you the same amount of energy as 250GW of power at 80% utilisation, and [roughly] the same CO2 emissions. But 500GW of Solar PV is shadowed effectively by the former where it would not be possible with the latter (without ludicrous amounts of storage). You couldn't choose that in the US or Europe without some kind of sophisticated compensation scheme because it's not profitable, but China does not need to care whether it is profitable only whether it can be done.

I think for places like the US there will be a lot of stranded energy generation and related assets and Capitalism will struggle to make that work even if somebody competent was in charge which of course today they are not.

So e.g. a few months ago in July because it's Summer in the North, solar production peaked significantly higher than the less fluctuating Nuclear but come January it may well produce less globally than Nuclear.

The cited publication is based on Ember's data, which was published in this case a few months ago. It doesn't cite anybody else, so if you're interested in the data and its sources you should look at Ember themselves. This particular publisher (pv magazine) cares about solar specifically, but the nuclear industry publication actually also talks about wind.

Globally wind is much less seasonal (not entirely non-seasonal, but much less so) and it's also generally only sane to build wind farms where there's plenty of wind because they're relatively expensive whereas solar panels are cheap. As a result there's a smaller fluctuation maybe 5:4 between the windy and less windy seasons. However wind power is also growing much more slowly than solar.

You can wake up tomorrow, buy some panels and stick them on a roof, buy an inverter and next week you have solar electricity. Good luck going from "I want a wind turbine" to owning a working wind turbine in anywhere close to that time, even in the unlikely case that you own a hilltop or somewhere to put such a thing.

So, basically none. At that point there's over 30 GW of electricity production so OCGT was about 0.4% of the country's electricity. About a third of the electricity was gas, so almost 100x as much Combined Cycle as Open Cycle.

Just as shippers can successfully take two characters who clearly have no basis for a romantic or sexual relationship and pair them off in their head canon, likewise people can disregard the author's statements about their work and decide it's completely contrary to how they've decided to understand it.

Some people look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) and they do not see a sculpture.

It makes no sense to have "first responders" who default to your "last resort".

"OK, so, we think there's a typo in one of the customer records so I've restored from this morning's backup"

"But that loses six hours of work! That's crazy, why did you do that?"

"Restoring from backup is our last resort"

"What else did you try?"

"Oh I never try anything else. I just restore from backup and that resolves it"

I'm just highlighting that in most places when it says "GMT" it does not mean solar time, just like how "New Street Station" in Birmingham is not in fact a New Station, or on a New Street, it's a station which was close enough to the road in Birmingham named "New Street" that it's forever associated.

When actual Grenwich Mean Time was "still a thing" astronomers would use it for solar time because we had no better approximations. Today the IERS looks at very distant objects in the sky. We know that in some sense (relative to us) these are not moving because they're incredibly far away, and so we can use them to measure rotation. And then we adjust for where the Sun is from that data.

GMT (Grenwich Mean Time) is a legacy from when Britain (and thus Grenwich, an observatory in London, England) was more important. These days GMT, even in British legislation, just means UTC. When we say "In the winter we use GMT not BST" we're not switching to or from some archaic time system, GMT is just defined as UTC+0 and BST is defined as UTC+1 the same way summer time zones work in several others places which have them.

Liquified Natural Gas aka LNG is a major US export product. The American export a lot of methane ("natural gas") this way to EU countries.

I have no idea which of many factors you didn't understand here but it's a bad sign

[Edited to correct s/expert/export/]

However that's a radio alarm clock which also knows the exact date-time, including year - one of the best presents I have ever received from friends who saw it and realised oh, that is exactly what tialaramex needs. In the smartphone era I do not need one.

And it has, the bound on the deviation was increased slightly to 3600 seconds

Nobody has a real UT1 clock†, some observation sites prepare guesses at UT1 mostly in terms of how far it deviates from TAI because you can just buy clocks that keep TAI really well.

† You could say this damp rock, "The Earth" is such a clock, and I guess I reluctantly accept that argument but then OK the UI for that clock is abysmal, nobody can use this the way you'd use an actual clock unless they accept miserably bad precision.

The can kicking (inventing a "leap hour" we will almost certainly never use) is what this resolution was about, the decision that leap seconds were a bad idea pre-dates this significantly. Leap hours were always a likely candidate for the can kicking exercise, but I believe there were other possibilities.

Combined Cycle costs more to build but is far more efficient. So OCGT is basically a bet that fuel is cheap forever, or at least for so long you've made your money. I know that bet doesn't work in the UK and I would not expect it to pay off in Germany either.