I am not trying to say that it isn't worth trying. Only that it is clearly not good enough for mass market.

Harvesting the electrons might be feasible, but is it efficient enough for our purposes?

We can and probably are trying that very thing, but the way plants do it creates sugars and fibers, not creating free electrons.

It's just not something that we can replicate completely for our purposes.

One thing we might be able to do is capture the carbon emissions from burning plant material, like sugars, then use the CO2 from those emissions to feed a new generation of photoelectric cells. There would probably be loses in the system, but...

The point he was trying to make with his answer is that burning plant material (wood) or fossil material (coal) is the most efficient way of getting the energy out of a plant.

It is dirty and bad for the environment, but it is efficient.

Probably not. Biological drive would cause the plants to grow larger if excess energy is provided.

I think that the biggest problem with trying to use plant-based photosynthesis for electrical power generation is that photosynthesis is the creation of sugars through the combination of CO2 and water, utilizing energy from the sunlight.

Those sugars are great for animals to produce heat energy, but not good at generating electricity directly.

Meaning, we would need to translate the sunlight into sugar, then use the sugar to generate one kind of energy, then use that energy to generate power. Each step involves a decrease in efficiency.

Plants overcome that efficiency issue by growing larger and taller, to get more sunlight. Animals overcome that issue by eating more plants or eating more plant-eaters.

Photosynthetic power plants would have to become exponentially larger to overcome three or more steps of inefficiency.

Eating doesn't give you energy right away, in most cases, and overeating often has energy that doesn't convert quickly.

Potato chips, meat, bread, rice, etc, are calorie dense, but full of complex carbohydrates and fats that need to be broken down into more simple sugars.

That process actually uses energy in the short term, before giving you a boost of energy later.

Simple sugars, like those found in juices and desserts, don't need to be broken down, and provide energy very quickly to the body.

So, what happens when you overeat? Your body shuts down to process the food, then has nowhere to go with the excess energy. That energy is then converted into fats and stored in the body for later.

That is also true.

A cm^3 of water is one gram.

To be more specific, the Liter is simply a special name for the cubic decimeter (1 tenth of a meter, cubed)

The Liter is defined by its relation to the Cubic Centimeter, which is equal to the milliliter.

Holy Birdwatchers, Batman!

Wait until you hear about the anti anti zombie-fungus fungus ant, which is a type of ant that eats the anti-zombie-fungus fungus to keep other ants as zombie ants.

The Muppets have very little continuity between films. Don't worry too much about that.

All the really matters is that Ocean Breeze Soap will get you clean.

That all depends on the teacher. Grading on the curve doesn't really employ any complex math. It is just suggesting that they push the pass/fail line up or down based on what the teacher thinks it should be set at.

Theoretically, in any group of people, the majority of the body will be average in knowledge and intelligence, and few will be outlying to the top or bottom. This creates a "bell curve", a hump in the graphical representation of the class.

If everything is done right, then the majority of students will receive a similar grade, hopefully around 70 (passing) anyway.

But if the concepts are harder, the whole class might get dragged back, putting the average grade lower, let's say 68, failing if you just grade the tests.

Grading on the curve corrects for the fact that they are doing the best they can, pushing the passing score down to 67. It allows for a teacher to fudge the numbers and allow for fewer failures for little mistakes.

But if you have a student that greatly excels in the test, that throws off the Curve. Among other things, it suggests that the subject matter wasn't all that hard and the "barely failing" students simply failed to learn the lesson.

The Scorpion King

It was hokey and cheesy and perfect.

All punctuated with "as Ancient Astronaut Theorists believe, and if it were true, then..."

I get that a lot. Someone will rapid fire like 5 points on Twitter (where space is limited), and I'll address points 1, 2, and 3, and they will shoot back about how I refuse to talk about point 5 before I am even done with point 4.

So, I address point 5, and they use the fact that you can't see the whole threads at once to accuse me of not addressing point 3, then fire off 5 more points.

And even if I do manage to address all of them, they just argue that one of the responses just doesn't apply in the situation, accuse me of acting in bad faith, and block me from responding further.

And in their twisted mind, that means they won.

They need to make one of those CD compilation sets "Now That's What I Call TV Theme Songs"

That car would look awesome with a fan on the back. If I knew anything about cars, I would take it.

https://youtu.be/Ml8mnc7WciA

I am sure it depends on a lot of factors.

Some plants might go down in a heartbeat. Some might coast a bit. Like the Hoover Dam Hydroelectric Plant probably can run for a bit, especially since electrical demand would go down after an apocalypse.

I do not want to test that, though.

To be fair, I am not an expert on these matters. I would be surprised if it goes for a week, because our power grid died without the abandon ship just because it was too cold.

I would call it "believable"for 20 days, I just expect less.

Usually it would, but without people to maintain the plant, eventually fuel would deplete or connections get broken or wires go down or something else, and the power grid kind just stops.

Even without an apocalyptic event, i would be surprised if the lights stayed on for a week without someone manning the equipment.