I think it’s part of your snow job. You use unfamiliar units to impress people with your unquestionable wisdom!

🎵And ev'ry one will say,
As you walk your mystic way,
“If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be.’🎶

...recognized by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.

These units are based on the metric system using seven basis units from which all others can be derived. These are time, length, mass, quantity of pure substances, (the mole) and temperature, Kelvin, luminosity, and electric current.

How one derives other SI units is by unit analysis carrying them through calculation.

The formular for energy for instance I'd E = 1/2mv². It follows that the unit of energy can be written as kg-m²/sec² which is for convenience defined as the Joule.

Watt-hours are widely used but are informal. As a scientist, I prefer formal. The derrived unit for power is the Watt, which is defined as Joules/sec. This can be converted to the non-standard Kilowatt-hour by multiplying 1000 Watts by 3600 seconds. A Kilowatt-hour is 3,600,000 Joules. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures has defined prefixes such a kilogram, mega, and exa, to represent powers of ten connected to groups of three digits.

One can take a course in physics at a community college or a good high school and understand these formalities.

There are a lot of informal units used by the general public especially in the United States and in popular literature. Whenever I encounter these I convert them to SI units. For many years, the IEA used to report quantities of energy in an absurd unit, MTOE, million tons oil equivalent. I had to deal with this annoying practice by putting the numbers in a spreadsheet and convert them to Exajoules. Happily in recent years they've reverted to SI units in their tables

...GW, for instance is a big part of the detestable fraud that antinukes use to obscure the uselessness of their junk energy scam.

A standard nuclear, the AP1000, for example runs continuously except when refueling or undergoing maintenance. The data available at the EIA for this year shows that Vogtle 3, a reactor of this type on the first 89 days of 2026 produced 2,419,846 MWh of electrical energy, which translates to 8.7114456 Petajoules. The reactor is rated at 1,117 MW. There are 1,132,886,704 seconds in 89 days. Thus the reactors average output was 1,132,886,704 Watts. This means the capacity utilization was 101.42%.

A quick Google search indicates that in Georgia, depending on weather, the capacity utilization of solar cells there is between 24 and 26%. While this is a Google AI claim, experience suggests that it's not too far off the mark. In addition if you need to run an electric pump at midnight, you're out of luck with respect to solar but have no problem being powered by Vogtle 3.

A GW of solar cannot "hold a candle" to a GW of nuclear.

Most "renewable energy" advocates use this extremely dishonest usage regularly and get a bye from our scientifically illiterate journalists.

Talk about a snow job. Using peak power ratings for so called "renewable energy," is blatantly dishonest, not that it prevents antinukes from routinely using it. The orange pedophile ain't got nothing on antinukes when it comes to lying.

China is using an “all of the above” strategy to achieve energy independence and avoid climate change. Their impressive program to build new reactors is dwarfed by the increase in use of renewable energy and the development of a hydrogen economy. Both technologies have advantages and disadvantages.

One thing to note about the countries with the greatest use of nuclear power is that they have active nuclear weapons programs and military reactors. In fact, military reactors operated by the US outnumber commercial reactors. These countries need a base of nuclear technicians and scientists to feed their military programs, and an industrial base for manufacturing, etc. The point is that nuclear energy is tangled up with military development and that is one of the reasons some countries are willing to heavily subsidize its development. That could have something to do with the “anti-nuke” sentiment you seem so obsessed with, although the nuclear lobby and nuclear bros/boys don’t like to draw attention to it.

Feel good.

Some nukes is (sic) good nukes.

The fossil fuel industry has a great big propaganda machine not unlike the one used on Americans to sell cigarettes and Roundup as healthy.

Some day, we're going to wish we were more discerning in our energy choices.

And by the way, I did a dive into your "news source" it has origins in a promotional company for the fossil fuel industry and is based out of Dubai.

It's more subtle but there has been a wide-ranging effort to rebrand nuclear energy and push the nuclear industry's agenda in media. That includes obsessed nuclear bros who who try to dominate online forums by impressing everyone with their nuclear wizardry to bash "rival" clean energy technologies. The local nuclear zealot even tries to sell radioactive nuclear waste as a "gift" to future generations, and radioactive exclusion zones as nature preserves, while grossly exaggerating and distorting environmental problems associated with renewable energy.