Ken Fabian

You sure you want to derail the thread with a German nuclear vs renewables sidetrack? In answer to the question, no, I think that is oversimplistic - it may play some part in short term demand driven volatility but there is too much else going on, including Russia playing games with supply availability. How much German supply comes via long term contracts at fixed prices and how much is vulnerable to short term variability? How well did they anticipate Covid would impact economic activity - declines and rebounds - as well as anticipate how nuclear closures would affect demand? How well does Germany manage gas reserves? Gas prices have been and are very volatile all around the world quite independently of German policy to phase out of nuclear - which is a tiny portion of global demand. My hope is they will double down on renewables as a response to price volatility and gas market games as well as continue to push ahead with a transition away from fossil fuels, but I don't know how post-Merkel Germany will manage Energiewende into the longer term. On the face of it, I would have favored keeping the nuclear plants for their working life, for the low emissions, but my understanding of the in's and out's of German energy and climate politics is limited. But I do think failure of large parts of German politics to fight for nuclear is down to the same kinds of apathy and hostility to strong climate policies we see everywhere - handing the issue to others in "you care so much, you fix it" style, whilst supporting coal and gas. "Not like that" isn't alternative policy. So far the alarmist economic doomist fears of renewable energy have failed to eventuate although short term volatility still gets treated like evidence of fundamental failure. Germany is still the biggest and most successful industrial nation of Europe.

I still think overcoming vulnerabilities and limitations is what intelligence does best - I think the intelligence and problem solving capability matters much more than any baseline of physical abilities, although without some ability to hold and manipulate things tools would be more difficult. But I hesitate to say impossible. Co-opting other creatures? We make structures like hedges out of living things, we use other animals to utilize resources we can't use directly and make them into usable things. I don't see the short life span of octopi - or their marine nature - as nearly as much of an impediment as being mostly solitary and lacking language is. With language the lessons learned by an individual can be passed on to others - to youngsters of the next generation. No individual human can hold all knowledge - and our own example shows it is not necessary. Individual intelligences that are not social? Even that seems possible to me - but may require the long lifespan and mutability/adaptability of form might help. Octopi probably wouldn't find land as intimidating as some other marine creatures - some do go from rock pool to rock pool across dry land when seeking food. A species that cannot hold a spear or throw anything may still be able to make traps. I suspect I would be in serious trouble if I had to hunt live prey by throwing things at them but I think I would be capable of making traps. We are not adapted to live in space - yet we go there. We use fire - and are not adapted to handle it or survive it.

We only have one example of intelligence capable of the kinds of technology we have - we don't know enough to even suggest a tech using intelligence having that form is more or less capable or likely. Or appreciate the kinds of technologies we don't have and may not recognise. We do have examples of other physical forms finding, making and using tools as well as cooperating on tasks individuals are incapable of. Even, I suggest, examples of animals that engage in reasoning and problem solving. I suspect strong human prejudices on what form intelligent aliens might take - and perhaps an unhealthy measure of self deception about our innate superiority. I see no basis to conclude that plants are unlikely evolve intelligence or evolve movement - there are venus fly traps and other exceptions and just using time lapse gives a whole different perspective on plants and movement. Going by the human example I see no basis to conclude that, having crossed interstellar space, aliens are unlikely to be hostile. We can't even be assured that if humans achieved such a feat, that we would not covet the target world and it's resource or that humans would never do xenocide. I think if we are honest we will concede that humans are quite capable of such things - and of finding justifications before, during and after. Or, where justifications seem inadequate - scapegoats. We may even be predisposed to doing such things. I am not sure we would recognise some kinds of intelligent aliens and I think we would be capable of wiping them out just by mistake by simply failing to recognise them as intelligent. And should any intelligent aliens take violent exception to human presence in their territory - on the basis that doing so is justified as self defense. If a child is caught and killed by an intelligent carnivorous plant on it's own world would humans refrain from retribution? We ARE the consummate nest raiders but we won't tolerate anything that raids our nests; any onworld human presence that has committed itself to survival by colonisation will be capable of wiping out alien species to assure that survival.

I don't think there is a "human resemblance evolutionary process" and there are no known advanced intelligent aliens that have that form. It seems like rank anthropomorphising to presume it is superior or even necessary - if that is what that prejudice is. Whilst hands with opposable thumbs at the ends of upper arms of visually capable bipeds appear a very good way to make and use tools (to humans) I don't see it is a requirement; birds build complex nests with beaks and even manipulate tools and Octopuses ('pi?) can do it with suction cup fitted tentacles. But I suspect that physical capabilities are amongst the least essential - mental and communicative abilities can work around a lot of physical limitations, including by making teamwork possible. One beak to hold the work piece, another to steady the anvil and two more to work the hammer? Isn't much of human success a result of tools and techniques that work around the physical limitations of individuals? Might that ability to work around physical limitations be a crucial marker of an "intelligent" tool using species? Where is the lower threshold for physical abilities? When starting off a lower base the achievements look greater, not less.

What top physicists? What great ideas? Human "evolution" is biology although I expect colloquial English can apply it loosely enough to encompass evolution of knowledge (including physics). Any physicist who has something worth publishing will be able to do so - or else bring it into the public domain and be in a position to promote and defend it. Lots of crackpot and occasionally a sound idea gets attention outside of peer review publication and institutions that do science; it rarely takes other top level scientists to identify the crackpots but the sound ideas DO get noticed, often getting the support and backing of "established" scientists - claims otherwise being scurrilous (and mostly by the crackpots who don't take to their mistakes being corrected). Evidence of a scientist's ability to publish and promote and discuss being suppressed would attract attention - science is built around documentation that is widely disseminated. So far no evidence has been presented.

It sound like if running continuously there would be waste heat equivalent to a coal or gas power plant. In addition to the cooling at the coal or gas plants or other sources of it's electricity. It doesn't run continuously. The info around the cooling isn't prominent but (from Wikipedia, without much detail) it sounds like ITER has water based cooling, from a closed system joined to a separate cooling system via heat exchangers, with one conventional cooling tower plus cooling ponds. Water is piped in and discharges back to a major river. It wasn't clear if there is air cooling as well, like refrigerators and A/C might use. Now, if only the waste heat could be harvested... but if it could do that effectively and efficiently we probably won't need fusion power plants.

With conventional exoplanets, that transit their parent star, yes. Wandering "free" planets, no. I don't think that determining atmospheres of 'free' planets - of any planets using it's IR detectors - is what Webb is expected to do but it is expected to detect more such planets with other instruments. The Webb telescope is expected to be able to get spectral data from light passing through the planet's atmosphere during transits across their parent star - the more conventional "exoplanet". Free planets might be more problematic for atmosphere detection than planets that don't transit their Primary. I don't know if it will ever become possible to use more distant starlight passing through planetary atmosphere in a similar way - maybe not, given how weak the light source would be. A Nitrogen and Oxygen atmosphere would almost certainly be considered a product of life, as would other atmospheric indicators. Not sure what the specific characteristics of earlier (pre-oxygen) Earth atmosphere's would be, but there would be indicators of life amongst them.

It seems to me the issues are solvable. Emergency services can have big on site batteries to charge EV's and mobile battery packs that can be taken to the site of emergencies. Whilst keeping them always well charged just in case will limit other everyday use it doesn't rule it out entirely; big batteries might still be used for grid and onsite purposes whilst staying above a set reserve charge level. Here in Australia, with high levels of rooftop solar local "islanding" looks feasible - not just a way to keep emergency services operating but keeping whole areas with power by isolating them from failures of the larger grid.

I think angels were an illusion some people saw, that other people refused to admit they could not see, for fear of religious persecution. My understanding (could be wrong) is that representations - drawings, paintings - were prohibited amongst Jews and later Christian images of them would have had to be approved by the Church. I don't recall any that looked like the description in (by?) Ezekial but I'm not well versed in iconography.

The active ingredient?

Since it isn't possible to put the equivalent of compression wrapping around our heads to keep down excess blood and fluid perhaps anti-compression wrapping of the rest makes a kind of sense.

For the first time in 12 years tourists are in orbit (?). But I find little to be excited about - it doesn't come out as a demonstration of how great space is, rather it is a demonstration of the wealth and resources and capabilities Earth has - to be able to do something so extravagantly self-indulgent.

Using wind, water turbines and solar panels... as components of a fusion power plant to turn fusion energy into electricity? I did miss that. My initial comment wasn't a response to any other comments, just my thoughts. I have Li-Iron-Phosphate batteries at home - more expensive than not having them, but not by much. One more halving of battery costs and nothing will be the same. So far not a lot of grid scale storage but one very large pumped hydro project is proceeding and there is a lot more investment in batteries than anyone expected. AEMO's most recent 20 year Integrated system plan, if adopted, would reach close to 95% RE (electricity, with a lot of EV and other extra demand) by 2040. Storage is a big part of that but as AEMO sees it there are other things that can and are being done that reduce the amount of storage, that help lesser amounts of it go further. Not my intention to derail the discussion of fusion. My sensitivities around blanket disparagement of renewable energy got triggered, wrongly in this case - but I also think the larger context cannot be avoided and shouldn't. The Why of ongoing development of fusion immediately opens the discussion up to options apart from fusion, if just to compare. Fusion is worthy of ongoing efforts but so are many other technologies. One would be low cost, ultra safe, mass manufactured modular nuclear power plants - the much hyped SMR... if we'd had those back when climate emerged as a global issue things may have played out differently - something that can be built fast and deliver emissions reductions and political benefits within political timeframes - but they seem as perpetually far off as fusion, always another decade, maybe, more funding needed and not likely to be cheap. Throwing support behind wind and solar hasn't ended up a mistake.

If fusion is so extremely difficult to do at all, doing lots of it reliably at low cost seems a long way off. There is no way we can factor fusion into our clean energy ambitions. Sitting here using solar energy right now (at night btw), I'm inclined to disagree. The Australian Electricity Market Operator believes RE, even without dramatic tech advances, can run most of Australia's energy intensive economy with high reliability and do it with less costs than coal power. Take away wind and solar and there isn't a clean energy transition.

More serious penalties should be reserved for actual instances of infecting other people through their failures to follow community health advice - which I think counts as causing significant harm. I am not advocating jail as the principle penalty for refusing to wash hands or vaccinate but it needs to be made clear that it endangers public safety. I think assurances of public health and safety are a prerequisite for freedom of movement.

If refusing vaccination, masks, handwashing etc as advised to minimise the risks to others is some kind of inalienable human right it is news to me, but if we are to grant that right I think those of us doing the right thing should have a complementary right to hold them legally accountable if we get sick with Covid as a result and sue them for damages. I've had to work with anti-vaxxers and they are dangerous idiots full of contradictory conspiratorial BS who are not simply arguing for personal liberty or only putting their own health on the line; the risks are also to others - even those vaccinated are still at risk (vaccination isn't 100% effective) and there are people who legitimately should not be vaccinated for medical reasons who are endangered. One thing to claim they would rather die than get vaccinated or obey health orders - another for them to be okay that other people to die because they refuse to get vaccinated. I don't think known risks to public health should be off limits for regulation - which I think is the view of a large majority around here; pandering to the extremists is a bad idea.

Whilst nations that can afford it work hard at vaccination of their own populations they appear reluctant to support global vaccination efforts in a big way - not at the scales necessary. New variants are one of the consequences of that parochialism. And whilst developers of vaccines deserve and require a financial return I don't think we can afford ordinary patent rights having precedence over maximising production and distribution; government involvement and support for those R&D efforts has been substantial but could be structured differently to assure the developers recoup or are subsidised for costs without making independent manufacture under license expensive and difficult. Cynically, it seems to be in the interests of Big Pharma to widely distribute such vaccines even with minimal profit - more people who survive Covid will be more ongoing customers for their other drugs - which can be a lot more profitable.

But the link supports 60% of enhanced greenhouse coming from increased water vapour as a consequence of warming due to increase in other GHG's, ie water vapour as feedback. It is implicit rather than explicit - and the title, whilst impactful, could be misleading. Without the changes induced by change to other GHG's there would be little change to water vapour ie it does matter how the capacity to hold water vapour got increased - As for termites, I expect the total water vapour evaporating from an area of land to be quite large even in deserts and the contributions of termites via methane oxidation to be relatively small in comparison. Just to exist termites need and use water (carrying it up from underground sources), with significant amounts of water vapour apart from methane's oxidation. I just don't think it can be a big proportion or big contributor to local air humidity or to global warming - not zero, but not highly significant. I would also note that whilst more downwelling IR in lower troposphere is a consequence of Greenhouse Effect it is a local effect that doesn't directly impact the overall global heat balance; it is Top of Atmosphere - high troposphere to mid stratosphere where IR can radiate directly to space - that is most significant. Raised CO2 raises the altitude where that occurs, where such air is thinner and colder and radiates less. @Peterkin I still expect more loss of overall termite activity from forest and ecosystem destruction than any increase of termite species of concern eating construction timber in buildings. More broadly any cultivated land will have little opportunity for termites and grazing will limit available food for grass eating species. I don't know if there have been studies of changes to global termite numbers. Using wood in ways that lock up carbon make some sense, including selective harvesting of natural grown as well as plantations; as always, sound management is essential. Made more difficult for forestry because of climate change and the long time scales for forest growth. We are in a post-drought, post-fires climate phase around here - there is a lot of dead wood around; whilst many local tree species are drought and fire hardy there were still a lot of dead trees amongst the survivors. Lots of food for termites. Some will get eaten hollow and become animal habitat before the termites eat it all. I am seeing disruption to ecosystems from global warming that mean what comes back is not all the same as what came before.

I was thinking deforestation and agriculture brings overall reduced opportunities for all kinds of species, including termites. For grass eating termites I would expect overgrazing to reduce their food supply. I understand the economic impacts; I'm in a forested part of Eastern Australia in a home NOT well built - it's been the wettest Spring for a long while and they are very active in the forest around us and well within reach. Whilst fence posts and rough sheds in the bush are expected to be temporary structures... if a house gets destroyed that would be our fault - poor design, materials, construction and/or lack of care. Mostly now building standards require resistant or chemically treated plantation timber framing - with those barriers. Or steel framing - with those barriers. Which are not considered absolute preventatives; vigilance is still needed, especially in the tropics. There can still be a lot of wood in a house here. I like wood. It is just a personal observation that the forest ecosystem around here has a lot of termites - many nests of a range of species, whilst in the cities and towns - and in the farmers' fields - they are hunted down and slaughtered relentlessly wherever they appear. And I think modern design and construction is very good at keeping them out.

A lot of effort goes into preventing termites eating buildings and wood products. Building codes around here include significant requirements including physical barriers (eg crushed stone layers and stainless steel mesh) as well as chemical treatments. Posts and piles have to have "inspection" plates - they aren't so much barriers as forcing them to make external routes that make them visible, to allow follow up treatments. Poor construction remains vulnerable but well made structures should manage to keep them at bay. I suspect we have less termites because of humans, not more, and mostly by deforestation and agriculture but if anyone has evidence otherwise I'd be interested. I am always a bit dubious when natural GHG sources are cited as significant compared to human emissions without including the bigger picture - ie The Carbon Cycle - that includes processes that take them out of the atmosphere. Methane breaks down to CO2 plus 4x H2O - but I don't see it significantly adding to water vapor or greenhouse potential from raised water vapor. The overall increase in water vapor is from warmer air - ie from global warming from CO2 and CH4 mostly - which will far exceed such direct contributions, which, like all water vapor, will have a short turnover time in the atmosphere. I don't think the linked reference supports the idea that the water vapor from methane combustion (oxidation) has significant impacts - rather, that water vapor feedback accounts for about 60% of the overall increase in greenhouse potential - "It's water vapor. " Yes, but because of and in addition to raised CO2. Burning fossil fuels of all kinds release water vapor when used - from water content of the fuel or produced by combustion but still small compared to water vapor feedback.

I couldn't find any examples of electrocution from EV accidents but I would be surprised if there none and, yes, I expect vehicle repair and emergency services people to have training, as they should for dealing with ICE fires. Like the fire hazard claim I'd like to see evidence of overall heightened risks. Any evidence of manufacturers doing this, on purpose? Manufacturers considering (say) 10 years as sufficient working life - and possibly an achievement - but failing to do what it takes to make that 20 doesn't look like planned obsolescence to me. As far as vehicle life goes, surely Teslas are up there and it doesn't look like chip failures, planned or unplanned are proving a problem, irrespective of how many chips they use. Leaving aside technological progress that comes with turnover of vehicle stocks, whether it is overall better and more cost effective to build endlessly repairable cars or endlessly replaceable ones could be a question for another thread...

The video was of a battery pack deliberately set on fire. I agree there is a very high risk of catching fire under such circumstances... I had a look for info on EV fires and failed to find support for high incidence. Whilst I will take Elon Musk's claim that ICE vehicles are 11 times more likely to catch fire than a Tesla with a grain of salt - there are other factors involved including average age of vehicles - it did appear based on real statistics that haven't been disputed, 5 fires per billion miles vs 55 per billion for ICE. Over what period wasn't clear. Mostly I found experts unwilling to give definitive answers to whether the fire risk is higher or lower - mostly because not enough data - but they are NOT saying there is any evidence of extreme risk, which they would if crashes have a high incidence of fires. This is not referring to recent and is specifically referencing fatal crashes - I expect fire risk to be less than this in more modern electric vehicles, due to better design - ( https://www.counterpointresearch.com/electric-vehicles-safe/ ) - Don't EV's go through crash testing? Such a vulnerability would be impossible to disguise under such circumstances and would surely earn a zero star rating. I thought my comment was reasonable. I questioned a very strong statement you made that does not appear to have a sound basis. I asked if you had evidence but a video of setting fire to a battery pack isn't evidence and laptop/mobile phone battery fires seems tangential to fire risk of EV's in accidents - did they catch fire when something collided with them?

There is no going backwards. Too many vehicle capabilities - ICE as well as EV, as well as design and manufacture - now rely on them. Yes, more optional and unnecessary (but not necessarily unwanted) features become easy to add because chips make it easy and low cost but a lot of important functions are possible at low cost because of them. Some of those functions probably cannot be done at all without them. The nostalgia for good, old, simpler and more reliable doesn't reflect how much manufacturing costs and vehicle reliability have improved, in large part because of computer chips. EV's look like being amongst the most reliable cars currently available; I don't see how the use of chips can be considered flawed. Between the pandemic upsetting economies and supply chains and vehicle sales recovering better than expected manufacturers (chip and vehicle) underestimated demand but I don't see why this should be a long running problem. It isn't a design problem, just a parts supply problem, that will almost certainly be temporary. Do you have any evidence to support claims of extreme - or even heightened - fire risk? My understanding is there is less fire risk than ICE vehicles (which contain larger amounts of energy in their fuel tanks than EV's have in their batteries). As one expert on EV safety put it, any EV fire is newsworthy, but ICE fires are only newsworthy if they stop traffic. I also note that not all EV's use battery chemistry that is intrinsically flammable and ongoing battery R&D is a major "industry" in itself; we haven't seen the best of all possible batteries yet.

I expect manufacturing and distribution will get over it's current problems and there won't be any enduring chip shortages due to growth of EV usage. Or other growing uses; I look around this desk - laptop, mouse, router, guitar tuner, phone (that can have a guitar tuner app). Thermometers, pH meter, clock... Demand is too strong and growing and microprocessor manufacturing is an innovative industry with opportunities.. They may not be absolutely essential (except for all those uses that aren't really possible without them) but they are the best and/or least cost way (and often most reliable) to do so many things that not making use of them seems foolish.

Is an hermaphrodite form that combines both male and female a different sex? Is an asexual form - neither male nor female - a different sex or not a sex at all? Both occur widely in nature. Epigenetic processes seem to blur any absolute made-from-male+female Chromosomes distinction. Parasitism (and symbiosis) can involve reproduction that is absolutely dependent on other species, including co-opting the biological systems of a host; might it be narrowness of definition that names the hosts as different species rather than, in specific circumstances, a third sex of the parasite?