This can be a triple-win if done right!

You cut down on evaporation of water from the surface of the lakes. The West badly needs all the water it can get.

You generate solar power, partly or completely replacing the loss of hydropower from low water flows due to drought.

You generate more hydropower with the water you've saved.

Heck, if you make the solar cells slightly lighter in color, you can maybe trade some efficiency for a net cooling of the lakes and even less evaporation.

The only downside is that boat traffic will be restricted in the areas where the solar cells are.

This is something we really need to do. Evaporation losses from these lakes amount to multiple cities worth of water per year.

--PeterM

Interesting points you made, I'm glad to hear the COVID picture might actually be less grim than it is sometimes represented.

I hope your claims end up being correct and people really do get better from long COVID instead of having increased deaths. It's bad enough that quality of life has suffered.

--PM

I've seen plenty of news stories about COVID doing things like increasing strokes, increasing heart disease, "aging" organs by inflicting damage, and of course, there's "long COVID".

I wouldn't be surprised *at all* if COVID survivors have their life expectancy reduced too.

Heck, here's a link, it was easy to find:

"Among COVID-19 survivors, an increased risk of death, serious illness Major study details numerous long-term effects of COVID-19, pointing to massive health burden"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

So it seems like the damage from COVID to life expectancy goes far beyond those it outright killed.

You don't want this in sewers. Might ignite sewer gas. Boom! Flying manhole covers and gouts of flame in the street.

On the plus side, you might kill even more roaches and reduce greenhouse gas--methane burnt into carbon dioxide and water is less of a greenhouse gas than methane.

Hello,

    I'd really like to get a COVID shot that covers BA.4 and BA.5 versions of omicron.

    How do I do this? Will it be at Walgreens? How do I sign up?

    I just want some practical advice on how to get it done, ASAP. I haven't had COVID yet and I want to keep it that way, but the old vaccine doesn't seem to cover BA.4 or BA.5 very well for preventing infection, though I'm grateful that my previous vaccinations cut my odds of dying (by 6x?) or needing hospitalization (by 3x?)

Thanks!

--PeterM

It's not clear to me that by the time a practical fusion plant is engineered, that it will be able get it built cheaper than we can build the same capacity of solar/wind power with battery storage.

Even today, I've read arguments that anything that requires a thermal conversion cycle is going to lose (because cost) against any direct conversion electric generating tech.

thermal conversion cycle == heat --> steam --> turbines --> electricity.

Direct means you directly spin the turbine that generates electricity, or you directly get electricity. Examples of direct:
wind (spins turbine directly)
solar (direct to electricity)
natural gas turbine (spins turbine directly)

The idea is that there is so much capital invested in the thermal conversion hardware, that even if the heat came for free, you'd still lose out vs. the direct conversion technologies.

This means that all of these energy generation technologies are losers because they cost too much:
1) Coal
2) Nuclear fission
3) Nuclear fusion
4) Geothermal

In the USA, coal is rapidly being phased out, and it's being phased out because of the cost, not because of bleeding-heart environmental regulation.

Given that, it's hard to imagine nuclear fusion ever being economically viable, because not only is there the huge investment in the thermal generation plant, the fusion plant is likely to be really expensive too. Nuclear fission also seems non-viable.

--PeterM

Holding up a CPU as a technology that used to be giant and clunky that is now "everyday", as an analogy to what fusion plants could become, is horribly wrong.

First, CPUs are still supremely complex, difficult machines that require tremendous alliances of multiple industries to build. The current complexity of a CPU far exceeds that of the mainframe computer of yesterday.

The only reason that CPUs are economical AT ALL is that once built, they are then replicated in thousands or millions or billions--as you pointed out.

You will *never* get that kind of economy of scale going for fusion plants based on lasers.

You know what does scale though? Solar panels and batteries.

A better analogy would be the initial research fission plants compared vs. the commercial nuclear plants producing power today. And you'll notice that even today the commercial nuclear plant is an expensive, somewhat rare, and complicated beast.

I liked the Tolkein series, but why must the entertainment industry re-hash it over and over and over and over? How may "and overs" is this now anyway?

Yes, I know "because it makes them money". Well, I won't be watching this. I'll be watching something more original instead. And so should we all.

--PM

Yes, sickle cell does protect from malaria, some. But there's a "better" anti-malaria mutation. Hemoglobin C provides protection from malaria with much less disadvantage than sickle cell--though it does cause joint pain and some other more minor issues.

    With the onset of medicine vs malaria, I'd say that sickle cell really is a problem.

--PeterM

A lot of the human applications of CRISPR won't affect reproductive cells. In other words, the edits won't go into kids.

For example, the fix for cystic fibrosis mostly edits the DNA of cells in the lungs. It works, but it isn't 100%, not all the cells get fixed, just enough. Their kids would still get the unedited genes, which could pass on cystic fibrosis.

But consider this: wouldn't you *rather* that people with big genetic problems who have kids fix their DNA before having kids?

Hello,

    You seem to be calling the "OP" a liar--or more precisely, a "lying sack of shit". I'm not so sure he had any intent to deceive. (what's the motive for lying anyway, as opposed to simply being incomplete?) What he said was interesting--the stats seem to favor EVs. Your commentary was also added value--the stats have some built in bias. Both are informative to the reader. Neither were "lies".

    And both your post and his together make for valuable perspective.

  That said, while the OP may or may not have been a "liar", you have demonstrated unequivocally via your words what YOU are.

Hello,

    Subject says it all. And yes, I did finally replace that phone because of the battery going wonky.

    I probably could have gotten even more out of it. Turns out I was charging the Pixel incorrectly to get maximum life out of the battery. If you want to maximize the life of your battery:

1) Avoid putting it in too hot or too cold conditions.
2) you keep it charged between 40 and 80% all the time.
        (100% and 0% are both bad for batteries.)
3) Charge it slowly, discharge it slowly
4) Unplug it if it hits 100%, don't keep charging it

But all of these would be non-issues if we could replace the batteries easily. If only!

--PeterM

I think some pretty stringent measures are important to not only save the 1% who will die (where'd you get 3 or 4 percent?), but to save a substantial 30%-ish minority of everyone else from long term damage.

I have friends who have lost their sense of smell. Some apparently permanently. "Covid brain" is no joke either. Are you so smart that you can afford to functionally lose 10-20 IQ points? And then there is the chronic fatigue, the blood clots, from COVID, all quite a lot more common than the limited and extremely rare effects from the shots....

Avoiding a case of COVID may not be life or death for the vast majority of folks, but not getting COVID is very important to the quality of life of about 30% of people.

Funny how everyone is vaccinated vs polio, and that wasn't a problem. Polio was less deadly than COVID. Paralysis from it was actually pretty rare. Only 25% of people who got polio would even notice. Only 1-5 in 1000 would get nerve damage. Arguably less dangerous than COVID. Yet when the polio vaccines came out, people rushed to get them, not only for themselves but to protect others. Now, instead of humanity uniting against COVID and taking small risks (i.e., getting vaccinated) to not only protect themselves but protect others, we have a solid minority mired in "my rights" attitudes.

I think the people of the USA from the 1950's (when USA polio was largely eradicated) if they were to see USA today, would wonder what the heck is wrong with us, and how did we lose our way.

--PeterM

So let me get this straight.

You're OK with a virus invading your body, to use you as a platform to reproduce itself and infect other humans, imposing a risk of serious illness and death on you and the people you are likely to go on and infect.

But you are NOT OK with humans twisting your arm a bit, to get you to take a low-risk shot in the arm to prevent you being co-opted by the virus as a weapon vs. other humans to reproduce itself and infect others?

So, you're on the side of the virus, to the point where you're WILLING to risk being a host for the virus, and UNWILLING to take a tiny risk to prevent harm to yourself and the rest of the human race?

The virus won't even bother asking you for permission or try to help you with any damage inflicted as it makes use of you. Clearly you've chosen a side in the war vs. the virus, and it isn't the human side.

Seriously, this is you? Well, tit for tat. I hope that when/if you become infected, that you're denied any medical care given by other humans that you may need. I hope that anyone you infect sues you for civil damages for failing to take common, everyday precautions taken by literally billions of other humans, reducing your risk of giving a dangerous virus to them.

After all, why should we take care of you if you won't take care of yourself, and won't take care of us?

--PeterM

40% protection from contracting, 30% from hospitalization with 3 doses. Not really that great. Progress, to be sure.

Vaccines vs. other stuff are far better. More work needed, it's not a solved problem.

From: https://www.mmv.org/newsroom/n...

"Itâ(TM)s important to note that the RTS,S vaccine does not offer full protection against malaria â" clinical trials suggested that it reduces the risk of contracting malaria by 40% and the risk of hospital admission with severe malaria by around 30% when at least three doses are administered. These results have been confirmed by the pilot programme."