A fuller quote makes clear that the biologists are very hesitant in delving into geology. As a geologist, I approve. I'm pretty hesitant on biology myself.

Although we cannot answer this question, we could speculate that at least the evolution of the B. bigelowii/ UCYN-A symbiosis is based on recent events in a geological timescale. For example, ocean conditions on Earth during the mid to late Cretaceous, such as a warm tropical surface ocean and global anoxia, together with the dominance of diazotrophic cyanobacteria and B. bigelowii species turning into a more phagotrophic strategy to survive and recover from the end-Cretaceous darkness period caused after the bolide impact on Earth, might have favored the encounter of N2 -fixers and eukaryotes. Accordingly, not only did the B. bigelowii/UCYN-A symbiosis originate ca. 91 mya, i.e., in the late Cretaceous, but also the origin of other marine (e.g., marine planktonic diatom diazotroph associations) and non-marine (e.g., plants with specialized root organs [nodules] where N 2-fixing bacteria are hosted) N2 -fixing symbioses have been dated to the Cretaceous period.

Their argument has a sensible event sequence, but there are a LOT of other plausible dates for it to have happened. To me, at least the considerable increase in biomass between the Neoproterozoic and the Ordovician suggests that there was a large increase in nitrogen fixation some time before the start of the Ordovician (so 450+ Myr B.P.), not just since the Late Cretaceous.

So when this [endosymbiotic fusion] is peer reviewed. And the experiment repeated.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody serious has claimed to observe the merger of an alpha-proteobacterium (IIRC) or a [I forget, some class of oxygenic photosynthesising bacterium] with some other class of bacterium to form respectively mitochondria or chloroplasts. That is what Lynn Margulis inferred to have happened in the early Proterozoic (twice, successively ; green plants have both chloroplasts and mitochondria).

all rational thought generally believes it happened at least 2 times before

Well, when Margulis proposed her endosymbiosis theory, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was derided as bullshit by a large proportion of the biological community. Funeral-by-funeral, the consensus has moved in her direction, but it is still a very new consensus.

Actually, Margulis has promoted the idea of around a half-dozen other symbioses in the same 2.5Gyr B.P. period. Which is not consensus yet. I was tempted, but dubious, of the idea when I met it several decades ago, and have moved the relevant book to my by-bed pile for re-reading. Don't hold your breath waiting though - it's not an important point to me.

Yet somehow now rationally thinking that it ever happens ever in a more or less permanent manner.

Cat got your "n"?

No one looks at the nucleus that way,

... for values of "no one" that includes Lynn Margulis (originator of the mitochondrial- and chloroplast- endosymbiosis hypothesis, in the late 1960s and early 1970s).

By coincidence, a mid-1980s text book she authored ("Five Kingdoms") recently made it's way back form a box in my cellar onto my bedside table, because I feel the need to re-read it. While I've lost my notes from first time round (device died ; hardware-linked software), I clearly remember her making exactly that claim about the origin of nuclei. Also, in almost the same breath, she proposed endosymbiotic origins for : the actin network that underlies muscles, cellular motility and the endoplasmic reticulum ; the Golgi apparatus ; flagellae ; the nucleolus ; and I think a couple of other types of organelle. This was, in fact precisely the point I wanted to check in the book, so I dug it out. (It's buried under 10cm of higher-priority reading though.)

When I read that assertion, a decade or three ago, I thought it worthy of note ; but I also thought that Margulis was in danger of becoming a "endosymbiosis solves everything" Cassandra-a-like.

I really need to go back to re-read what she actually said.

There are a lot more aspects. If you solely go by price, someone else will come along and compete on price. The grift here is that NYS produces an environment that promotes monopolies, which brings in lots of money in sales and other taxes then demands companies to drive up the price (and thus tax revenue) on middle class and businesses while pretending to care about the poor which it maintains poverty through granting companies monopolies, reducing available jobs.

Oh look, a PRC propagandist rewriting history. Tibet has historically been either independent or part of India, not China. There are other regions in the north and west of China that werenâ(TM)t originally part of China (Uyghurs etc). The naval issues you talk about is because China is abusing international law, making fake islands, then claiming 100 miles around it is now Chinese despite it originally being Japan, Vietnam and Taiwanese waters.

China is otherwise quite aggressive. There will be war in the next few decades. I donâ(TM)t think US v China will be a hot war, it will be either a cold war 2 or world war 3 where it is (once again) Europe being invaded by Russia and Germany attempting to take over (they laid the groundwork with their push for EU sovereignty - which is really German rule - and now an EU army - which will really be a German army) with this time Iran funding a significant third party (like Mussolini in WW2), China and the US waging a proxy war for several years before the US having to once again save the Europeans at great expense to itself. However that will be the end of the US, it will be broke, it will split the states that are sick of saving the world and the US will retreat from the world stage, leaving the world open to the predations of China.

Most of higher education and research is politics, not science though. The fact someone can claim superconductivity at room temperature without building a device is the real problem.

Even basic research is threatened by espionage from India, Iran and China. It is not about whether you do the research, whoever publishes first gets the credit and the future grant money so they not only steal the research product, they often hamstring further local research, leading to loss of revenue, status and career progression of the researchers targeted.

They donâ(TM)t just steal the data, they hire students to go to these Universities, work their way into a lab, then steal the research product at the end of the term and destroy the data, the papers in progress, insert false data, everything they can to sabotage the future operations before leaving with the original research product back to their home countries. Oftentimes it takes days, weeks or months before you notice something has happened and by then the student is safe back in their home country with an extra $50k or so in their bank account.

They already have factories, they already have EV's. People aren't buying them, they're too expensive because the basic resources are too expensive. Despite Tesla's promises of a $15k family sedan when they first started out, it hasn't materialized because lithium ore has gone from a waste product that was $2000/ton to peaking at $15,000/ton (peaking at about $80k for some spot pricing).

You need about 0.5 to 1 ton of lithium ore per Tesla battery, you do the calculation.

The version of this story that I saw (outside America ; less concerned with USian politics) plotted the rates of people taking long-term contraception (vasectomies, tubal ligation ; not condoms or IUDs which are short-term contraceptives) against time - seeing a sharp increase from early 2022 to today, resulting in approximately a doubling of the number of vasectomies being performed in a little over a year, and a near-tripling of the number of female sterilisations over the same interval.

In a year, the population of the US has barely changed - not even 1%. So those absolute numbers might as well be rates/100,000 people.

Declare legislative war on pregnant women - which is what the US "penis politic" has done - and this is the predictable result. I'm sure your ultra-RW, women-hating politicians, male and female, have an explanation for why they are choosing to do this. Personally I read the headline and thought "... and the problem is ?"

Very much, it's a problem America's politicians have inflicted on the American populace and American economy (in years to come). From the rest of the world - a big fat [shrug].

TFS states that one of the outputs will be the "same material as seashells" - which as a geologist, I interpret as calcium carbonate (two minerals, multiple microstructures), calcium phosphate (several minerals, but much less common, because phosphate is frequently a limiting nutrient), or ... well that's about it, unless you're an insect and make a shell out of chitin.

So, where, in "sunlight, electricity and seawater are you going to find the calcium ions?

Obviously, they're relying on calcium already dissolved in their seawater.

Which is already maintained at quite low levels because there are petatonnes of coral reefs, seashells and the like already taking Ca++ ions out of seawater. They already have problems with falling seawater pH (so, increasing seawater acidity) making it harder for them to maintain their shells, leading to thinned shells, reduced growth rates, and decreasing mechanical strength of individual shells, and coral banks in aggregate. So I suspect that the ultimate utility of this approach is going to be very limited.

And now that the linked articles have opened in another tab ... the unquoted bits of the headline read : Some scientists are raising red flags. Yep. They're trying to perform some sleight of hand about separating the acidic and alkaline fluids produced (so, they're doing electrolysis. Meh. But where they get their calcium ions from in one side, and what rock they crush on the other hand ... I bet they're going to put limestone in on one side, double-count it, and use it to provide calcium ions on the other side. Which will lead, molecule for molecule, to one molecule of CO2 going in, and one molecule coming out. BFD.

Does the other link say anything? Nope, it's just hydrogen boilerplate.

This process will do precisely zero for net CO2 emissions, and at best will move some emissions from exhaust pipes to distant power plants.

Don't they teach chemistry at school these days?

That's it, they hired SEO companies when Google makes pretty clear that if you use any tricks like SEO optimization, they will de-rank you.

Not just Canada, these factories are going in the US as well.

And Trudeau is just as bad, raising taxes on the poor to pay for these kinds of giveaways. Residents across Canada are going to see a $1000 annual tax increase across the board, their own government says so.

There are 1T reasons why, the amount of money the Biden admin has spent on the Green New Deal.

They have every incentive to make big promises and soak up that money. The factories aren't going to make them money, EV sales are a disaster in every aspect.