Over the past 5 years the monthly road deaths here in aus have been going up, because of the prevalence of those massive cars

If it’s just passing the fire over the nest it shouldn’t catch the wood on fire, but it could damage the paint. You don’t need the heat under the nest for long though, just long enough to burn the wings of the adult wasps

Get a newspaper, roll/scrunch up a bit, light it on fire and hold it beneath the nest. Then when they try to fly out their wings immediately singe and they drop to the ground. Then you can step on them with boots. I don’t know yellow jackets but that’s what I use in Australia for paper wasps (which are very aggressive).

Yep, I was talking to my grandpa about what invention his parents thought was the most significant in their lifetime, and they had said the radio. They had lived through both world wars which had brought about many many inventions and that was the one they thought was most significant.

Up to that time news was incredibly slow and you couldn’t put what was going on on the other side of the country without a massive delay, let alone the world.

Sort of, but honestly the vapes have created a new generation of smokers and they should have banned them much sooner (unless you have a prescription and actual plan to use them to quit smoking). They were much easier for new people to get into and we went from smoking dying out to a sizeable number of young smokers.

The tobacco companies have done very well out of vaping

They’ve chosen the green so there’s a much lower difference in contrast between the white and green when compared to the white and blue

Also Apple has intentionally made the Android text bubble less readable, so it has a concrete impact

How are mini that high up? It makes no sense. The BMW minis (everything from the last 20 years) are notoriously unreliable. The old ones aren’t great either but they aren’t stand out bad for the time. Cool little cars, but complete shit mechanically.

They have the right to defend, not to genocide. The vast vast majority of the people they’ve killed in Gaza have been civilians & they’re committing a war crime by cutting off the water to Gaza. That’s not self defence

Because they want an excuse to do it in the eyes of the international community and the less extreme of their own population. So they systematically oppressed the Palestinian population, which of course bred terrorism. They then made it more difficult for a peaceful Palestinian government as well, which made Hamas more powerful.

They didn’t listen to the warnings from Egypt that this attack was coming. Now they have the excuse they were waiting for to genocide the Palestinians.

If your country was being systematically dismantled by a much wealthier more powerful neighbour do you really think that you wouldn’t want to lash out? What Hamas did was terrible but it was a result of the long running actions of Israel

If they wanted that it shouldn’t have been appointed by a political party

Except worse because they mix inventory so it’s easier for sellers to get away with scams

Because we could use the money spent on nuclear to build more renewables and supporting infra (storage and transmission) than if we also built nuclear. The renewables will snap be finished and replacing the fossil fuels a lot sooner than the 10-15 years for a nuclear reactor.

If you look up studies into it you need a lot less storage than you’d expect to run a fully renewable grid, as the scale of the grid stabilises it to weather fluctuations. Winter also is a problem that can be overcome. That gencost report is a decent starting point, there are plenty of other studies into it though. The low cost of storage is also especially true if you’re looking at the first 99% of the grid.

Maybe those studies are wrong and nuclear would be economic for that last 1%. However, if we can get to 99% years earlier by just building renewables then discover that it’s harder than expected to get to 100 (somewhat unlikely, especially as more storage tech is developed), we can build nuclear then. The net carbon from getting off the majority of fossil fuels years earlier will probably make it the better decision anyway.

Also just noting that my views are based on what I’ve read about Australia so you should also find peoperly researched cost analysis for your country. Also for renewables to work well in smaller countries they’ll need to develop more interconnects their neighbours etc.

Hydrogen works well with a renewable grids because you can take advantage of the times there is excess energy production so that power doesn’t just go to waste.

We do need to be careful because hydrogen is often sold as a pipe dream by gas companies to convince us to use gas (e.g. “this new gas turbine power plant can be converted to hydrogen”, even though that’d be a workload less efficient than fuel cells).

As for its use in transport, it looks like battery electric vehicles have won that battle for personal vehicles. Both have their advantages but in practice there are few enough fuel stations for hydrogen and enough chargers that that’s not going to flip.

However, batteries are entirely unsuitable to long distance, high load transport like trucks. Ideally they’d be replaced by rail, but that’s not happening anytime soon in many places so hydrogen likely will be the solution there.

For processes like that though, nuclear would make the electricity too expensive to be economic, renewables wouldn’t.

The cost per MWh produced over a year, with grid + storage costs, is the number that matters. Wind and solar combined are much cheaper than nuclear there. For a source look that the most recent csiro gencost report. It’s produced by the Australian national science body and basically says that in the best case if smrs reach large scale adoption and operate at a very high capacity factor… They’re still way too expensive for the power they produce when compared to wind and solar with transmission and storage.

To get off fossil fuels faster it needs to be economic, and nuclear isn’t economic. Renewables are

And that opens up opportunities for energy intensive industries like aluminium or hydrogen production to run whilst there’s an excess of energy

No I was referring to autopilot, just look at the name of it. It’s I know it’s not capable of self driving (and neither is the even more absurd name of “full self driving”) but to your average person it intentionally sounds as if the car is driving itself instead of it being a driving assist.

That’d be the fsd stats, not autopilot

The way musk marketed it was as a “self driving” feature, not a driving assist. Yes with all current smart assists you need to be carefully watching what it’s doing, but that’s not what it was made out to be. Because of that I’d still say tesla is responsible.