Well it can carry 225 cars, so I imagine you could load a couple of generators and some diesel tankers. Or you could just tow it.

You could do a lot of things, none of them are trivial. I'm curious as to which they choose and why.

e.g. If your choice is towing a 225 car ferry around either Cape Agulhas or Tierra del Fuego, then more than trivial planning will be involved. And likely, waiting for the right time of year. i.e. Not winter in June -> September.

According to the article, both the reservoirs are sealed — the brine won't affect salinity in the surrounding water.

> You can now get the full App Store experience right in your browser

Full? It will be better than full. I find native apps much worse than the web when it comes to browsing stuff online.

Apple Music, Podcasts, Apple TV, Apple Maps — would all be better as web sites.

TFA frames it as an economic problem, but it’s much worse than that: it’s slow cultural suicide.

Why do trenches need to be dug across the countryside? Put them alongside existing roads and rail lines. Same with above-ground power lines. It might make them a bit longer, but the ‘eyesore’ is already there, and we can avoid making new ones.

(Re rail lines — if you build power lines over existing rail lines you could also electrify the rail route at the same time, and get rid of the diesel locomotives).

To be fair to the National Grid there - a 400kV power line is substantial: it has to have phase separations and be buried deep enough, plus space for reactive compensation from being buried.

Roads also go to places with buildings and have junctions, plumbing, foundations and are generally hard to dig past. But there are places where they do follow motorways: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M6_motorway,_northbo... (also canals).

Rail lines go though towns by design, and as you see from comments even here, the one thing people really hate the thought of is power lines near houses.

Why “surely”?

Most things that are harmless or even necessary at one level are deadly at another: heat, light, water, food, air… pretty much everything really.

“Dosis sola facit venenum” (only the dose makes the poison)

Using the example of a laser - you can have a powerful laser that can burn through metal. A far weaker laser (many magnitudes weaker) could still damage eye sight. Alternatively, water erodes mountains eventually.

I don't think you can argue that ultrasound imaging is harmless or a treatment/dose. It might be that it does nothing. It might also be that it does something (like when it destroys cancer cells) only its far milder, and not an obvious observation.

PS I know there are mild ultrasound devices to aid muscle recovery. These devices do something, presumably. If mild devices are acknowledged to impact muscles etc, some (mild probably) effect is occuring. Given there are occasions where these devices are known to have an impact on adults, why should we presume that there is no impact on the technology when it is looking at a developing foetus?

PPS Even in studies that say there is 'no effect' from ultrasound imaging, there is a tolerance of up to 10% difference between the control and the subjects.

PPPS And of course, sometimes the control is 'children who have only had 1 ultrasound' vs 'children who have 2 or more ultrasounds' - ie the control is not 'children who have who have had no ultrasounds' - ie we do not get true control studies.

Yes. Australian diesel subs have also done this in exercises.

And for animals. I’ve seen plenty of discussion about grazing sheep around panels. They keep the grass down and enjoy the shade.

5 years? More like 20–30 years.

“100 Percent Clean Energy” and “running its power grid entirely on renewable energy” are not the same — the article says nothing about fuel for transport, which is about 40% of all energy use in Aus, and mostly sourced from oil.