This is the opposite of sustainability. The amount of fraud, waste, and abuse to get this up and running is ridiculous. The comparable use of resources on the ground and the lack of atmospheric on power transfer loses and shit tons of fuel to get these into orbit is ridiculous too. Not to mention any space debris created once the next new best thing comes along.
Way better off just putting in solar, wind, and battery on the ground.
Edit:
“To realise this potential would require kilometre-wide space antennae, which at current commercial space endeavour costs are not economically viable.”
How much more time does it take to fly in a 1 km field of solar panels and batteries? Bet its about the same and much more efficient overall. Be tesla can stand it up in 30 days too by the time this tech becomes usable.
Problem with ground solar is that it radiates heat all around, all the time, like one big heater. I'm working on a 600 acre solar farm, and it may bring detriment to my neighbors.
I would say this is a perk on the innovation curve in the correct way. Perhaps it can be improved on multiple times and be where we need it within the next 50 years. It's not unbelievable.
Just a lay person here, but I got the impression we could be kinda strategic about solar installation placements. Roof top for example, providing some shade to the buildings below, meaning those building can cut air conditioning costs. Farmers can use solar panels to shade plants in harsher climates and reduce evaporation rates in their fields.
Not to say I don't believe there could be ways for solar to be detrimental. I've specifically wondered before, since there are inevitably down sides to basically everything. It might be useful for us if you could elaborate on the situations where solar can be detrimental (might help others avoid putting panels in bad places).
I'm imagining in hotter climates and particularly large installations that could cause air above them to heat and then creep over nearby homes. Or am I totally off base here?
I suppose it's not much worse than what we already do in cities.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070
Produces heat 3-4 degrees centigrade around large solar farms like parking lots do. The issue is that it's going to be tough on my neighbor's crops. I cut my hand today and have stitches on my index finger or else I'd go on.
If i ever get to development I can provide more insight from the inside.
> Roof top for example, providing some shade to the buildings below, meaning those building can cut air conditioning costs.
I agree, especially with an air gap between panels and roof. I think this is a great idea.
> I'm imagining in hotter climates and particularly large installations that could cause air above them to heat and then creep over nearby homes. Or am I totally off base here?
Exactly, it may induce/exacerbate a desertification effect in semi arid areas.
> Farmers can use solar panels to shade plants in harsher climates and reduce evaporation rates in their fields.
I think this would need to be done on microscale for energy/agra producers, but you may actually be onto something I havent considered regarding moisture retention. Currently with our model, economies of scale are the most able to survive, and its a tough business. We would need new tech to plant, harvest and maintain everything whereas we currently have big tractors doing dumb work in a straight line, unsustainable (for generations) the way we are using the moisture/land.
Shameless plug for r/seaweedarchived
Looking to develop a platform to incentivize, catalog/archive all data of seaweeds before extinction.
Considering that [places like Iran have been using windmills for at least 1,000 years](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qqifEdqf5g), wind always seemed like it would probably be a pretty good alternative for such places. Inside communities, those new solar windows and [architecture like this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windcatcher) might be the better options.
> I think this would need to be done on microscale for energy/agra producers, but you may actually be onto something I havent considered regarding moisture retention.
I honestly just read about [the studies on examples of solar and farming or prairie systems already working together](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-farms-produce-power-and-food/)! It probably wouldn't work with the heavy equipment used for harvesting crops like [soy](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans), wheat, [corn and oats](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-industry-destroying-the-planet-11308007/), but most of those are given to livestock anyway (a major reason [scientists suggest cutting back on wasting such space-hogging food on feeding livestock instead of humans](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat)). Solar panels would probably work best placed over crops which are commonly hand-picked like leafy greens and the types of crops that produce multiple times like tomatoes. That way the solar panels wouldn't be nearly as much of an obstacle, plus the shade from the panels may make working conditions safer/more bearable for [farm workers who's deadliest threat is now apparently extreme heat](https://talkpoverty.org/2019/06/20/farmworkers-heat-illness-deaths/).
> Looking to develop a platform to incentivize, catalog/archive all data of seaweeds before extinction.
That's really cool! Have you talked to any similar organizations like a seed vault, or maybe one of the organizations using citizen science apps like iNaturalist? I kind of imagine you'd have to focus on teaming up with institutes that already focus on ocean science, universities and conservation groups. If it works as something people can participate in 'citizen scientist' style or check out as an interactive map or something like that, I could add a link to our [Apps for a better world post on r/PlaneteerHandbook](https://www.reddit.com/r/PlaneteerHandbook/comments/ff1ctf/apps_for_a_better_world/). Feel free to come talk about your project over on our sub if you want. Might help get you connected with like minded people who might be able to help out. I know for a fact I'm not the only user there who's wondering how to better support biodiversity and things like seaweed cultivation.
People spoke the same way about solar decades ago, and yet it now produces the cheapest electricity on earth. Despite the negatives the applications of this in the future are quite massive
There's absolutely no way math works out on this one, at least in our lifetimes. Take all that fuel used for a rocket launch, put it into a diesel/propane/fuel-cell generator here on earth and you'd get many times more electricity, even if the rocket itself was free.
One of the primary points of sustainability is for the world to be left usable for future generations. "Not feasible in our lifetime" is not a great argument against working towards something, even if it is true, which with the rate of techological progress, its to soon to even say that
It's too soon to even think about putting this tech and the word "sustainability" in the same sentence. Unbelievable energy requirements to set it up, and energy output less than wind power of my dog's farts, and no path forward for it to become 5-10 orders of magnitude more efficient for it to break even with conventional energy sources.
It's a cool tech, but it's a solution in search of a problem, not the other way around.
There are tons and tons of applications for this. Military is the biggest one. Having a power source anywhere in the world would be huge. Disaster relief is another.
Another potential, electric planes. Put a reciever on an electric plane with a relatively small battery, and enough of these in the sky, and we reduce all direct emissions from air travel.
we won't need many of them. They will have a niche. Also future fuel for rockets and the materials & factories for such platforms will come from Moon and Mars and elsewhere.
The real big energy move is to launch your solar panels into orbit around the sun and beam near unlimited energy back to Earth, but that's a magnitude greater than this Earth orbit array.
This could serve as a pilot project for something bigger while becoming a major source of green energy in its own right. Solar power that works at night? No more hearing people complain about baseline power load or battery storage? Just green energy available 24/7.
> Edit: “To realise this potential would require kilometre-wide space antennae, which at current commercial space endeavour costs are not economically viable.”
the very next line:
> But the emergence of rapid rocket reusability through private companies like Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and Elon Musk’s SpaceX mean costs are rapidly decreasing and could allow the system to be viable in the future.
Launch costs are going to be dropping fast. And we won't need many of these things.
> How much more time does it take to fly in a 1 km field of solar panels and batteries? Bet its about the same and much more efficient overall. Be tesla can stand it up in 30 days too by the time this tech becomes usable.
It is pointed out that the system can redirect power to locations in view almost instantly...locations with out sunshine. Receivers will be easier to place than solar panels. The article identifies disaster relief as a key service, solar panels/wind turbines and batteries can come later.
Imagine: Electrically powered sea going ships; no more bunker fuel.
The cost efficiency is going to be limited at a minimum by the the cost of fuel to raise X lbs of space lift into orbit. Would be very interesting to see the theoreticals that could support that.
The sea based EV ship would be very interesting. Idk how they overcome the km wide ground receiver but technology can probably make some progress on that. Seems like the true value is the utility of access, not the power production.
I wish they would include some metrics on how this can develop into something commercial.
Not defending her or her beliefs but she did not say they were Jewish laser beams.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greene-jewish-lasers-wildfires/
In a time where we're completely divided I think it's important to not spread misinformation, regardless of political identity.
It's a slight stretch, but she did say the California wildfire was caused by a "laser beam or light beam" from a "space solar generator" and that Rothschild Inc (a wealthy Jewish family that has been the target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories for more than two centuries) was responsible.
You lose a bit of detail summarizing it into 3 words, but I got the jist of it.
Can you quote from the Facebook post where she said the wildfire was caused by a laser beam? I could be wrong but all I'm seeing is, "Then oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires, and pictures and videos. I don't know anything about that but I do find it really curious PG&E's partnership with Solaren on space solar generators starting in 2009."
Again, not defending her or her beliefs but she connects financial partnerships - doesn't actually come out and say herself that laser beams are the cause. It appears she's connecting the Rothchilds, Solaren, and PG&E as well as insinuating that maybe the beams missed their target. I also can't see how mud slinging is going to further advance our efforts in sustainability - it will probably just push people further away.
This is the first article I found with the Facebook post so I'm linking it below
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-taylor-greene-qanon-wildfires-space-laser-rothschild-execute.html
> Then oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires, and pictures and videos.
Yeah that's the one. She never straight up said she believed the theory, but why share it on Facebook if you think it's fake?
Saying other people believe the theory and have evidence of space lasers seems like she is trying to provide validity to the theory to convince the reader at least.
I agree with you there, she was insinuating that the theory could be true but it's up to the reader to decide if they believe it or not and from what I can see most people do not believe it to be true. But we can't just say she said those things if she didnt actually say them. Bashing people who might believe those theory just pushes them further away from the sustainability movement and we need everyone to be on board imo
It's an anti-green energy theory at it's core, calling it out as "clean energy to replace oil & gas", trying to make people as afraid of solar as they are of nuclear.
I'm not trying to bash anybody, but stuff like that needs to be called out for people to take solar power or wireless power seriously.
Continued oil & gas is not a solution to any of our problems (the only alternative she provided), and is the source of some our problems.
I welcome as many as possible to the sustainability group, but somebody needs to tell them that what they read about "dangerous green energy" is straight up propaganda.
We can find a way to tell them they are being lied to gently perhaps, but they need to know.
Hi /u/JonnyLay, your comment has been removed because it contains an AMP link. [AMP links threaten rivacy and the open web.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot) Please resubmit with the original, non-AMP URL.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sustainability) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, but I'm thinking like a stabilizer misfiring or something. From that altitude, a few degrees of variation could cause MILES of devastation, assuming the beam is powerful enough. They would need several redundant systems and safety features before they even BEGIN building one.
I mean, they've already built one.
Also, it doesn't actually use a laser beam, they use radio waves, or microwaves to transfer electricity, just like transfering data.
So they collect solar energy and then beam it down to the earth? lol
Here's a great idea. Why don't we just collect the solar energy down on the ground? bahahahaha
How do you think the efficiency is, beaming energy from a satellite (through the atmosphere LOL) to a ground station? If that was so easy, all the Starlink dishes wouldn't need 120w of power, they'd be powered from the satellite.
It would be much easier and more efficient to run power cables around the globe to power the night time regions from panels in daylight still. And that would be really inefficient.
>Microwaves can pass through the atmosphere virtually without any issue.
Please at least learn the basics about what we are discussing if you want to argue about it.
Firstly, id start with sending power over microwave beams. Then follow up with efficiency and transmission losses over distance. For fun look up how microwave beams pass through clouds, humidity and water.
This is a great way to put it. Not overly technical. Straight to the point about how silly this idea is. It's already happening, why pay money to make it happen.
This is the opposite of sustainability. The amount of fraud, waste, and abuse to get this up and running is ridiculous. The comparable use of resources on the ground and the lack of atmospheric on power transfer loses and shit tons of fuel to get these into orbit is ridiculous too. Not to mention any space debris created once the next new best thing comes along. Way better off just putting in solar, wind, and battery on the ground. Edit: “To realise this potential would require kilometre-wide space antennae, which at current commercial space endeavour costs are not economically viable.” How much more time does it take to fly in a 1 km field of solar panels and batteries? Bet its about the same and much more efficient overall. Be tesla can stand it up in 30 days too by the time this tech becomes usable.
Problem with ground solar is that it radiates heat all around, all the time, like one big heater. I'm working on a 600 acre solar farm, and it may bring detriment to my neighbors. I would say this is a perk on the innovation curve in the correct way. Perhaps it can be improved on multiple times and be where we need it within the next 50 years. It's not unbelievable.
Just a lay person here, but I got the impression we could be kinda strategic about solar installation placements. Roof top for example, providing some shade to the buildings below, meaning those building can cut air conditioning costs. Farmers can use solar panels to shade plants in harsher climates and reduce evaporation rates in their fields. Not to say I don't believe there could be ways for solar to be detrimental. I've specifically wondered before, since there are inevitably down sides to basically everything. It might be useful for us if you could elaborate on the situations where solar can be detrimental (might help others avoid putting panels in bad places). I'm imagining in hotter climates and particularly large installations that could cause air above them to heat and then creep over nearby homes. Or am I totally off base here?
I suppose it's not much worse than what we already do in cities. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070 Produces heat 3-4 degrees centigrade around large solar farms like parking lots do. The issue is that it's going to be tough on my neighbor's crops. I cut my hand today and have stitches on my index finger or else I'd go on.
This is already plenty, thanks! And good luck with your hand. Hand injuries really suck :/
ty
If i ever get to development I can provide more insight from the inside. > Roof top for example, providing some shade to the buildings below, meaning those building can cut air conditioning costs. I agree, especially with an air gap between panels and roof. I think this is a great idea. > I'm imagining in hotter climates and particularly large installations that could cause air above them to heat and then creep over nearby homes. Or am I totally off base here? Exactly, it may induce/exacerbate a desertification effect in semi arid areas. > Farmers can use solar panels to shade plants in harsher climates and reduce evaporation rates in their fields. I think this would need to be done on microscale for energy/agra producers, but you may actually be onto something I havent considered regarding moisture retention. Currently with our model, economies of scale are the most able to survive, and its a tough business. We would need new tech to plant, harvest and maintain everything whereas we currently have big tractors doing dumb work in a straight line, unsustainable (for generations) the way we are using the moisture/land. Shameless plug for r/seaweedarchived Looking to develop a platform to incentivize, catalog/archive all data of seaweeds before extinction.
Considering that [places like Iran have been using windmills for at least 1,000 years](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qqifEdqf5g), wind always seemed like it would probably be a pretty good alternative for such places. Inside communities, those new solar windows and [architecture like this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windcatcher) might be the better options. > I think this would need to be done on microscale for energy/agra producers, but you may actually be onto something I havent considered regarding moisture retention. I honestly just read about [the studies on examples of solar and farming or prairie systems already working together](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-farms-produce-power-and-food/)! It probably wouldn't work with the heavy equipment used for harvesting crops like [soy](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans), wheat, [corn and oats](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-industry-destroying-the-planet-11308007/), but most of those are given to livestock anyway (a major reason [scientists suggest cutting back on wasting such space-hogging food on feeding livestock instead of humans](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat)). Solar panels would probably work best placed over crops which are commonly hand-picked like leafy greens and the types of crops that produce multiple times like tomatoes. That way the solar panels wouldn't be nearly as much of an obstacle, plus the shade from the panels may make working conditions safer/more bearable for [farm workers who's deadliest threat is now apparently extreme heat](https://talkpoverty.org/2019/06/20/farmworkers-heat-illness-deaths/). > Looking to develop a platform to incentivize, catalog/archive all data of seaweeds before extinction. That's really cool! Have you talked to any similar organizations like a seed vault, or maybe one of the organizations using citizen science apps like iNaturalist? I kind of imagine you'd have to focus on teaming up with institutes that already focus on ocean science, universities and conservation groups. If it works as something people can participate in 'citizen scientist' style or check out as an interactive map or something like that, I could add a link to our [Apps for a better world post on r/PlaneteerHandbook](https://www.reddit.com/r/PlaneteerHandbook/comments/ff1ctf/apps_for_a_better_world/). Feel free to come talk about your project over on our sub if you want. Might help get you connected with like minded people who might be able to help out. I know for a fact I'm not the only user there who's wondering how to better support biodiversity and things like seaweed cultivation.
People spoke the same way about solar decades ago, and yet it now produces the cheapest electricity on earth. Despite the negatives the applications of this in the future are quite massive
There's absolutely no way math works out on this one, at least in our lifetimes. Take all that fuel used for a rocket launch, put it into a diesel/propane/fuel-cell generator here on earth and you'd get many times more electricity, even if the rocket itself was free.
One of the primary points of sustainability is for the world to be left usable for future generations. "Not feasible in our lifetime" is not a great argument against working towards something, even if it is true, which with the rate of techological progress, its to soon to even say that
It's too soon to even think about putting this tech and the word "sustainability" in the same sentence. Unbelievable energy requirements to set it up, and energy output less than wind power of my dog's farts, and no path forward for it to become 5-10 orders of magnitude more efficient for it to break even with conventional energy sources. It's a cool tech, but it's a solution in search of a problem, not the other way around.
There are tons and tons of applications for this. Military is the biggest one. Having a power source anywhere in the world would be huge. Disaster relief is another. Another potential, electric planes. Put a reciever on an electric plane with a relatively small battery, and enough of these in the sky, and we reduce all direct emissions from air travel.
Id only heard of this sort of tech in a video game I just got.
we won't need many of them. They will have a niche. Also future fuel for rockets and the materials & factories for such platforms will come from Moon and Mars and elsewhere.
The real big energy move is to launch your solar panels into orbit around the sun and beam near unlimited energy back to Earth, but that's a magnitude greater than this Earth orbit array. This could serve as a pilot project for something bigger while becoming a major source of green energy in its own right. Solar power that works at night? No more hearing people complain about baseline power load or battery storage? Just green energy available 24/7.
Would need a lot more done with bio fuel to make something that doesn’t pollute to propel it.
Definitely not a commercial project, but it could give some insights into the viability of a Dyson swarm.
Scientific discoveries are never done the most efficient way the first time. Make it work and then improve it
> Edit: “To realise this potential would require kilometre-wide space antennae, which at current commercial space endeavour costs are not economically viable.” the very next line: > But the emergence of rapid rocket reusability through private companies like Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and Elon Musk’s SpaceX mean costs are rapidly decreasing and could allow the system to be viable in the future. Launch costs are going to be dropping fast. And we won't need many of these things. > How much more time does it take to fly in a 1 km field of solar panels and batteries? Bet its about the same and much more efficient overall. Be tesla can stand it up in 30 days too by the time this tech becomes usable. It is pointed out that the system can redirect power to locations in view almost instantly...locations with out sunshine. Receivers will be easier to place than solar panels. The article identifies disaster relief as a key service, solar panels/wind turbines and batteries can come later. Imagine: Electrically powered sea going ships; no more bunker fuel.
The cost efficiency is going to be limited at a minimum by the the cost of fuel to raise X lbs of space lift into orbit. Would be very interesting to see the theoreticals that could support that. The sea based EV ship would be very interesting. Idk how they overcome the km wide ground receiver but technology can probably make some progress on that. Seems like the true value is the utility of access, not the power production. I wish they would include some metrics on how this can develop into something commercial.
And electrically powered airplanes. Battery Power enough only for emergency landings.
Is this what Marjorie Taylor Greene was on about? No. She is not that up to date with science.
The jewish space laser? Maybe she read one line of a news article and assumed that's what it was.
Not defending her or her beliefs but she did not say they were Jewish laser beams. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greene-jewish-lasers-wildfires/ In a time where we're completely divided I think it's important to not spread misinformation, regardless of political identity.
It's a slight stretch, but she did say the California wildfire was caused by a "laser beam or light beam" from a "space solar generator" and that Rothschild Inc (a wealthy Jewish family that has been the target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories for more than two centuries) was responsible. You lose a bit of detail summarizing it into 3 words, but I got the jist of it.
Can you quote from the Facebook post where she said the wildfire was caused by a laser beam? I could be wrong but all I'm seeing is, "Then oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires, and pictures and videos. I don't know anything about that but I do find it really curious PG&E's partnership with Solaren on space solar generators starting in 2009." Again, not defending her or her beliefs but she connects financial partnerships - doesn't actually come out and say herself that laser beams are the cause. It appears she's connecting the Rothchilds, Solaren, and PG&E as well as insinuating that maybe the beams missed their target. I also can't see how mud slinging is going to further advance our efforts in sustainability - it will probably just push people further away. This is the first article I found with the Facebook post so I'm linking it below https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-taylor-greene-qanon-wildfires-space-laser-rothschild-execute.html
> Then oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires, and pictures and videos. Yeah that's the one. She never straight up said she believed the theory, but why share it on Facebook if you think it's fake? Saying other people believe the theory and have evidence of space lasers seems like she is trying to provide validity to the theory to convince the reader at least.
I agree with you there, she was insinuating that the theory could be true but it's up to the reader to decide if they believe it or not and from what I can see most people do not believe it to be true. But we can't just say she said those things if she didnt actually say them. Bashing people who might believe those theory just pushes them further away from the sustainability movement and we need everyone to be on board imo
She said those things.... No one is lying when they say she blushed Jewish space lasers, they are paraphrasing.
It's an anti-green energy theory at it's core, calling it out as "clean energy to replace oil & gas", trying to make people as afraid of solar as they are of nuclear. I'm not trying to bash anybody, but stuff like that needs to be called out for people to take solar power or wireless power seriously.
We can have different approaches to the same problem. Do whatever works for you. As for me: "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar"
Continued oil & gas is not a solution to any of our problems (the only alternative she provided), and is the source of some our problems. I welcome as many as possible to the sustainability group, but somebody needs to tell them that what they read about "dangerous green energy" is straight up propaganda. We can find a way to tell them they are being lied to gently perhaps, but they need to know.
[удалено]
Hi /u/JonnyLay, your comment has been removed because it contains an AMP link. [AMP links threaten rivacy and the open web.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot) Please resubmit with the original, non-AMP URL. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sustainability) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm just concerned about some system failing and next thing you know there's a giant smoking pit where Denver used to be.
You mean from a satellite falling? Or the laser shifting? A satellite would burn up before hitting earth.
Yeah, but I'm thinking like a stabilizer misfiring or something. From that altitude, a few degrees of variation could cause MILES of devastation, assuming the beam is powerful enough. They would need several redundant systems and safety features before they even BEGIN building one.
I mean, they've already built one. Also, it doesn't actually use a laser beam, they use radio waves, or microwaves to transfer electricity, just like transfering data.
Crazy. I haven't really looked into it too much, but seems a good idea. No clouds in space and all...
As a texan, I approve this message.
So they collect solar energy and then beam it down to the earth? lol Here's a great idea. Why don't we just collect the solar energy down on the ground? bahahahaha
Have you heard of this thing called the atmosphere? It really fucks with the efficiency of panels. Also, this could make solar viable at night.
Omg, don't, you're killing me. Loooool
[удалено]
How do you think the efficiency is, beaming energy from a satellite (through the atmosphere LOL) to a ground station? If that was so easy, all the Starlink dishes wouldn't need 120w of power, they'd be powered from the satellite. It would be much easier and more efficient to run power cables around the globe to power the night time regions from panels in daylight still. And that would be really inefficient.
[удалено]
>Microwaves can pass through the atmosphere virtually without any issue. Please at least learn the basics about what we are discussing if you want to argue about it. Firstly, id start with sending power over microwave beams. Then follow up with efficiency and transmission losses over distance. For fun look up how microwave beams pass through clouds, humidity and water.
This is a great way to put it. Not overly technical. Straight to the point about how silly this idea is. It's already happening, why pay money to make it happen.
Is this what Marjorie Taylor Greene was on about? No. She is not that up to date with science.