The plan to beam-in solar power from space, ways to incentivise sharing trustworthy material on social media, and do ill fish run a fever like we do?
In this episode
00:47 - Beaming solar power in from space
Beaming solar power in from space
Mark Barrett, UCL Energy Institute
Funding for winning bids to develop solar power stations in space was announced this week by the UK government. In a speech at London Tech Week, Energy Security Secretary Grant Schapps confirmed that 8 UK universities, including Cambridge, Imperial, Queen Mary and Bristol, as well as several technology companies will share grants worth £4.3 million to kickstart the initiative, saying, "I want the UK to boldly go where no country has gone before - boosting our energy security by getting our power directly from space." The vision is of a massive orbiting solar array that harvests sunlight unweakened by the effects of the atmosphere and where physical space is less of a constraint. The energy is beamed down to Earth and fed into the grid. By 2050, systems like this, they say, could be yielding up to 10 GW: that's the equivalent of 16 Hinckley Point C nuclear power stations. The UCL Energy Institute’s Mark Barrett had this to say…
Mark - Rather than having your solar panels on your roof, they plan to put them in space attached to a satellite. The advantage there is that there's no day or night, so they can generate all the time. And then the electricity is converted into something called microwaves, like you have in your microwave cooker. And that energy is beamed to earth where it's picked up by a pretty large area of special antennae. You know, you're talking many square miles, which convert the microwaves back into electricity and put it into the grid.
Chris - Let's take this step-by-step then. First of all, let's consider the scale of this. How big is this?
Mark - The proposed size is two gigawatts and the satellite and the PV panels might weigh about 2000 tonnes. And to contrast that, the largest thing in space is the space station, which weighs 400 tonnes. So this satellite is far, far larger.
Chris - How practical is this to do this? Someone obviously thinks it's worth investing at least some money to do pilot work on this because they've put up a reasonable sum of seed corn funding, haven't they?
Mark - The truth is for all of the components of the system putting solar panels in space at this scale, all of these things are just simply unproven. But in addition, we have the huge cost of getting these equipment, these thousands of tonnes into space. And this is something that won't be assembled by humans. We will have lots of robots. This is proposed, lots of robots out in space, putting all this stuff together. And also, I might add, whereas the solar panel on your roof can be easily maintained. What happens if something goes wrong in space, thousands of kilometres away? What's the practicality of getting robots up there to make it work again?
Chris - Something's only worth doing in sustainability terms if it's better than what we could do already. Now, is there a danger given what you've just said, that we do all this and the carbon footprint is so far in the red that this thing never pays for itself?
Mark - Well, we have to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to stop excessive climate change. And we need a reliable supply of electricity. We currently do this with solar panels and wind generators. The costs have fallen by 80% in 10 years, and just in the last year, the global increase in the capacity of solar and wind on the planet earth is equivalent to 50 of these satellites. So by the time they get the first one working, which they think might be around 2040, we could build at least 500 equivalent solar satellites, but on Earth.
Chris - Indeed because if one just considers the Sahara Desert, and if you took just a small fraction of what is currently unproductive surface of earth, getting very hot every day with more sunshine than anywhere else on earth, surely it's easier to transport electricity from the Sahara than it is from space.
Mark - Yes, the point is well made. Using solar and wind with long distance transmission, we can spread the demands and the supplies of renewables out of very large areas. These are all proven technologies, or most of them are 50 or a hundred years old. They're built in their thousands. And so, we know about their reliability. And they're built by, in the main, by private companies competing in markets so that the costs aren't excessive. Whereas these solar satellites, they're going to have to be, one estimate is 17 billion pounds of public money to get the first one operating. So it's a huge financial risk.
Chris - Can we just consider for a minute the practicalities of bringing this much energy down from space? This isn't going to produce a sort of death ray that if someone flies their aircraft through it, they get fried. Is it?
Mark - Well, the average microwave input into the collector is only about two or three times that of the average solar radiation falling on that patch of Earth. Generally, it is thought that there's no obvious danger for microwaves at the intensity which this satellite system will operate at. I'm not sure how much experience there is with microwaves at that intensity to be certain.
Chris - And if I gave you 17 billion quid, would you spend it on this?
Mark - No.
Chris - Would you spend it elsewhere? And if so, what would you do?
Mark - I would spend on things like innovation, technology development, on the electric vehicle batteries, for example. More efficient equipment, more efficient, small scale, low cost heat pumps. Better solar panels for buildings, better wind generators, production of hydrogen, production of ammonia. All of these things need innovation and development. And the markets for them are huge. And they're more or less driven now largely by private companies selling them into competitive markets, whereas solar satellites, you can't ever see that happening, really.
07:28 - Should social media get a trustworthy button?
Should social media get a trustworthy button?
Laura Globig, UCL
The UK’s Covid inquiry kicked off this week. We told you last week how the process is going to work. It’s almost certain that one aspect that the investigators will dwell on is communication and the spread of misinformation during the pandemic, much of it driven by unreliable sources on social media. And with about 5 billion of the world's 8-plus billion population regularly using some form of social media - Facebook alone has about 3 billion active accounts - the societal impact of these media - and specifically the messages and information that people convey through them - is huge. But as UCL's Laura Globig argues, the problem with many social media platforms is that they’re engineered only to engage users and promote information exchange; they don't reward users for the accuracy or reliability of what they share. So she's come up with a better way to do that...
Laura - The spread of misinformation online has skyrocketed and this has had quite drastic consequences such as increasing polarisation and resistance to climate action and vaccines. And so far existing measures to halt the spread of misinformation online, such as, for example, flagging or reporting posts has had only limited impact. So we wanted to know if we could help address this issue of misinformation online.
Chris - And are there any particular groups who are more susceptible to this or is everyone potentially a sucker for it?
Laura - People are actually quite good at distinguishing true from false information. So it's not a lack of ability. In fact, existing research shows that lay peoples are just as good as professional fact checkers at telling apart true from false information. Instead, one reason for the spread of misinformation online is the lack of incentives on social media platforms to share true information and avoid sharing false information. People tend to choose actions that lead to rewards or positive feedback and avoid those that lead to punishment. And on social media platforms, these rewards and punishments come in the form of likes and dislikes. But the issue with these likes and dislikes is that they aren't representative of the accuracy of the information you're sharing. For example, you could like an obviously false post because you think it's amusing. So we now propose that the key to reducing the spread of misinformation online is not to tell people what's true and what's false, but instead to directly incentivise them to share more true relative to false information. And so we need an incentive structure where these social rewards and punishments are directly contingent on the accuracy of the information.
Chris - So what you are saying is instead of there being thumb up or thumb down, like or dislike, I could have, "I trust this, I don't trust this."
Laura - Exactly. So in this study we do this by slightly altering the engagement options offered to users. So we're not taking away the like and the dislike button, but instead we added an option to react to posts using, just as you said, the trust and distrust buttons.
Chris - You can envisage why people would be incentivised to use that because it's an additional badge of honour for them saying, "I'm sharing this, but it's a bit iffy." And then if it turns out that it is a bit iffy, they can say I told you so. So it does kind of play into the same reward system, but it's for the benefit of more clear communication.
Laura - Exactly. Here, there's no ambiguity in the use of the trust and distrust. So trust by definition is related to reliability. It's a firm belief in the truth and reliability of something. And so what we found in this study is that people would use these buttons to actually differentiate between true and false posts.
Chris - So what data have you got that suggests this will actually work?
Laura - What we did was we created simulated social media platforms and, in these platforms, users saw both true and false information. And then we added an option to react to posts using a trust and a distrust button in addition to the usual like and dislike buttons. And so then what we found was that people use these buttons to differentiate true from false information more so than they use the like and dislike buttons. And as a result of that, to receive more trust rewards and fewer distrust punishments, other participants were then also more likely to share true information relative to false information. So what we saw was a large reduction in the amount of misinformation being spread.
Chris - Does the person effectively score points for trusting something that turns out to be true? Is that how it feeds back and endorses that so that person's building reputation? Is that one of the incentives?
Laura - So the incentive is receiving the trust themselves. So we have three experiments and in the first experiment we gave participants the option to react to posts using a trust, distrust, like and dislike button. And the incentive here is just to engage with the post itself. And so what we found was people use the trust and distrust buttons. And then in the second and third experiment we looked at how receiving trust and distrust feedback from other participants would impact sharing. So there people are motivated to share true posts so that they receive a large number of trusts and very few distrusts.
Chris - And of course your timing is perfect because in the UK at least the online safety bill is making its way through the government process. This is the idea of trying to make the internet a safer place where misinformation propagates more slowly. So really the whole world, the business world, should be receptive to ways that they can improve not just the engagement but the quality of the engagement.
Laura - Exactly. That's also our hope and what we're doing here is we are not reliant on any fact checkers or anyone definitively determining whether something is true or not, but instead we're putting the onus on the user, which actually increases user autonomy, which also again would be very appealing to the platforms and hopefully to social media users themselves.
14:20 - Fish 'run a fever' to fight infections
Fish 'run a fever' to fight infections
Daniel Barreda, University of Alberta
A common consequence of infection is fever; at least for warm-blooded creatures like us. In response to various inflammatory signals, the brain's hypothalamus turns up the thermostat and our temperature climbs, with inevitable consequences. We, in response, reach for the packet of paracetamol and bring it down again. But are we, by doing that, prolonging our illness? The fact that so many animals have this same fever response to infection argues that it must serve a beneficial purpose. But studying it is very difficult, because if we artificially alter a warm-bloodied animal's body temperature, the metabolic stress we inflict clouds our ability to ask questions about the impact on the infection. So the genius solution that the University of Alberta's Daniel Barreda hit upon was to work with a cold-bloodied species, because, yes, fish including common goldfish run a fever when they're infected too, but not by boosting their metabolic rate: by moving to warmer patches of water to force up their temperature. And this means they're perfect for studying the impact of fever on immune function…
Daniel - The beautiful thing about this fish is that it's very comfortable in temperatures between 1.4 degrees and 34 degrees. Goldfish, like other cold blooded vertebrates, do not have the capacity like we do to change body temperature through metabolic means. So instead they actually move to a warmer or colder temperature. So fish will go to a warm side of the pond and be able to induce or stimulate that fever through behaviour rather than through metabolic means.
Chris - You are telling me that goldfish run a temperature when they get sick like we do?
Daniel - They do. So if you look at the pathways that are involved, they are shared. Yes there are physiological differences and we expect that there's going to be some differences between the febrile responses. But, for now, they're largely shared and the trigger is just behaviour when you're cold-blooded versus metabolic when you're warm-blooded.
Chris - So what did you do to these fish then to make them do this so you could investigate it?
Daniel - Well, that was the most beautiful thing, I think, out of this study. The fact that we were able to stimulate them with a pathogen or with a vaccine and we simply observed them. So it's not that we were really manipulating anything in the animal themselves. What we did have to do was create an environment where they would be able to actually show what that natural behaviour was, and that was the most challenging thing.
Chris - Do you mean a tank that's got hot spots and cold spots?
Daniel - Exactly. So this was one of the fanciest tanks that you will ever see hold a fish. Essentially, we had a tank that had zero physical barriers, but there were multiple different temperatures within this tank. So everything was controlled through fluid dynamics. We had over five or six engineers working on this for a couple of years and basically got it to the point where we have a very discrete gradient, so different temperatures that were very consistent for over two weeks, and we were able to just simply put the fish there after they were challenged, after they were vaccinated, and look at what happened.
Chris - And what does happen?
Daniel - When the fish encounter a pathogen, they will move to the warm side of the tank and they'll stay there for the duration of their fever. They'll come back.
Chris - If you can control the temperature in that way, you can presumably do experiments where you infect or challenge a fish and then you deprive it of access to such a high temperature. What happens if you do that?
Daniel - Well, in our case, we were able to have what we call a control group that allowed us to see exactly that and when the fish were challenged. So they encountered that pathogen, but the tank was held at a specific temperature. We didn't see their capacity to clear the pathogen as fast, they weren't as good at controlling inflammation, and they weren't as good at repairing the tissue that had been damaged by this infection.
Chris - Some bacteria though, grow better at higher temperatures? So is it still beneficial to the fish to go to that higher temperature or is there a middle ground and do they know what that middle ground is?
Daniel - That is an excellent question and that was one of the concerns going in. Fever is typically thought about as moving pathogens away from the temperature that they prefer, but yet we understand that many of these pathogens do better at the warmer temperatures. In our case, the aeromonas bacteria that we used grew better at the higher temperatures, yet the fish were much better equipped to combat this pathogen when they got the chance to move to those warmer temperatures,
Chris - Did you look inside the fish to see what effect the higher temperature was having on their immune system and on their physiology to effect this improved recovery at higher temperature?
Daniel - Yeah, absolutely. We looked at the capacity of their white blood cells to come to the site of infection and that was much more efficient. And what was interesting is it wasn't more white blood cells coming to the site, it was just they were coming earlier, so therefore it becomes a much better scenario that is in favour of the host.
Chris - Do we know how the white blood cells improved their efficiency at these high temperatures - what the mechanism of that is?
Daniel - What we found was that at the site of infection, there was earlier production of various molecules that call on those white blood cells. The other thing that we saw was there was much better engagement of the central nervous system and that it's actually able to create what we call a systemic response. So basically a whole body response to better equip this animal to be able to combat this infection.
Chris - And you think that the same thing is almost certainly going on in us when we run a fever? We've got the same molecules, the same cell behaviour, and therefore the same gains through running a temperature to fight infection just like these fish are?
Daniel - Well, we've been studying comparative systems - basically different types of animals - for many years. And what we find is there's a lot of shared responses, particularly in what we call the innate arm - which are those very well conserved early responses - from the immune system. The second aspect is that there's a well documented survival advantage, not just in fish and other cold blooded vertebrates, but also mammals. Rabbits, in fact, winter pests, for example, survive much better if you allow them to have that fever response. And there's many other examples in the literature.
Chris - The strange thing though is that because we feel so awful when we run a fever, we end up popping pills like paracetamol to bring our temperature down. Are we therefore making ourselves potentially suffer less but for longer by doing that? Should we just grin and bear it and run a fever then?
Daniel - I think there's a few factors to consider. We do think of fever as a symptom and I think that has to change. The second aspect that is also very important is not just taking the the antipyretics at the time, but there's many people in the general public that may take this preemptively, whether it is before a kid goes up for vaccination and you simply do not want them to get cranky after. Yes, you may be alleviating some of the symptoms, but the question is, are you losing something?
21:39 - Why perfectionism is bad for us
Why perfectionism is bad for us
Tom Curran, LSE
Should we celebrate our faults and flaws? We were hearing a little earlier about our obsession with social media - which arguably fuels our desire to look immaculate and appear highly successful as often as we can. But Tom Curran says that this quest for perfection is damaging our mental health. Tom’s new book is called The Perfection Trap...
Tom - Absolutely. It does have a definition. It's a combination of two things. The first is excessively high standards, standards that are well beyond comfort, but fused with a very harsh and punitive self criticism when we haven't met those excessive standards. So it's those two things, high standards and high harsh self-criticism, that characterise perfectionism
Chris - Is that, whether it's external, it's someone else or something else, or is it internal? Or is it both? And which one tends to play a bigger role?
Tom - It can be absolutely both. It can be internal, so it could be really rough and hard on ourselves when we've slipped up. 'How could you be so stupid? What were you thinking?' Sort of thing. But it can also be a perception that the outside world and people in the outside world are watching us, judging us and waiting for us to slip up so that they can let us know. So it can absolutely be, uh, both internal and external.
Chris - And what's the evidence, if there is any, that this is getting worse?
Tom - So that's really where my research has risen myself to prominence when it comes to this area of perfectionism, because I was a first researcher to show that perfectionism was rising among young people. And in my book I've updated our data with the most recent numbers. We basically got 25 years worth of data from young people. And we know that perfectionism is rising, rising really fast, but it's that social element of perfectionism we just discussed there. That idea that everyone else and everyone around me expects me to be perfect that's rising really fast. It's up about 40% since 1989.
Chris - And in what way is that impacting on the people concerned? Is it just that people are ending up paralysed by perfectionism? 'I can't be perfect, I can't meet others and my own expectations, therefore I won't do anything?' Or is it harming people in other ways?
Tom - I think it's harming this in a couple of ways. Mental health struggles are very closely tied to perfectionism. Perfectionists tend to be, as I said, very harshly self critical. And they are hypervigilant for other people's approval because the other people's approval tells them that they're good enough when they don't feel good enough inside. And seeking other people's approval leads us to want to be perfect, which if it inherently sets us up for failure, we feel anxious, we feel bad about ourselves, we overcompensate, we strive more. And so we begin to get a really negative cycle of self defeat that starts to get triggered by perfectionism. And so it is really damaging for our mental health. And data is also really clear about its links with performances too. Not only do we have all this kind of psychological distress that comes with perfectionism, but it's not clear that perfectionism has any link with success either.
Chris - That's interesting because I'd always thought that it was those obsessive people who do strive for perfection that ultimately almost set the bar that everyone else strives to meet. We mentioned, or I mentioned earlier, about the question of the online safety bill going through at the moment, making the internet a safe place. It could be easy to overlook its impact on perfectionism then, couldn't it? Is that part and parcel of what they'll be discussing or will there be some provision made for this subject in that?
Tom - I very much hope so because there's a lot of evidence coming through now to suggest that social media and for young girls in particular has quite profound impacts on their sense of self and their sense that other people and everyone else around me is perfect and therefore I must be perfect too. And that has a massive impact on the way that they feel about themselves, that self-esteem. And as I said, lots of data show that that's the case. And I would be very keen to see strides made in the right direction about controlling those limitless images of perfection that are kind of beamed at young people to stop social media companies targeting young people and when they feel vulnerable or insecure with advertisements for material solutions. All of these things we know play into young people's self-esteem. So I'd absolutely love to see that sort of thing going through parliament.
Chris - And just briefly, to what extent are we actually guilty ourselves? Because we filter what we put into online spaces. We don't tell people when we've had a bad day. We only tell them when we've had a really good day or that we got a wonderful present from somebody, or an amazing thing happened which tilts people's perception of what everyone else's life is like and makes us think our own life is poor in comparison, which I think feeds back and contributes to a lot of the damaging effects.
Tom - Absolutely it does. And social media is an echo chamber, and once it becomes a kind of hyper reality of limitless perfection, everybody responds by trying to match or ape those standards. And it is up to us. This is something that is going to be really slow to change if we wait for it to change from the top down. I think we need to start to think about how we can use social media in healthier ways and from the bottom up, create movements and communities within social media that kind of use it for what it should be used for, right? Like enhancing offline relationships, sharing common interests and shared goals. All of those things are wonderful things that social media could be used for. But unfortunately at the moment, it's used more as an area for us to curate our lives. And that's not necessarily healthy.
Comments
Add a comment