Holy shit, Tony. At best it is criminal negligence. As in, it could have been reasonably foreseen that she'd come to serious harm.
Intending to kill someone, then carrying out that plan is not the same as negligence. Not even in California.
Major organizations had to change the definition of pandemic so that it would be.
Twelve years ago H1N1 Swine Flu happened. It infected a lot of people, but (Like COVID-19) the death rate wasn't very high.
The definition of Pandemic was then changed (by FDA, WHO etc) to exclude a mortality rate.
So you are right; but only because they changed the defintion.
Read my post again.
I asked you a question. How will the Hydrogen get transported from the very large, inefficient hydrogen production plant to your fueling station? Are you going to run a pipeline? Cart it in trucks? Convert it on site? How will it get there?
Lets pick trucks. You want to run 700 bar hydrogen in Carbon Fiber tanks on trucks? Okay, that will require (something like) fifty times more trucks than are currently used to cart petrol.
You want to pick Ammonia carted in trucks? Sure! At double the energy density of Hydrogen, it is still the lowest energy density fuel on the table (see figure 1, previous post) that isn't hydrogen. It is still lower energy density than Wood Chips. It still takes vastly more trucks and drivers and tire rubber than any other. Except now you have to add huge amounts of energy at the other end to turn it back into Hydrogen.
Let us draw a comparison. Natural Gas (mostly methane) is more than three times the energy density of Hydrogen. Moving it by trucks and ships isn't economical without liquifying it first. Low pressure natural gas is run through pipes or not at all.
To manufacture Ammonia you will require hydrogen (made from methane at 3 to 1) and nitrogen in the presence of intense heat and huge pressures. So next to your hydrogen plant you will have a second, industrial scale plant that heats thousands of tons of gas to 500 degrees, boiling it to a pressure of 200 atmospheres, where it will react with an iron catalyst.
Even if the reaction were very efficient, it takes a known quantity of energy to heat the reactants to temperature. You know how heating water for your home costs money? Well heating thousands of tons of gas also requires energy and costs money. Right now the process is only economically viable with access to low cost, low quality natural gas, a lot of which is burned for heat to bring the reactants up to temperature and pressure.
The Toyota Mirai is advertised as being 'zero emission' and 'clean'. It absolutely isn't. Current industrial hydrogen production is dirty as hell.
Even if low pressure hydrogen is the prefect energy storage method for cars, manufacturing it is eye-wateringly expensive, and not at all clean. Transporting the hydrogen is a damn nightmare, and more to the point, vastly expensive.
If we imagine a totally free source of hydrogen (sunlight falls on a genie that waves a wand in a factory) the logistics considerations to get that energy to your car would cost several times the costs of your current energy storage method.
The point I am making, isn't that it can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done. The point is that it will cost a lot more. Three quarters of the world will be riding bicycles because they can't afford hydrogen.... which is still made from natural gas and dirty as hell.
Not Hogwash!
How do you produce industrial scale quantities of Hydrogen and get it to where you fill up your Toyota Mirai?
Put it in a tanker truck at 700 PSI?
http://www.olicognography.org/graph/energydensity.jpg
Even then, pressurized hydrogen gas has a lower energy density than wood chips!
A reaction that converts ammonia to hydrogen occurs at about 600 degrees C, and is very slow. Even the most recent metal catalyzed reactions only bring that down to 500 degrees C. Lets say they halve that number and get a scalable process that operates at 250 dgrees C; that still is a major use of energy to produce the gas.
Industrial Conversion of Ammonia to Hydrogen in a nutshell:
Fossil Fuel -> Ammonia using the Haber–Bosch process at 550 degrees C.
Ammonia -> Hydrogen using a metal catalyzed reaction at about 500 degrees C.
All of those nice, high temperatures are supplied at the moment by burning fossil fuels. I'd bet that the whole process, plus shipping to your Toyota Mirai has a woeful energy efficiency.
As for catalytic reactions; Last time I checked Polymer Electrolyte Membrane cells were both expensive and ablative. That is, they were used up in the process of making hydrogen gas. As a result there was not yet a scalable process for industrial scale electrolytic hydrogen production, and there are no other serious contenders for a process right now, AFAIK.
The only way that I can see Hydrogen energy storage as having a future is if it is required by the government by outlawing everything else.
At which point we will still be using fossil fuels, just at very, very big an inefficient industrial plants far away from the point of consumption.
Energy for vehicles will cost four times as much, and the world will not be any greener.
Guy, if you think that Hydrogen is a viable method of energy storage then you are not living in this reality.
Hydrogen isn't a fuel. A fuel is a source of energy. You can make hydrogen out of fuel, but that isn't a good use of that energy source.
Hydrogen is a low density gas. To make it energy-dense enough to be viable for energy storage, it needs to be liquified. That requires energy in-put in the form of refrigeration.
To refrigerate hydrogen to a liquid uses more energy than the energy contained in the hydrogen.
To remain a liquid, hydrogen boils off as a gas, using the phase transition to carry away heat. Without active refrigeration (and remember just putting it in a commercial freezer isn't even close to cold enough) the hydrogen will all boil away within about a month.
Using hydrogen as energy storage neatly doubles or triples the energy required for any given use. More than 100% more for liquification and transport. This is ignoring the shelf-life and transport difficulties.
And where are you getting all this energy that you can waste so much playing with cryogenic liquefied gas? Natural Gas turbines? Coal Fire Power? Photovoltaic Solar Cells?
Here is a brain wave! How about you just run a fucking cable instead of pissing about with cryogenic liquids and tanker trucks?
If you are going to burn it anyway, like in ship IC engines, jet turbines or whatever, then what advantage does Hydrogen have over Methane?
Here is the process of liquid hydrogen production in a nutshell:
Methane Gas - > Hydrogen Gas [Hydrogen Steam Reforming is the only industrial process that scales up] between 30 and 39% efficiency. That is you put in three times as much methane as you want to get hydrogen.
Hydrogen Gas - > Liquid Hydrogen (below -194 degrees C) Energy Efficiency of 30%. Cooling the Hydrogen to a liquid represents about 80% of the costs of the final product.
Transport of the Cryogenic Liquid: Who fucking knows. It evaporates every minute of every day until it is used. Keeping a liquid at -194 degrees C is energy intensive.
Okay, there is a serious answer to this question.
If your concern is getting all of your shit and your kids taken when the woman you married gets caught banging Tyrone; there is an actual, well thought out answer.
You can regularly visit either the Dominican Republic or the Philippines. Cost of living is low, women are old fashioned "traditional". There are lots of very pretty, nice, faithful ladies around who will be thrilled to spend time with you.
There are also lots of sluts who just want your money, but that is on you.
Find a great woman. Get a cheap apartment, set up a second home. Send an allowance every month to your lady. You can have kids whenever you want.
If you have a decent job, you can visit more than four times a year. You can video chat every night.
If she is unfaithful, just stop paying the rent and cut off her allowance. The kid is her problem, with no consequences.
If she is everything you hoped she would be, by the time your kid is in high school you can make arraignments for her and your kid to get citizenship to the USA. Marry her or whatever. Help your daughter get an apprenticeship as a specialist plumber or refrigeration mechanic. Help your kid start a business. Retire to the Dominican Republic.
This method lets you reward a good and faithful partner, it is affordable and the flights are cheap. It basically fixes the marriage contract.
The hard part is to not settle down with the first woman who throws her pussy at you. Don't have a kid until you really, really mean it. Being a father is incredibly rewarding, but walking out on your child is fucking brutal, even if there are no consequences for you, even if the mother deserves it, for whatever reason.
Do NOT settle for a woman who already has kids. Don't raise someone else's child.
Does this answer your question?
I kinda think that if the Confederates had split off, they would devolved into infighting, economically failed, and re-integrated to the union by the time WW1 took place.
Without a navy or access to rail and ports, the South would have been utterly vulnerable to navel blockade, privateers or even pirate action. Their markets were across the biggest stretch of open water in the world. The South would have instantly been made a banana republic, and been at the mercy of any power with a fleet.
The Union would have been fools not to punish the shit out of the confederacy with a trade embargo. It would have strengthened the Union financial centers and consolidated the Union's own domestic market, helping to speed along industrialization.
I do not think that things would have been better for anyone to postpone a conflict.
How about you make an actual point or (gasp) respond to an actual point; rather than being a sarcastic, insulting blow-hard?
You might actually enlighten people in the audience.
The short answer is because of the same reasons the south was unhappy before the Civil war.
Access to road and port infrastructure. Lack of a Navy or merchant navy. Taxes on their goods and trade.
Border security would have been a nightmare, and it would have lead to escalating smuggling etc. as the Union would have attempted to impose tariffs and duties.
Both the North and the South would be required to arm and send troops to the border to guard them.
Add to the fact that slaves running to the Union would have immediately become free... and you have a volatile political situation.
We won't know what would have happened, but at the very least it would have set a precedent for splitting the union further every time that a state or group of states got upset.
The example was not picked at random.
I don't think that the Sandgropers are managing their Iron Ore or Copper Ore supplies very well, but no one consults with me before they make policy.
Real Politik says that if the foundation of a countries economy tries to secede, the response is one of force.
Economic wealth comes from the value-add step of production / distribution. You create wealth by getting something, then turn it into something that is sold for more.
This is always isolated by geography. 40% of the Iron Ore in the world comes from Australia. Most of that comes from WA. Most of that comes from a few mines.
If WA tries to take their dominance over the global Iron and Steel market, and just fuck off... well the answer is simple. Roll in tanks, crush the resistance then promptly set about addressing the genuine issues that the Western Australians have, so that they don't want to do it again.
You can make parallel examples using industrial production in Germany. Germany is one of the three biggest economies in Europe. The vast majority of their wealth comes from a few provinces that take cheap Russian gas and turn it into manufactured goods in sophisticated factories. If those provinces decide to just leave, the economy of Germany will implode overnight.
The Art of War says: To win without fighting is best. There was plenty of time to address the real and genuine concerns of the south. Failing that, the solution was to break them with military force and then fix the pieces.
At that juncture the alternative was to cede half the union and then have a hostile power on the southern border; which would have been untenable. It would have lead directly to military build-up and an even bigger war within 50 years.
Performing unnecessary major surgery violates the Hippocratic oath.
It was worse than terrible!
It was a crap, boilerplate "white people bad" movie pretending to be a whodunnit! The Murder Mystery is one of the most tightly written forms of story. Every piece must be given in advance and all the pieces must be there to reach the right conclusion. It requires formidable discipline, as a writer, to pull this off successfully.
Agatha Christie is an undisputed master of the artform, and as a result her books have been made into fantastically watchable movies dozens and dozens of times.
In contrast Ruin Johnson smeared this crap on the page.
Mauler and the gang did an EFAP on Knives Out. It just ... falls apart on even the most cursory inspection.
Unfortunately not. Sorry.
I did a bit of a search, and this is the study I found. There are others, including officer training.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9158436/
Most of the data of recruit injury isn't broken down by gender or injury type by gender. I don't think that is a cooincidence.
The broad consensus is that women are much more likely to suffer injuries to the legs and lower legs than men; and that this can be reduced with the correct physical conditioning.
Reduced how much, and compared to what remains unanswered.
A motivated teacher can put Tate into anything. Here let us do it to mathematics.
"Andrew Tate is sex trafficking four girls. One escapes. How many girls is he holding against their will?"
It isn't as simple as Harry telling a lie.
He didn't write the book. Someone wrote it for him. They made shit up; which is stupid, because it lots of can be verified or disproven; especially by crowd sourcing.
No justification? WTF? It absolutely wasn't one of the white-listed topics of discussion!
How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?
No she didn't.
US Marines kept excellent figures on injury rates in basic training.
Women have 30X greater rate of medical discharge for hip ligament injuries under load: eg marching with a pack
That is just one kind of injury. All told women are about half as physically capable as men and much (!) more prone to injury under strain.
The USA's first combat certified female pilot blew a landing onto the deck of the Abraham Lincoln.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/popular/female-naval-aviator-died-accident/
https://youtu.be/rFUXshaaMQM - An excellent breakdown of the accident by a retired, career F14 pilot.
Scuttlebutt is that there was enormous top-down pressure to get a female pilot qualified and flying. She was accelerated because she was a woman and a halfway decent pilot. She was in the air to fill a quota. Corers were cut with her training because top brass wanted political points.
Women can be decent pilots, but only if held to the same standards as male pilots. If you want the best of the best; the best of the best is a man. No question.
I am sure there are a thousand male pilot candidates that would not have made that well understood mistake. Perhaps another thousand hours in the simulator would have made
Good luck to her. His assets are all in the UK. They are all tied up in a family trust, not his.
By himself, Harry is broke.
The Royal Family has some of the best lawyers and accountants in the history of the Union to set up those trusts. Part of their mission was to stop exactly this happening to royal assets.
If Megan thinks she is going to ride the divorce train to money-town, then she is fucking stupid. Harry doesn't have a bean to his name. If she gets half of everything, she will get half of his army pension. Perhaps.
Tiger begged for forgiveness for cheating. His wife said: Cancel the pre-nuptial agreement"
Tiger canceled the agreement, and a year or something later, she took him to the cleaners. Tiger was a damn idiot. What did he think was going to happen?
He and Tiger Woods can cry into their beer together.
Sure. By taking something like fifty times more trips with the same truck, or perhaps 50 trucks and drivers instead.
There are still energy inefficiencies. There are current commercial Hydrogen production plants available to study. There are many commercial Ammonia plants to study.
I have done a paper on the end to end efficiency of hydrogen production for maritime use WRT Australia as a net energy exporter. It went something like: "What if Australia put up a million square KM of PV Solar Panels. How would How would Australia Export the energy?" I cited sources and had reliable figures of end to end process efficiency.
No, I did not. It is right there in black and white. I said that:
Which is entirely due to the logistics of getting it from the point of manufacture (say, the Australian Desert Solar Farms) to the point of use.
The idea "We can just make 50 trips!" adds to the cost! You haven't given a single example of a viable logistics method. Hopes and dreams for a magic future don't actually solve any problems.
I am all for advances in electrolysis, but so far the gold standard is Polymer Electrolyte Membrane cells. The worlds biggest plant is 20 MW, which is tiny. The individual cells are expensive and they wear out. The Magic 8Ball says "Check back in 2030".
Look, I hope you get your golden future of cheap hydrogen energy storage. I hope you get a jetpack too. But right now all you haves are pipe-dreams and Jam Tomorrow, all pushed by the same geniuses that came up with "Carbon Capture" on coal plants; which neatly doubles the coal burned for the same electricity generation. Like carbon capture, any solution which starts by doubling the price of energy is doomed to failure, and hydrogen is much more expensive than double the cost an alternative.
If I were to put down cash, I'd bet that we get an alternative battery technology and plug in Electric Vehicles before we cheap on-site electrolysis. Even a significant improvement in the anode and cathode of LiPo or LiFePo batteries could halve the size and cost of EV battery packs. There are a number of candidates.
Have a great day.