It is convergent evolution towards the common cold.
The cold is also a corona virus, and it has a strategy of being highly transmissible and mutating quickly, so as to be able to dodge the immune response and re-infect individuals.
The common cold also stimulates mucus production and sneezing, so as to further spread itself. The patients sneeze infected mucus everywhere for a day or a week, then they are fine.
It is a highly successful strategy.
It isn't hitting it that is the issue.
At maximum altitude it is something like 35 km up, two microns thick and filled with low pressure gas. It is very slightly more substantial than a cloud.
Poking a little hole in it will only allow gas exchange by diffusion. That is, very, very slowly. It won't pop like a latex party balloon!
Nah. Not even laced drugs. Just give them all the drugs they want, they will OD in a week.
Install a vending machine that sells doses of fentanyl for $1. Make it a little baggie with measured, high but safe dose (given some assumptions about body weight).
For the regular users one dose won't get them high, so they will take two. Even if they get the math right that time, they will fuck it up before the month is out.
If they break the vending machine, replace it with an honesty box.
Now connect the dots and do people on food stamps who take drugs.
The argument on Reddit went:
"Think of the Children; you can't take their food away just because their parent (mother) tests positive for drugs."
If they are not feeding their kids, and they are buying drugs, then they are an addict.
Subsidizing drug use with government money is fucking stupid.
Well, apart from the massive corruption enabling the most openly corrupt president in the history of the union.
And the money laundering. Money printing, pork barrel bills that also give aid to foreign nationals, which then funnel that aid into kick-backs.
And the specter of an escalating shooting war with a nuclear power.
I mean, other than those things, the issue doesn't affect them at all.
Tony, bat or no bat if someone is attacking, take action until they stop.
Escalate until the action is effective. Start at the level of violence that they use, as defined by the continuum of force, and proceed from there.
If the defender has a gun drawn, issue a warning and if the attacker attempts to close within two meters, end the threat. Best practice is two shots to the torso, one low and one high, center mass.
This is taught at every gun self defense course and to every cop.
If the attacker gets their hands on your gun, you are very, very likely to get shot with it.
An attacker who throws or drops their bat is still dangerous. Especially if they are now free to get their hands on your gun.
Tony, some of my best friends are faggots. I don't hold it against you.
Live and learn. Or don't, and collect your Darwin Award.
An actual, practicing stone age nomadic hunter gatherer people.
No medicine, no food preservation techniques, no buildings, no textiles. Literal caves and "humpies" made out of bark and sticks.
No government, no ability to negotiate or make treaties.
Their cultural practices included infanticide for unwanted or sickly babies; Practiced regularly until the 1970s, and still ongoing in some communities.
If the average lifespan was 30 years I'd be really, really surprised. They had a huge infant and child mortality rate.
"Child Betrothal" of girls as young as twelve.
Brutal population control enforced by the tribes to ensure that their population never got bigger than the food supply, limited by the seasons.
Oh, and aboriginal tribes periodically wiped each other out entirely competing for resources.
I have never met a woman who knows what Feminism means.
That is, they are unable to give a functional, working definition of feminism; like one that is used and understood by all feminist authors.
Feminism is a political movement based on the social theory of feminism.
The social theory of feminism states that:
-
Society has been constructed by men with the sole purpose of the absolute subjugation of women
-
Women (and redress the subjugation) by the use of legal and social change.
There is a little more; specifically about the dependence of women on first their fathers and then their husbands for resources, which feminists see as a form of oppression. The family is oppressive.
Tell you what buddy. I'll just use my bare hands. Stand still.
If you are right, I am no threat at all.
If I am right, you will be unable to pass on you inferior genes.
Police have no obligation to prevent a crime from occurring.
They barley have an obligation to arrest someone for committing a crime.
Either you don't know what negligence is, or you don't know what police do.
Typically, hydrogen is transported in tube trailers in the UK. A typical trailer (see Figure 1) would be filled to 228 bar, and would carry around 300 kg of hydrogen.
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-transport/
Tube trailers are currently limited to pressures of 250 bar by U.S. Department of Transportation regulations. Typically pressurized gas is transported between 150 and 250 bar.
Guy, it isn't unusual for a Diesel car to get a thousand km out of a tank of diesel. I have owned diesel cars that have that kind of range.
Keep plugging away, guy. I am sure that step by step you are actually learning something about energy distribution, despite your best efforts.
I really am done spelling things out for you. Thanks for coming.
If the only usage case for hydrogen fuel is driving hybrid passenger vehicles, then you would have a point.
Is that what you mean? Be specific. Or are you imagining a broader use for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles? You have already described hydrogen haulage trucks to deliver the fuel. In your mind, does this hydrogen fuel infrastructure serve any other transport type?
Anything else? Or just those two?
If you are trucking energy to the user, and each truck contains (say) 1 / 50th of the energy. How many trucks of gas will you require for a drop-in replacement for transport fuel? There are some efficiency gains, because fuel cells are more efficent at converting fuel to motion, but this is absolutely offset by the inefficiencies to store the energy in the form of hydrogen. A diesel engine is something like 35% efficent. Stem reforming hydrogen production is a lot less efficent than that.
I'll make this as simple as I can.
In fact, a road tanker which transports high pressure hydrogen as compressed gas might typically carry 300–400 kg of H2 and be able to refuel up to about 100 cars.
Whereas a typical diesel tanker typically carries between 20,800 to 43,900 L in the USA.
Large trucks typically have capacities ranging from 5,500 to 11,600 US gallons (20,800 to 43,900 L; 4,580 to 9,660 imp gal). In Australia, road trains up to four trailers in length (known as Quad tankers) carry loads in excess of 120,000 litres (26,000 imp gal; 32,000 US gal)
I'm done here. Have a great day.
Guy, the Mari is a hybrid. The fuel calculations are for stop and go city traffic, in which it makes a lot of the regenerative breaking to charge the small battery. I don't know who they got the test driving figures from, but they were a master of low-torque slow acceleration and coasting stops.
Moreover it costs a cool $100 to fill up the tank.
Driving fast, which uses actual torque and does not take advantage of the hybrid system uses a LOT more fuel.
Do you really have the idea that a haulage truck or a delivery van could get the same advantages?
Read about it yourself.
Not everyone, especially commercial vehicles can operate on such low torque. I certainly don't trust the quoted range figures.
Consumption is officially rated at 0.7kg of hydrogen per 100km. After a handful of different drivers on nothing but 50–70km/h stop-start streets, the Mirai indicated a 0.88kg/100km figure, which is about 25 per cent over its claim
From https://www.drive.com.au/reviews/2021-toyota-mirai-fcev-first-drive-review/
It is noted that fuel is basically only available in California, and that this vehicle was built to satisfy California laws that demand "Zero Emission Vehicles"
How about we see a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Stack fitted to a garbage truck?
But go ahead. Buy one. Put your money where your mouth is. Pay US$17 a kg for fuel. Lets see if the hydrogen price goes down.
If you are right, you will make out like a bandit!
Think about it for more than half a second. People are paying for usable energy - miles of range. Mirai shows roughly the same usable energy per volume and how does gasoline get there? By truck, so H2 could be delivered the same way.
Sure. By taking something like fifty times more trips with the same truck, or perhaps 50 trucks and drivers instead.
With high temperature reactions you use the output to heat the input.
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.
You started off with your thesis that it has to be liquified and kept at near zero temperatures to be useful.
No, I did not. It is right there in black and white. I said that:
Hydrogen is a low density gas. To make it energy-dense enough to be viable for energy storage, it needs to be liquified.
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.
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.
With OG COVID, the infections were clustered in hot-spots.
For a long while the great majority of infections and deaths were clustered in a few cities, with most of those coming from New York city.
I have a friend who was doing primary research on COVID 19, specifically transmission by surfaces, who was in contact with medical professionals in New York at the time.
He said that they were absolutely freaking out. There was a brief period (I recall less than a week) where the spike in deaths was apocalyptic. He told me that the medical professionals he had been talking with were predicting that they would be stacking bodies in the streets before the month was out.
At this time the FEMA pop up hospital was available, and the army hospital ship was on hand to take patients.
I distinctly remember pointing out to my scientist friend that the hospitals were seeing selection bias. Only the worst cases were arriving at hospital. I also pointed out that the survivors would be gaining immunity, and as soon as that reached 30% it would have an impact on transmission rates.
I recall us agreeing to disagree; with me stating that if I was right we would see a sharp drop in infections and deaths. If he was right it would be in the news soon enough.
It turns out that I was more correct; but it bears remembering that all the hospitals in New York were freaking out to the point of panic.
This the period when Cuomo was sending infected to nursing homes. He was determined not to use any of the help sent by Trump and the federal government.