arc @ arc @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

598

Joined

2 yr. ago

I know the basics off by heart. Not the hardest command syntax to learn all things considered.

The most annoying would be the growing collection of "uber commands" which are much more of a pain in the ass - aws, systemctl, docker, kubectl, npm, cargo, etc. - the executable has potentially dozens of subcommands, each of which has dozens of parameters.

I don't even know where to start with that.

It's more complicated than that. Hydrogen has a higher energy density than gasoline on a mass basis (i.e. 1 kg of hydrogen is about 3x the energy density of 1kg of gasoline). But for volumetric density the situation is reversed - 1Kg of hydrogen takes 4x the space of 1kg of gasoline. So you're not really saving anything by using hydrogen.

On top of that gasoline is a liquid at atmospheric pressures and can flow into any nook and cranny of your aircraft. Most aircraft will store fuel in the wings and under the fuselage. If you use hydrogen you have to store it in heavily reinforced pressurized tanks, preferably spheroidal, cylindrical, toiroidal in shape. That means you're looking at putting some honking great cylinders on your aircraft and there is no convenient place to do it. They'll either have to be mounted on struts or in the body somewhere.

I don't think batteries will find much application in aircraft until solid state batteries come along. But there are some high density batteries appearing for aviation applications (drones, taxis etc.) and just like with gasoline they can be incorporated pretty much anywhere in the structure of the aircraft.

Notably they trialled first for coeliac autoimmune, but it'll be 2024 before phase 2 results are out for that. About 10 years back there was a similar vaccine which also passed phase 1 trials but failed at phase 2. Phase 1 is basically testing that the vaccine does no harm in small groups and it is phase 2 where they measure if it is actually efficacious and to what level. If it passes phase 2, then get your hopes up.

Except it does. This study suggests that the plants that produce hydrogen from fossil fuels are only capturing 80% of the CO2. So 20% is emitted. And aside from that hydrogen has the potential to contribute 12x as much to global warming as CO2 emissions.

Unless someone figures a way to sequester hydrogen into an inert, reversible form you really don't want to be stockpiling hydrogen for obvious reasons.

1. Not really. There are plans for hydrogen plants. The vast majority is "blue". Secondly what are the chances that an oil company is going to make green hydrogen?
2. The renewables aren't the problem. The cost of capturing energy is the problem. If hydrogen takes 3-4x the energy then that's 3-4x the land with 3-4x the solar and/or windfarms at 3-4x the expense. Do you not see the problem?
3. No it isn't. Scientific studies suggest the impact on the atmosphere might 12x worse than releasing CO2.
4. Lithium isn't the only battery material. Nor I daresay even if it were, that the safety risk is anywhere near as bad as driving a train with a hundreds of kgs of hydrogen on board
5. Lithium isn't the only battery material. There are numerous battery chemistries in existence. It might even be that some less dense chemistries like sodium ion would be viable.
6. Which is why I clearly I suggested a progressive approach. Switch from diesel to biodiesel, start building hybrid trains where the motor and tender are almost separate things and where the source of power can be 2 or 3 potential inputs - diesel, electrification, battery. And where rolling stock can use solar to reduce consumption further.

Biodiesels are still better than diesel and the stuff can be manufactured from seaweed, algae, any biomass really. It doesn't have to be a monoculture. It doesn't even have to be 100% biodiesel either - start blending it in. I agree electric motors and electrification are the ultimate outcome but the rail industry has a lot of lines and a lot of locomotives and and you want progression over time with options for battery, power lines or diesel, potentially all 3 on the same line in different parts. It might take decades to transition. It's certainly not hydrogen, that's for sure.

It's like a cavalcade of awful people. People who spout hate and misinfo and have somehow accumulated an audience of followers.

It can be made from water and renewables at about 3-4x the energy cost of charging a battery. In train terms, that means you could be charging 3 battery trains instead of 1 hydrogen train. Or you could have 3 battery tenders and have more logistical flexibility in how they are deployed.

And this is exactly the case here. This train is being trialed by an oil subsidiary. They'll greenwash it, proclaiming "nothing comes out of our train but water!", neglecting the fact the hydrogen was made from fossil fuels.

This train is being trialed by an oil subsidiary so I think there is more than a little greenwashing going on here. The vast majority of hydrogen is "blue", i.e. it's manufactured from fossil fuels, so there is no environmental benefit to this. Even if it were "green", i.e. made from water and renewable energy, the same power used to make the hydrogen, store it, transport it, turn it back to power could charge 3 or 4 battery powered trains or tenders - a tender could mean a smaller locomotive hooks up to however many battery tenders it needs for its route or switches them out in the yard.

Hydrogen probably has some niche uses but there are some things that proponents like to gloss over.

1. It's not green since most of it is produced from fossil fuels. It's also disgustingly expensive even compared to fossil fuels. I'd note that the company Orlen Koltrans which is funding this train is a subsidiary of an oil company PKN Orlen so yeah.
2. Even if it were green (e.g. water electrolysis from renewables) it takes something like 3-4x the energy to produce, store, transport, and convert back to energy as just charging a battery.
3. Regardless of how it's made hydrogen also contributes to global warming - if any hydrogen leaks or escapes during fueling or venting, it promotes the methane production in the atmosphere.
4. It can and does go kaboom. e.g. this hydrogen powered bus has seen better days.

All said and done, I think it's crazy to even bother with the tech unless its so niche it cannot be done some other way. Japanese automakers & oil companies looking to do a bit of greenwashing have been the major proponents of hydrogen and that should say something. Also the fact that hydrogen has been a miserable failure in areas where it has been piloted.

In the case of trains it seems more sensible to manufacture biodiesel or synthetic fuels than this. It's certainly safer to transport and store. Perhaps existing trains can be converted relatively easily. Or electrify the train line or stretches of it. Batteries would be an option too - a train might simply hook up to a fresh battery tender and off it goes. Or some kind of hybrid solution that can source power from overhead lines and/or diesel and/or battery. Or even put solar on carriages to reduce fuel consumption during daylight operations. All these things seem more viable than hydrogen.

Organising random screws, bolts & nuts drives me crazy. I make things worse for myself because whenever I dismantle anything I normally salvage the metal pieces out of it.

I did exactly one print with PETG which was a benchy and it came out great. But I only have roll of PETG and I'm dreading to think what will happen if I try to use it again since it's been sitting there for 2 years. I did put it in a resealable bag with some desiccant but even so. Most of the time I think I'm better off with PLA, but if I ever have something that will sit in the sun or otherwise get warm, I might go over to PETG for it.

Not just bloatware but some Samsung phones also have malware that installs garbage without consent and has a no obvious way to turn off unless you know the app is called appcloud and go disable it.

Apple doesn't allow "questionable" apps like emulators, bit torrent clients on its store and of course you can't sideload them either.

I'm sure the sort of people who fall for his dog whistle conspiracy brain damage will take these allegations seriously. Oh wait, of course they won't.

This is gilding the lily. Ford and GM know they are screwed and are adopting a defensive posture in the hopes of recovery. Maybe they perceive retreat as a way to moneyball their resources - wait for the EU carnage to subside and step back in. But thinking that this is coming from a position of strength though is a nonsense. Ford and GM are are fucked in Europe, and China and they're getting out. I haven't seen any sign the same applies to Tesla.

This is why I wouldn't trust a thing that comes out of his mouth. He lies, he says really stupid shit and then he gives people an ultimatum to turn his stupid shit into reality or get fired. Safety, security and reality be damned. If you've ever wondered why people end up dying in fiery crashes because of "autopilot", or "full self drive", this is why.