the danger of explosions when H2 is involved is very overrated.
NASA didn't think so and goes to great lengths to handle H2 carefully.
Technically Hydrogen is extremely flammable. It's more flammable than Gasoline, which is commonly held as explosive when vaporized. Technically neither is classified as an "explosive". So you are correct. However, if you properly mix either with oxygen and supply an ignition source, the resulting chemical reaction will be generally described as an explosion even though chemically it really is just burning fast.
HOA's actually have precedent in common law and have generally been upheld as legal. The Deed Restrictions that create them being legally binding. Taking them to court will only result in you loosing. All you can do is get the law changed.
Personally, (and yes this is totally off topic) I think HOA's and the deed restrictions that create them should be required by law to be regularly renewed or they cease to exist. Renewals should be though a majority vote of lot owners and should take place every decade or so. Failing renewal, dissolves the HOA and renders the recorded deed restrictions unenforceable from that point on.
The Hindenburg burned quickly, VERY quickly, but everything got started due to a supposed leak of hydrogen that caused a small explosion, followed by a vigorous fire which destroyed the airship in under 40 seconds. Hydrogen in gas form, when it leaks and mixes with O2 is explosive, just like methane.
Hydrogen in LOW concentrations may be OK when mixed with natural gas, but Methane and Hydrogen do not burn the same. Like you cannot burn full ethanol in an engine designed for gasoline, you cannot burn high concentrations of hydrogen in devices designed for natural gas.
But that doesn't offset the *real* problem if what you suggest. I assume you want to use electricity to break water in to O2 and H2 using electrolysis. This process is extremely inefficient. As a means of *storing* power, it sucks. If you are just suggesting we dump the excess power into something marginally useful, fine, I just object that this idea is the ideal solution.
I bet some police officers are mighty pissed off about this ruling, but as someone who frequently drives with the lights on to warn fellow motorists of speed traps, I am pleased.
It is a good federal prescient
It is a good federal precedent
FIFM (Fix it for MYSELF) Darn Spell check and bad eyes...
Mouth off to a cop and see how precious your fucking rights are in Amerikkka. Fags.
Mouthing off to a cop is pretty STUPID because there is *never* an upside to it. At best it is neutral if the cop decides to ignore you, but all other outcomes go down hill from there. It's best to just be respectful, stay calm and do what they tell you. You don't have to answer any questions or consent to any searches (and I suggest you not do either), but there is absolutely no sense in mouthing off.
Couldn't this guy have avoided the whole lawsuit by simply saying he was warning oncoming drivers that they were driving too fast (for safety) by flashing his headlights, as opposed to flashing his lights to warn them of speed trap ahead?
Actually, he could have easily avoided this lawsuit by not filing it. The charges where dropped by the city so it would have died there had he not filed suit in federal court.
I bet some police officers are mighty pissed off about this ruling, but as someone who frequently drives with the lights on to warn fellow motorists of speed traps, I am pleased.
Careful there cowboy, keep your hat and boots on. This judge is only a district court judge and his authority only applies to his district (Eastern Missouri mostly). It is a good federal prescient and I'm sure his opinion would be cited in the defense of anybody who was being charged with flashing their lights, but it's not a settled matter. Other districts are certainly entitled to their own opinions and it's quite likely some judge will disagree, at which point we move up the chain.
So, if you are in the Eastern Missouri District, flash away, the courts are on your side. Outside of this, tread carefully and be ready to pay the legal fees required to push it up to your district.
This AC is correct. IF you read the fine article behind the article referenced in this story it is CLEAR that the guy's home connection has at least one more hop. I would assume that after 4PM, many home users would be showing up and cranking up Netflix (or other online activities) and putting stress on the first router which is NOT involved in the business connection.
So, this is apples and oranges... Or at least just congestion on the home connection that doesn't exist in the business one.
If our currently designed nuclear plants were not designed to throttle...maybe we should add that to the litany of reasons why we should be building new plants that might take into account some of the advances that have been made in the last 40 years.
I would agree. We need to allow new nuclear technology to be built and deployed in this country. However, the environmentalist lobby would have kittens and pretty much make that impossible should anybody actually *try*.
Your statement is false and shows a lack of knowledge of nuclear reactor design and operation.
If you are wondering how I know this, it is because I have actually training in nuclear reactor plant design and operation.
Your post shows a lack of Nuclear engineering knowledge of the fuel cycle. There is a problem known as Neutron poisoning where the byproducts of fission build up in a reactor's core and absorb more and more neutrons. Some of these neutron absorbers are "burned off" when a reactor is in operation, by absorbing neutrons and then decaying into other things. Problem is, the neutron poisons are produced by radioactive decay that has non zero half lives. This means that they will show up in your reactor some time after you shut it down. This makes throttling the reactor difficult because you have to account for the eventual production of neutron poisons when turning the power down. If you don't, and you don't have any neutron absorbing control rods to remove to keep the reaction going, the reactor will shut itself down. This is more and more of a concern as you get late in your fuel cycle.
Now the Navy doesn't run it's reactors as close to the end of their fuel cycles as power generators do, so I'm not surprised you didn't get taught this. The Navy is not cost constrained and is more concerned with mission readiness. They refuel much sooner than a power generator who is driven by cost efficiency and safety. Even so, the Navy has had issues where a nuclear powered ship had to be towed back to port because the reactor couldn't be restarted.
Wind and solar have variable output, so they need to be partnered with flexible power generation. Nuclear is fundamentally inflexible because you can't quickly ramp up or down electricity output from a nuclear power plant.
Wrong. Nuclear power can load follow (ramp up and down rapidly to meet instantaneous demand) perfectly fine.
Not exactly true. Yes you can throttle nuclear power plants, some times quite a lot in a short time, but as power plants go, it is harder to effectively throttle nuclear power than all other sources commonly used to generate power. Late in the nuclear fuel cycle there is a problem known as Neutron poisoning which can cause serious problems when trying to change the power output of a nuclear reactor. The engineering problem becomes increasingly more difficult as you use up your fuel, making it necessary to make power changes slower and slower. Eventually, it becomes impossible to vary the power without shutting down the reactor all together. Usually, when you reach that point, it's time to shutdown and refuel. Fossil fuels suffer no such fuel cycle issues.
I can tell you have never heard on Xenon poisoning... Late in the nuclear fuel cycle it becomes increasingly hard to keep the reactor in a state where it can be throttled without risking being unable to restart it. On more than one occasion, a nuclear powered ship has had to call for a tow after an unplanned power change (say a minor reactor incident that causes it to automatically shut down) rendered the reactor unstartable due to Xenon poisoning. Which is why we build nuclear powered ships with multiple reactors these days.
Nuclear is inflexible. I think nuclear plant should produce hydrogen during low load period and that cars should run on hydrogen. In Germany, they have stopped using nuclear, the result is more pollution caused by coal. Il think nuclear is the less bad solution until solar solutions are developed.
You have a good point but I'm not sure I would go the Hydrogen production route because it is not very efficient. There are better ways to store energy that would be more efficient and safe. The one that comes to mind involves pumping large quantities of water up a hill when power is cheap, then generate power using a hydro-electric plant when letting the water flow down hill when the price goes up.
I also figure that having a man made lake on top of a hill is a whole lot safer than trying to store Hydrogen when you scale up to industrial size. Hydrogen has a tendency to explode, where water is not generally hazardous stuff to deal with.
A lot of this talk about nuclear power plants or even coal powered power plants being inflexible is nonsense. They are run continuously because this is more energy efficient. However there is nothing stopping you from burning less coal. In France it is common to partially off nuclear power plants during the night:
Nuclear plants do suffer from issues with throttled usage due to the nature of the fuel cycle. It's not that you can't throttle them, it's that as you get later in the fuel cycle it becomes harder and harder to throttle them quickly and keep them from being Xenon poisoned. Add to that the fact that our currently operating nuclear plants where not designed to throttle and you can understand why it's not a good idea. There is also the efficiency issue you cite, and with nuclear power plants running on thin margins to start, this can push them over the edge.
The primary thing to note is that it's basically hard to throttle most industrial sized power generators. Nuclear plants have longer lead times because changing power output of the nuclear core requires more engineering effort than a fossil fueled burner does which needs more effort than your hydro-electric plant. But it is *extremely* difficult to plan electrical power requirements far enough in advance to use our current 30 year old nuclear power plants which where designed to run for decades at static power outputs.
Just curious... How do you "chemically prove" something's age?
If you are talking about Carbon 14 dating, there are some fairly wide margin of errors in that method and a host of assumptions that end up being somewhat circular arguments. In addition, it's not really a "chemically" determined dating process, but one based on radioactive decay.
The only way that anyone will really prove anything about this to anyone else is if we invent time travel and actually watch it happen ourselves.
I can agree with *that* statement. But alas, I'm fairly confident that will not happen. Time seems to be explicitly a ONE WAY trip. We might change the rate at which time passes, but it appears we cannot change directions.
I can tell you that *any* person claiming to be a Christian that is asserting moral superiority is lying about being superior, being a Christian or both.
The CRUX of Christian teaching has ALWAYS been that "All have fallen short" and having fallen short we all deserve to die. If you don't start there, you miss the point.
Yea, but you do realize that Ham is going to claim he *knows* somebody who was. Which, in his world view, is a better answer than Nye can hope to make. But we've crested the hill and are already speeding down the hill head long into pointlessness...
Slashdot Mirror
the danger of explosions when H2 is involved is very overrated.
NASA didn't think so and goes to great lengths to handle H2 carefully.
Technically Hydrogen is extremely flammable. It's more flammable than Gasoline, which is commonly held as explosive when vaporized. Technically neither is classified as an "explosive". So you are correct. However, if you properly mix either with oxygen and supply an ignition source, the resulting chemical reaction will be generally described as an explosion even though chemically it really is just burning fast.
Where I applaud your thoughts on HOA's....
HOA's actually have precedent in common law and have generally been upheld as legal. The Deed Restrictions that create them being legally binding. Taking them to court will only result in you loosing. All you can do is get the law changed.
Personally, (and yes this is totally off topic) I think HOA's and the deed restrictions that create them should be required by law to be regularly renewed or they cease to exist. Renewals should be though a majority vote of lot owners and should take place every decade or so. Failing renewal, dissolves the HOA and renders the recorded deed restrictions unenforceable from that point on.
The Hindenburg burned quickly, VERY quickly, but everything got started due to a supposed leak of hydrogen that caused a small explosion, followed by a vigorous fire which destroyed the airship in under 40 seconds. Hydrogen in gas form, when it leaks and mixes with O2 is explosive, just like methane.
Hydrogen in LOW concentrations may be OK when mixed with natural gas, but Methane and Hydrogen do not burn the same. Like you cannot burn full ethanol in an engine designed for gasoline, you cannot burn high concentrations of hydrogen in devices designed for natural gas.
But that doesn't offset the *real* problem if what you suggest. I assume you want to use electricity to break water in to O2 and H2 using electrolysis. This process is extremely inefficient. As a means of *storing* power, it sucks. If you are just suggesting we dump the excess power into something marginally useful, fine, I just object that this idea is the ideal solution.
I bet some police officers are mighty pissed off about this ruling, but as someone who frequently drives with the lights on to warn fellow motorists of speed traps, I am pleased.
It is a good federal prescient
It is a good federal precedent
FIFM (Fix it for MYSELF) Darn Spell check and bad eyes...
Darn spell check...
Mouth off to a cop and see how precious your fucking rights are in Amerikkka. Fags.
Mouthing off to a cop is pretty STUPID because there is *never* an upside to it. At best it is neutral if the cop decides to ignore you, but all other outcomes go down hill from there. It's best to just be respectful, stay calm and do what they tell you. You don't have to answer any questions or consent to any searches (and I suggest you not do either), but there is absolutely no sense in mouthing off.
Couldn't this guy have avoided the whole lawsuit by simply saying he was warning oncoming drivers that they were driving too fast (for safety) by flashing his headlights, as opposed to flashing his lights to warn them of speed trap ahead?
Actually, he could have easily avoided this lawsuit by not filing it. The charges where dropped by the city so it would have died there had he not filed suit in federal court.
I bet some police officers are mighty pissed off about this ruling, but as someone who frequently drives with the lights on to warn fellow motorists of speed traps, I am pleased.
Careful there cowboy, keep your hat and boots on. This judge is only a district court judge and his authority only applies to his district (Eastern Missouri mostly). It is a good federal prescient and I'm sure his opinion would be cited in the defense of anybody who was being charged with flashing their lights, but it's not a settled matter. Other districts are certainly entitled to their own opinions and it's quite likely some judge will disagree, at which point we move up the chain.
So, if you are in the Eastern Missouri District, flash away, the courts are on your side. Outside of this, tread carefully and be ready to pay the legal fees required to push it up to your district.
Hydrogen has no tendency to explode.
Hindenburg... Nuff said..
Beyond that you store it in the already existing natural gas network.
Hydrogen and Methane are *not* compatible. I strongly recommend you reconsider that suggestion.
The first 2 hops in his traces don't match up...
This AC is correct. IF you read the fine article behind the article referenced in this story it is CLEAR that the guy's home connection has at least one more hop. I would assume that after 4PM, many home users would be showing up and cranking up Netflix (or other online activities) and putting stress on the first router which is NOT involved in the business connection.
So, this is apples and oranges... Or at least just congestion on the home connection that doesn't exist in the business one.
If our currently designed nuclear plants were not designed to throttle...maybe we should add that to the litany of reasons why we should be building new plants that might take into account some of the advances that have been made in the last 40 years.
I would agree. We need to allow new nuclear technology to be built and deployed in this country. However, the environmentalist lobby would have kittens and pretty much make that impossible should anybody actually *try*.
Solar power uses rare metals whose use could be just as bad as fossil fuels.
- tiny amounts of boron and phosphorus as dopants.
There are your rare toxic metals...
Your statement is false and shows a lack of knowledge of nuclear reactor design and operation. If you are wondering how I know this, it is because I have actually training in nuclear reactor plant design and operation.
Your post shows a lack of Nuclear engineering knowledge of the fuel cycle. There is a problem known as Neutron poisoning where the byproducts of fission build up in a reactor's core and absorb more and more neutrons. Some of these neutron absorbers are "burned off" when a reactor is in operation, by absorbing neutrons and then decaying into other things. Problem is, the neutron poisons are produced by radioactive decay that has non zero half lives. This means that they will show up in your reactor some time after you shut it down. This makes throttling the reactor difficult because you have to account for the eventual production of neutron poisons when turning the power down. If you don't, and you don't have any neutron absorbing control rods to remove to keep the reaction going, the reactor will shut itself down. This is more and more of a concern as you get late in your fuel cycle.
Now the Navy doesn't run it's reactors as close to the end of their fuel cycles as power generators do, so I'm not surprised you didn't get taught this. The Navy is not cost constrained and is more concerned with mission readiness. They refuel much sooner than a power generator who is driven by cost efficiency and safety. Even so, the Navy has had issues where a nuclear powered ship had to be towed back to port because the reactor couldn't be restarted.
Wind and solar have variable output, so they need to be partnered with flexible power generation. Nuclear is fundamentally inflexible because you can't quickly ramp up or down electricity output from a nuclear power plant.
See this short video for a nice explanation of the incompatibility: http://www.ilsr.org/coal-nucle...
Wrong. Nuclear power can load follow (ramp up and down rapidly to meet instantaneous demand) perfectly fine.
Not exactly true. Yes you can throttle nuclear power plants, some times quite a lot in a short time, but as power plants go, it is harder to effectively throttle nuclear power than all other sources commonly used to generate power. Late in the nuclear fuel cycle there is a problem known as Neutron poisoning which can cause serious problems when trying to change the power output of a nuclear reactor. The engineering problem becomes increasingly more difficult as you use up your fuel, making it necessary to make power changes slower and slower. Eventually, it becomes impossible to vary the power without shutting down the reactor all together. Usually, when you reach that point, it's time to shutdown and refuel. Fossil fuels suffer no such fuel cycle issues.
I can tell you have never heard on Xenon poisoning... Late in the nuclear fuel cycle it becomes increasingly hard to keep the reactor in a state where it can be throttled without risking being unable to restart it. On more than one occasion, a nuclear powered ship has had to call for a tow after an unplanned power change (say a minor reactor incident that causes it to automatically shut down) rendered the reactor unstartable due to Xenon poisoning. Which is why we build nuclear powered ships with multiple reactors these days.
Nuclear is inflexible. I think nuclear plant should produce hydrogen during low load period and that cars should run on hydrogen. In Germany, they have stopped using nuclear, the result is more pollution caused by coal. Il think nuclear is the less bad solution until solar solutions are developed.
You have a good point but I'm not sure I would go the Hydrogen production route because it is not very efficient. There are better ways to store energy that would be more efficient and safe. The one that comes to mind involves pumping large quantities of water up a hill when power is cheap, then generate power using a hydro-electric plant when letting the water flow down hill when the price goes up.
I also figure that having a man made lake on top of a hill is a whole lot safer than trying to store Hydrogen when you scale up to industrial size. Hydrogen has a tendency to explode, where water is not generally hazardous stuff to deal with.
A lot of this talk about nuclear power plants or even coal powered power plants being inflexible is nonsense. They are run continuously because this is more energy efficient. However there is nothing stopping you from burning less coal. In France it is common to partially off nuclear power plants during the night:
Nuclear plants do suffer from issues with throttled usage due to the nature of the fuel cycle. It's not that you can't throttle them, it's that as you get later in the fuel cycle it becomes harder and harder to throttle them quickly and keep them from being Xenon poisoned. Add to that the fact that our currently operating nuclear plants where not designed to throttle and you can understand why it's not a good idea. There is also the efficiency issue you cite, and with nuclear power plants running on thin margins to start, this can push them over the edge.
The primary thing to note is that it's basically hard to throttle most industrial sized power generators. Nuclear plants have longer lead times because changing power output of the nuclear core requires more engineering effort than a fossil fueled burner does which needs more effort than your hydro-electric plant. But it is *extremely* difficult to plan electrical power requirements far enough in advance to use our current 30 year old nuclear power plants which where designed to run for decades at static power outputs.
Just curious... How do you "chemically prove" something's age?
If you are talking about Carbon 14 dating, there are some fairly wide margin of errors in that method and a host of assumptions that end up being somewhat circular arguments. In addition, it's not really a "chemically" determined dating process, but one based on radioactive decay.
What process are you talking about?
You definitely are going to think Nye wins the debate.. Ok..
This is a man the claims humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
Have you *ever* been to Glenn Rose Texas? Dinosaur valley state park? OK, OK, Not proof, but some see it as evidence.
So, you have evidence that they *didn't* coexist?
How do you know? Where you there? Oh right, you are claiming nobody was, so you where not there.
Having fun yet?
Apparently you don't get the logical problem with your argument.. So be it. Why an Atheist cares is beyond me though.
LOL... So you've studied Han's perspective then? No? Waste of your time? You do get your logical fallacy here right?
The only way that anyone will really prove anything about this to anyone else is if we invent time travel and actually watch it happen ourselves.
I can agree with *that* statement. But alas, I'm fairly confident that will not happen. Time seems to be explicitly a ONE WAY trip. We might change the rate at which time passes, but it appears we cannot change directions.
Only one of those was claiming moral superiority.
I can tell you that *any* person claiming to be a Christian that is asserting moral superiority is lying about being superior, being a Christian or both.
The CRUX of Christian teaching has ALWAYS been that "All have fallen short" and having fallen short we all deserve to die. If you don't start there, you miss the point.
Yea, but you do realize that Ham is going to claim he *knows* somebody who was. Which, in his world view, is a better answer than Nye can hope to make. But we've crested the hill and are already speeding down the hill head long into pointlessness...