On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 09/12/2024 16:52, Andy Burns wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." wrote:
>>
>>> there are countries that sell more electric cars than IC, so it works for
>>> them.
>>
>> But neither .uk or .es have ~90% hydroelectric power
> I always find it amazing that people say things like 'I an so totally off
> grid' and you look at what they have done and how much fossil fuel was used
> to build it and transport it to their homes, and how much food they buy still
> uses natural gas for fertilizer and how their homes feature things made of
> steel, plastics and cement or brick...and an internet connection...
>
> And you just think what a delusional bunch of 'see-you-next-tuesday's they
> actually are.
>
> The whole renewable fantasy is like a 2 year old saying 'look mummy, I can
> jump over a toy rabbit, and then again at 5 years old 'look I can jump over a
> chair - by the time I am 50 I will be able to jump over tall buildings with a
> single bound!'
>
> Greens would be rather sweet if they hadn't been given a vote.

Let me add another off the grid fallacy... technology. Imagine how many
factories, components, supply chains you need for a modern electric grid.
When it breaks, you'll be very happy to have some good old oil, nuclear
and what ever else you have to power that enormous dependency you have due
to "smart grids" and renewable power.

Any chance of this conversation returning to anything even *slightly*
more relevant to *nix, computers in general, or, like, *anything* else?
Maybe I should dig up some old Francis E. Dec rant for a more coherent/
relevant refresher course...

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:49:48 +0100, D wrote:

> But how is this solved in existing hydrogen cars? Hydrogen cars exist,
> so surely they must have some way to at least mitigate this problem?

https://www.toyota.com/mirai/

"How Safe Is Hydrogen?
Mirai’s hydrogen fuel tanks have been rigorously tested and proven to meet
Global Technical Regulation No. 13. * If the hydrogen sensors detect a
leak or a collision, the hydrogen tank valves will automatically close to
prevent more hydrogen from escaping while any hydrogen that is leaked will
safely return to the atmosphere."

That doesn't address the integrity of the composite fuel tanks.

https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/ECE-TRANS-180-Add.13-
Amend1e.pdf

That's a definite tl;dr document but as far as I got it seemed to
recommend controlled leakage before the tanks burst and tried to determine
the number of cycles before problems occur. However one paragraph was a
disclaimer saying they don't have enough real world data to be sure.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 17:23:04 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Terrorist and criminals use what they can get their hands on
>
> The hexamine fuel used by camping stoves and model steam engines is now
> outlawed, the bad guys figured out how to make a well known military
> explosive from it

That must be an European thing. Amazon still shows Coghlan's hexamine
tablits for my Esbit stove. If I use Tor, which comes out of the rabbit
hole in the Netherlands today it says they can't be delivered to my
address.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 21:49:25 +0100, D wrote:

> I think making gun powder is very simple. There's loads of youtube
> videos,
> and I imagine that a couple of pipe bombs would be far easier and more
> explosive than car battery bombs.

When I was a kid I could walk down the street to the local pharmacy and
buy potassium nitrate and flowers of sulfur. The pharmacist probably knew
what I was up to but kids were expected to blow things up back then. I
could also get iodine crystals for my nitrogen triiodide experiments. It's
too unstable to be very useful but it does make a nifty purple cloud when
it blows.

I only remember one kid getting injured and that was from the low rent
activity of stuffing match heads into a CO2 capsule. Darwinian selection
at work.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:44:32 +0100, D wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> Then there is the problem that most hydrogen comes from processing
>> natural gas rather than green alternative energy sources.
>>
>>
> Very interesting! Had no idea! I find it funny that this is somehow
> never meantioned by the green crowd.

https://www.brightgreenlies.com/book

'Bright Green Lies' by Derrik Jensen.

Jensen is not a fossil fuels industry apologist by any means. He is one of
the founders of Deep Green Resistance that is considered too radical by
some environmentalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Green_Resistance

The book gets somewhat redundant as he works his way through the various
green technologies. For each he starts with the extractive industries that
are required. Solar cells? There are two prevalent technologies for PV
cells. One uses cadmium and tellurium and the other copper, gallium, and
indium, plus silicon. What is the impact of producing these materials? How
are they mined, transported, and processed? How much heavy equipment must
be produced? How much energy is used during the smelting or other
processing? What other materials are needed for completed PV panels?

After the PV panels are produced, what is required for site preparation?
What are the ecological impacts of huge solar projects? What is required
to produce and install the distribution network?

The same analysis is done for wind, hydro, and so forth. The 'renewable
energy' technology is the tip of a huge iceberg of antecedent processes
studiously ignored by the bright green environmentalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_green_environmentalism

They parallel the cornucopians that believe there will always be a
technological solution to allow our comfortable life style without taking
any hard decisions.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:01:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> It all goes back to the fraudulent EU and its compact with German
> manufacturers to mandate 'Renewable energy' *whether it worked or not*.

Going off on a renewable energy kick, decommissioning your nukes, and
pissing off the major supplier of cheap energy in your part of the world
is a real recipe for success. Cynically, the US will be happy to sell you
LNG that it has a problem using domestically due to the 1920 Jones Act.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 21:51:48 +0100, D wrote:

> Germany managed to help the extreme left and the extreme right with
> their ridiculous nuclear policy. Given their history, I'm surprised they
> didn't see it coming.

There is a lot of that going around. The French managed to get the RN and
NFP on the same page while Trump has collected a menagerie of strange
bedfellows.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 14:15:21 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> I still do not know why you are talking this and not Linux in a Linux
> group, but for your info, there are countries that sell more electric
> cars than IC, so it works for them.

Desktop Linux works for many people including myself. However, Windows
remains the dominant OS.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 17:01:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I always find it amazing that people say things like 'I an so totally
> off grid' and you look at what they have done and how much fossil fuel
> was used to build it and transport it to their homes, and how much food
> they buy still uses natural gas for fertilizer and how their homes
> feature things made of steel, plastics and cement or brick...and an
> internet connection...

As I mentioned in another post Derrick Jensen asks embarrassing questions
like that. It's helpful to adopt extreme tunnel vision.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:53:54 +0100, D wrote:

> Swedens government has now decided that sweden shall have new, working
> nuclear power in 10 years.
>
> I would bet several hundred euros against this being done on time.

If Sweden is like the US it will still be in litigation in 10 years.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:55:37 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Build your concrete structures, pop in a boiler and turbines and some
> generators and ship a complete reactor in, and plug it in to a factory
> produced control system, and that's it.

Where were you planning to build your concrete structures? Have you done a
complete environmental analysis and responded to the lawsuits by
environmentalists and groups that don't want a nuke in their particular
back garden?

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:58:47 -0800, John Ames wrote:

> Any chance of this conversation returning to anything even *slightly*
> more relevant to *nix, computers in general, or, like, *anything* else?
> Maybe I should dig up some old Francis E. Dec rant for a more coherent/
> relevant refresher course...

Feel free to start a thread.

On 2024-12-09, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Renewables aren't dead yet, but they are beginning to smell..
>
> I agree. Nuclear is the future. There will be smaller niche cases for
> solar and wind, in country side homes during the summer, or by using tax
> subsidies to get some extra solar into data centers, but as you say, once
> our nuclear knowledge has been rebuilt and regained, it should be
> possible, in theory, to build traditional nuclear in 3-5 years (I think
> south korea is doing it in 5 currently) and SMR:s will hopefully be even
> faster.

It's going to be a hard sell, though. The peepul want nothing to do
with that nook-yu-lur stuff. As one hayseed said, "We don't want
no damn atoms around here."

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
> On 12/8/24 7:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2024-12-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your AI's
>>> number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
>>> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself
>>> explosively combusting as part of the pressure release.
>>
>> I've seen the results of a 200-bar scuba tank letting go. And
>> that's just a little 80-cubic foot tank filled with air.
>
> I've seen that too - close up. Blew out a reinforced CBC wall
> ...... sheer dumb luck nobody was in the filling room at the time
> or they'd have been Spam.
>
>>> Plus, the walls of the pressure vessel quite effectively become a
>>> 'fragmentation grenade' in the process of going bang.
>>
>> <shudder>
>>
>
> High-pressure containers - esp ones that have to 'cycle' often -
> are a bomb waiting to go off. Fatigue/corrosion take their awful
> toll - then BOOM !
>
> If the boom is a flammable gas ... far worse.
>
> Hydrogen CAN have its uses - but at "industrial" sites, not out in
> public. You can feed it into expensive fuel cells, you can mix
> x-percent with natural gas.
>
> But as a general-purpose 'motor fuel' ... NO ! Besides, no proper
> infrastructure for it.

For a 'motor fuel' it is difficult to replace the benefits of liquids
that do not need pressure vessels (beyond their own evaporation
pressure, which is usually quite mild). We have an entire setup in
place for transporting, storing, and dispensing liquids (gas/diesel
pumps).

But, to avoid more 'carbon' in the air, the liquids have to be
synthesized somehow from carbon already in the air. And that we don't
have on a scale large enough to be a source to replace our current
liquid fuels.

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2024-12-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your
>>> AI's number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
>>> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself explosively
>>> combusting as part of the pressure release.
>>
>> I've seen the results of a 200-bar scuba tank letting go.
>> And that's just a little 80-cubic foot tank filled with air.
>
> How did this happen? In sweden, there is an epidemic of bombings for the
> past couple of years, since crazy drug dealing arabians are waging some
> kind of war with hand grenades, and car battery bombs in the bigger
> cities.
>
> Would using scuba tanks be a cheaper way for them to bomb each other?

Likely not as cheap as a car battery. I see a 2.3L mini scuba tank on
Amazon for $299 (no idea how big a 2.3L mini tank really is). I can
get a car battery for about $100 at the local auto-store.

And the scuba tank will not also spray sulfuric acid over everyone when
it goes "bang". And short of an armor peircing slug, it is probably
more difficult to get a new scuba tank to go "bang" vs becoming a brief
high speed rocket or spinner.

> Also, how does a car battery bomb work?

Perhaps google would answer your question... Or perhaps google would
report you to the authorities for even asking the question?

> I'ev seen videos of exploding lithium batteries, but that does not
> look as efficient to me as just producing good, old, gun powder at
> home and making your own.
>
> So with that in mind, what would be the advantage of a car battery bomb
> over regular gun powder plus a pipe?

Lack of education maybe? They can buy the car battery at an auto parts
store (no education required, just the local currency) and they likely
have a "script" passed down that they have no idea how/why it works,
but if the do x, y, and z, it does work.

Making gunpower does require some knowledge and skill -- although
presumably it too could be scripted. So perhaps the 'authorities' are
watching the gunpowder precursor purchases, but not watching 'car
battery' purchases?

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 09/12/2024 09:51, D wrote:
>>> So with that in mind, what would be the advantage of a car battery bomb
>>> over regular gun powder plus a pipe?
>> It's easier and legal to get a car battery.
>>
>> These gentlemen are not very scientific.
>> Making gunpowder from chickenshit is quite complex.
>>
>> Did you know that acetone - a highly useful solvent used extensively by
>> people who make glass fibre components, is also used by people who brew up
>> and purify various drugs. Beware ordering a gallon of it...
>> The IRA used ammonium nitrate, because it was at that time a legal
>> fertilizer. Today it is controlled and comes mixed with something that stops
>> it going bang.
>>
>> We used to use sodium chlorate - a weedkiller that is now also banned
>>
>> Terrorist and criminals use what they can get their hands on
>>
>> Only the government gets to use the good stuff.
>
> I think making gun powder is very simple. There's loads of youtube videos,
> and I imagine that a couple of pipe bombs would be far easier and more
> explosive than car battery bombs.

Perhaps then it is easier to cart the car battery bomb in somewhere
that a large pipe with caps on both ends and a wire out one end would
raise suspision?

> Fun fact... a swedish wanna be terrorist was caught because he went into a
> hardware store bought 20 car batteries and the store thought it was
> suspicious that a bearded gentleman from the middle east should suddenly
> buy 20 car batteries! =D

Not the sharpest knife that was ever in the drawer.

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:
>
>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> What about storing it as water, and producing it close to where cars need
>>> to be fueled up? I assume it would be very inefficient and probably
>>> difficult, or else someone would already have done it. But I do not know
>>> any specifics, so just genuinely curious.
>>
>> Hydrogen can be stored very safely as water. The earth's covered in a
>> significant amount of "water stored hydrogen". :)
>>
>> The tricky part is you have to put in a rather significant amount of
>> energy to convince it (the hydrogen) to let go of it's grip with the
>> oxygen atoms that make up the water.
>>
>> And once you create it, and pump it into the car's pressure tank
>> (you'll need a pressure vessel unless the car has a cryo-cooler on
>> board, and the energy expended by the cryo-cooler would dwarf the
>> energy needed to propel the car), you are right back to the
>> 'embrittlement' problem again.
>>
>> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your
>> AI's number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
>> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself explosively
>> combusting as part of the pressure release.
>>
>> Plus, the walls of the pressure vessel quite effectively become a
>> 'fragmentation grenade' in the process of going bang.
>
> But how is this solved in existing hydrogen cars?

I have no idea.

> Hydrogen cars exist, so surely they must have some way to at least
> mitigate this problem?

Do they really? On more than a 'lab experiment' model?

> As for converting hydrogen "on site" I can imagine two limiting factors.
>
> 1. The speed of conversion. Can you convert hydrogen on site, fast enough,
> to fill up a car in 5-10 minutes?

That would likely require some major power input for the "splitting up" of
water molecules on site. Likely somewhere on the order of existing
electric car "super chargers" -- or perhaps even more.

> and
>
> 2. The cost of converting water to hydrogen in a smaller setup, vs doing
> it somewhere central and shipping it.

You can convert water to hydrogen using just a battery, some wire, and
some containers. It is (or at least was) a common physics experiment
in high school physics class.

Now, doing so, even on a small scale, in a volume sufficient to fuel a
hydrogen powered car, well that's a whole level more complex than the
physics experiment demonstration. That is if you want your "hydrogen
generator" to be reasonably safe for the "average joe" to use and
reasonably long lived. Not the least of which the compressor to
achieve 450-700 bar (your AI's numbers again) worth of compression to
fuel the car will be a somewhat expensive component, and every "unit"
will need one unless the car comes with its own built in pressure boost
unit.

On 12/9/24 11:46 PM, Rich wrote:
> 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>> On 12/8/24 7:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2024-12-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your AI's
>>>> number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
>>>> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself
>>>> explosively combusting as part of the pressure release.
>>>
>>> I've seen the results of a 200-bar scuba tank letting go. And
>>> that's just a little 80-cubic foot tank filled with air.
>>
>> I've seen that too - close up. Blew out a reinforced CBC wall
>> ...... sheer dumb luck nobody was in the filling room at the time
>> or they'd have been Spam.
>>
>>>> Plus, the walls of the pressure vessel quite effectively become a
>>>> 'fragmentation grenade' in the process of going bang.
>>>
>>> <shudder>
>>>
>>
>> High-pressure containers - esp ones that have to 'cycle' often -
>> are a bomb waiting to go off. Fatigue/corrosion take their awful
>> toll - then BOOM !
>>
>> If the boom is a flammable gas ... far worse.
>>
>> Hydrogen CAN have its uses - but at "industrial" sites, not out in
>> public. You can feed it into expensive fuel cells, you can mix
>> x-percent with natural gas.
>>
>> But as a general-purpose 'motor fuel' ... NO ! Besides, no proper
>> infrastructure for it.
>
> For a 'motor fuel' it is difficult to replace the benefits of liquids
> that do not need pressure vessels (beyond their own evaporation
> pressure, which is usually quite mild). We have an entire setup in
> place for transporting, storing, and dispensing liquids (gas/diesel
> pumps).
>
> But, to avoid more 'carbon' in the air, the liquids have to be
> synthesized somehow from carbon already in the air. And that we don't
> have on a scale large enough to be a source to replace our current
> liquid fuels.

The catalyst people ARE getting better with grabbing
CO2 and turning it into various 'fuel' hydrocarbons
again. If there's hope for "CO2 Capture" it's with
these scientists.

They don't even HAVE to "break even" - just kinda
sorta CLOSE. That'd be significant - "good enough"

Again, as for 'motor fuel', I suggest isopropanol,
and it has a decent 'octane rating' - around 112.

On 12/9/24 4:49 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:
>
>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> What about storing it as water, and producing it close to where cars
>>> need
>>> to be fueled up? I assume it would be very inefficient and probably
>>> difficult, or else someone would already have done it. But I do not know
>>> any specifics, so just genuinely curious.
>>
>> Hydrogen can be stored very safely as water.  The earth's covered in a
>> significant amount of "water stored hydrogen". :)
>>
>> The tricky part is you have to put in a rather significant amount of
>> energy to convince it (the hydrogen) to let go of it's grip with the
>> oxygen atoms that make up the water.
>>
>> And once you create it, and pump it into the car's pressure tank
>> (you'll need a pressure vessel unless the car has a cryo-cooler on
>> board, and the energy expended by the cryo-cooler would dwarf the
>> energy needed to propel the car), you are right back to the
>> 'embrittlement' problem again.
>>
>> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your
>> AI's number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
>> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself explosively
>> combusting as part of the pressure release.
>>
>> Plus, the walls of the pressure vessel quite effectively become a
>> 'fragmentation grenade' in the process of going bang.
>
> But how is this solved in existing hydrogen cars? Hydrogen cars exist,
> so surely they must have some way to at least mitigate this problem?

"It" is NOT solved, not at all. They're bombs.

We keep hearing of exotic compounds that will absorb
a lot of H2 at relatively low Ts & Ps ... but they do
not seem to pan out for industrial-scale production
(kinda like all the 'improved' lithium cells). What
seem great in a square MM lab test chamber, well .....

> As for converting hydrogen "on site" I can imagine two limiting factors.
>
> 1. The speed of conversion. Can you convert hydrogen on site, fast
> enough, to fill up a car in 5-10 minutes?

No.

And a LARGE amount of energy is lost (and heat produced)
during the conversion. The catalyst people MAY make this
a bit better, but STILL .....

And also, from WHERE comes the ENERGY to create the
electricity to create the hydrogen ? Probably coal/oil.

Generated H2 from 'intermittent' sources like PVs or
windmills or whatever ... there ARE uses for it, but
in INDUSTRIAL settings, not on I-10. Take yer carbon
advantage THERE and be happy.

> and
>
> 2. The cost of converting water to hydrogen in a smaller setup, vs doing
> it somewhere central and shipping it.

There's no real INFRASTRUCTURE for dealing with hydrogen.
It's NOT just the same as NG/propane.

Hydrogen basically goes into those 4-foot steel cylinders.
That's IT. Oh, pressure-cycle those 100+ times and somewhere
in there there'll be a BIG Badda Boom.

Hydrogen is a drug-induced Greenie hallucination.

Gotta do MUCH better. It's gotta be REAL.

OK ... nasty POLITICS ... the further left wants to vastly
RESTRICT travel. Makes it much easier to CONTROL people, even
limit their experience of what happens 'elsewhere' so the
Ministry Of Truth (John Kerry in charge, of course) can create
entire new realities.

As such, CRAP/expensive/impractical vehicles SERVE that
purpose. They want your entire existence/experience to
be within 'bicycle range'.

Yes, evil-minded people DO exist - and too many of them
go into Government.

On 12/9/24 8:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:58:47 -0800, John Ames wrote:
>
>> Any chance of this conversation returning to anything even *slightly*
>> more relevant to *nix, computers in general, or, like, *anything* else?
>> Maybe I should dig up some old Francis E. Dec rant for a more coherent/
>> relevant refresher course...
>
> Feel free to start a thread.

Ummmmm ... I just TRIED with the "Bit-Slice" topic.
Jumped IMMEDIATELY back to 'non-OS/Computer stuff' :-)

Was HOPING for discussion/insight into 'alternative'
schemes for 'CPU's and such derived from older solutions.

Houston, we have a problem .............

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 01:54:05 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> Ummmmm ... I just TRIED with the "Bit-Slice" topic.
> Jumped IMMEDIATELY back to 'non-OS/Computer stuff'

How about that bubble memory?

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2024-12-09 17:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 09/12/2024 13:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-12-09 14:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 09/12/2024 13:10, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-12-07 15:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> Windmills and solar panels are useless for the same reason. - there is
>>>>>> no storage able to meet the intermittency problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know why you are talking of that in this Linux group, but for
>>>>> your information, we have an island that goes with renewable energy for
>>>>> months, not touching the fueled generators.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.endesa.com/es/proyectos/todos-los-proyectos/transicion-
>>>>> energetica/renovables/el-hierro-renovable>
>>>>> <https://www.endesa.com/es/la-cara-e/energias-renovables/gorona-
>>>>> viento-renovable>
>>>>>
>>>> But it still touches the fuelled generators.
>>>>
>>>> And its a very small island, and it uses pumped storage because it has
>>>> hills,
>>>>
>>>> Try that in Holland...
>>>>
>>>> And it isn't as green as you think. Dig deeper into the actual statistics
>>>>
>>>> "The longest it’s powered up the whole island is 25 consecutive days,
>>>> before the back-up diesel engine had to step in"
>>>>
>>>> That is not 'for months'.
>>>
>>> Just google deeper and you will find the months.
>>>
>> No, I wont
>>
>>> Yes, certainly there are occasions when it doesn't work, it is early days.
>>> You just can not say that conclusively "it is impossible to do".
>>>
>> You yourself have shown that it is impossible to do.
>>
>> Your example proves my case.
>>
>> No one has done it yet, nor its it likely they ever will, unless its a tiny
>> island with lots of hydro power.
>>
>> It is impossible to do for most ordinary countries
>>
>> And the cost of that attempt was insane.
>>
>
>
> I have proven that it is possible. Just do it, eventually. We have to do it
> to survive. I'm lucky to have no descendants.

No you did not. As other pointed out. Please Carlos, you will not die in
any climate catastrophe, do now that it is a control technique used by
politicians to strip you of your critical thinking, tax money and freedom.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, John Ames wrote:

> Any chance of this conversation returning to anything even *slightly*
> more relevant to *nix, computers in general, or, like, *anything* else?
> Maybe I should dig up some old Francis E. Dec rant for a more coherent/
> relevant refresher course...

Probably not. I'd recommend you to return next tuesday and have a look. ;)

On Tue, 9 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:49:48 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> But how is this solved in existing hydrogen cars? Hydrogen cars exist,
>> so surely they must have some way to at least mitigate this problem?
>
> https://www.toyota.com/mirai/
>
> "How Safe Is Hydrogen?
> Mirai’s hydrogen fuel tanks have been rigorously tested and proven to meet
> Global Technical Regulation No. 13. * If the hydrogen sensors detect a
> leak or a collision, the hydrogen tank valves will automatically close to
> prevent more hydrogen from escaping while any hydrogen that is leaked will
> safely return to the atmosphere."
>
> That doesn't address the integrity of the composite fuel tanks.
>
> https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/ECE-TRANS-180-Add.13-
> Amend1e.pdf
>
> That's a definite tl;dr document but as far as I got it seemed to
> recommend controlled leakage before the tanks burst and tried to determine
> the number of cycles before problems occur. However one paragraph was a
> disclaimer saying they don't have enough real world data to be sure.

Very interesting! So safety then depends on excellent supply chain
management and quality control, coupled with perhaps changing the
containers early to avoid any possibility of leakage.

But every new system has its bugs and quirks. Just look at the car battery
fires that have happened.