http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMEV-_X5b_8&feature=youtu.be
Pray for the Japanese.
Pray for the Japanese indeed.
If there was any sort of upside to this catastrophe, I reckon shares in nuclear power plant Companies would be going cheaply soon.
Might be a good time to invest.
Indeed Tom. We observed a period of silence today in Church for the Japanese people, both living or dead. I am sure many others will do likewise worldwide.
I think they said it was a hydrogen explosion from the core going critical after the cooling system failed? I’m sure the rabid anti-nuclear energy folks will have a field day with it - even though it took a quake and tsunami for things to get that bad. I also saw that they expect a 70% chance of another major quake in the next few days (none of which have much, if anything, to do with ‘super moons’, or the CIA, or a “Zionist imperialist plot”, or “the end of times” or 'God’s will because they were sinners", but some folks will probably claim that anyway to justify their particular worldviews).
I pray for the Japanese people, both those who are gone, and all those millions who are going cold, thirsty and hungry again tonight.
I also pray that we, who are in the position to help most, don’t ‘lose interest’, or complain too much about how much the official effort costs before they are well along the road to recovery - like we have with Haiti and on so many other things. No, we can’t cure all the world’s ills. But maybe we can afford to ease their suffering a little once in a while?
Edit: And if you are offended by my cynical evaluation of the attitudes of our current society. Or feel i insulted you personally. I’ll pray for you too. I sent 10% of all the money we have left for the month to the Red Cross yesterday. I think they’ll figure out a use for it.
Edit, Edit-- a list of links for places that you can donate should you wish to.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/12/help-victims-devastating-earthquake-tsunami-japan/
I agree. Why do we, as a society, insist on blaming the victims? I told my wife I was just glad we were Allies with Japan, so that we can help without the suspicion, controversy, or delays, like the tsunami in Malaysia.
I read that the USS Reagan is already helping with relief efforts.
Robert
Robert Murphy said:The long answer would make too many folks mad.
Why do we, as a society, insist on blaming the victims?
The short answer has two parts, both relating to our sense of entitlement.
- “Me! Me! Me!” - being compassionate, or even empathetic, requires a person actually look outside themself and what they want. And might be slightly uncomfortable.
- “Me! Me! Me!” - too many fake “victims” and scam artists looking for a fast payday has made many folks numb to those who really are suffering.
You asked.
No baby ever had the me me me!!! attitude when it came out of the womb.
Adults taught them that.
Yes, and no Tony. Small children are VERY egocentric in their worldview. They really don’t understand that other people might not want what they want until they are about age 3 or 4… But after that, you’re quite right.
Somewhere in the early '70s western society threw out the old method of authoritarian childrearing in favor of a more permissive and compassionate model. That generation then had the next generation of children with even fewer ‘arbitrary’ rules on their behavior (the ‘me!’ generation of the '90s)… What we now are seeing is the fruits of that. Pushing the pendulum back the other way (to authoritative at least, rather than permissive) is more effort than many (most?) folks want to exert, possibly because they don’t know how, and partly because if you dare to even gently correct someone else’s little shi — err treasured offspring, it can get you sued…
Falls under “Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it!”
But then society has been going to hell since Plato’s time and hasn’t quite got there yet. It came pretty close a few times, but not there. Interesting to think that the Muslims and the Chinese kept the founding ideas of our ‘modern’ society alive while Europeans were the ones who were hopelessly backwards, ignorant, superstitious, and just plain brutal for a few hundred years.
But back to the Japanese. This has to be the most insensitive “Me!Me! Me!” thing I’ve heard so far — listen to what this Kudlow guy says, it came straight from his heart - (which is in his portfolio) - his comments start at about 0:35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX80vWJhtMk
I guess at least he was honest instead of fake concerned.
the other one they were worried about went too…
http://abcnews.go.com/International/japan-earthquake-explosion-fukushima-reactor/story?id=13126081
One little thing - They say both of these were Hydrogen explosions. (Isn’t that one of the ‘green fuels’ folks have been touting for all of us to power our cars with?) So far they’re still saying ‘minimal’ radiation release from the reactors themselves. So that is good - or better than it could have been. And if they can manage to stabilize the rest of them, then rebuilding their power grid (and their overall recovery) will go a lot faster. It’s going to be a long road, tho.
Hydrogen when consumed to power electric vehicles for example, produces only water as a by product. That part of the process is “green”.
I am certainly no expert, but, as I understand it Hydrogen has to be manufactured using a lot of electricity. If that electricity is not not generated by “green” renewable power then hydrogen is hardly a “green” fuel.
In this sense hydrogen is no more “green” than battery electric vehicles are not “green” if they are recharged with electricity generated by non renewable means.
It is this mainstream power that needs to be generated by renewable means.
Whether or not Hydrogen created by mains electricity is more energy efficient than charging batteries with mains electricity, remains to be seen.
From what I’ve heard on NHK the hydrogen cames from the reaction of the fuel rods to the cooling water normally its vented off but the vents have failed, pressure accumulated until it finally blowing the building that covers the containment unit outwords.
There was another such blast yesterday at another unit at this same facility, but this one was much larger, at this point I think they are simply doing whatever they can given the circumstances to keep the reactors from full meltdown.
The basic problem was these facilities were design for a maximum 8.5 quake, the largest their research predicted was possible, what they got was a 9.0 many times more energy was released than these places were designed to withstand. Everything about this quake was beyond anything they had thought possible, one village with a 10 meter (33 foot) high seawall based on historic records they thought it was safe, until the water came another 10 feet over the seawall.
The New York Times used the phrase Disaster of Epic Proportions. For once a phrase generally reserved for hype is actually an accurate description. Now they have a volcanic eruption to add to the list of problems to face.
Poor Japan, geez for the Hat Trick all they need now is for Godzilla to pay a visit 
TonyWalsham said:
Hydrogen when consumed to power electric vehicles for example, produces only water as a by product. That part of the process is "green". I am certainly no expert, but, as I understand it Hydrogen has to be manufactured using a lot of electricity. If that electricity is not not generated by "green" renewable power then hydrogen is hardly a "green" fuel. In this sense hydrogen is no more "green" than battery electric vehicles are not "green" if they are recharged with electricity generated by non renewable means. It is this mainstream power that needs to be generated by renewable means.Whether or not Hydrogen created by mains electricity is more energy efficient than charging batteries with mains electricity, remains to be seen.
Hell has frozen over! Tony and I agree on something regarding the environment. :lol:
One other thing. When hydrogen is consumed to proved power, it produces not liquid water, but water vapor. That sounds like no big deal, right? The problem is that water vapor is 98% of all “greenhouse gasses.” So, not only do we get hit with greenhouse gasses in the production of hydrogen, but also in its’ use. A double whammy!
Of course, I don’t genuflect at the alter of “greenhouse gasses.”
I suggest a car powered by electricity that is produced mainly by solar.
But that would cause the loss of jobs and the fuel company’s loss of revenue.
That would go over like a lead balloon.
Not to deflect from the core of this thread which is to offer prayer and support to the victims of this horrific tragedy…
Production of hydrogen gas can actually be done quite energy-cheaply. A single 9v battery can be used to crack H2 from the O. I recall a toy rocket that did just that, and had a rocket-motor igniter-like device at the bottom. Run the fuel maker for a minute or two to charge a 2liter soda bottle, press the button and watch said bottle rocket into the air atop a tower of hydrogen flame.
The media has long blended “use” and “production” when it comes to “green”. Think of all those hazardous chemicals used to develop huge panels of silicon wafers. "Materials presently used for photovoltaic solar cells include monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride, and copper indium selenide/sulfide. (copy/paste from wikipedia’s “Solar cell” entry)
There is also a confusion regarding the use of hydrogen. Many people who push hydrogen as a fuel fail to specify its applications. This is one of the reasons the hydrogen crowd has to fight so much inertia. The use of hydrogen should be specifically targeted to the car/truck/train fuel market. Its use is not as THE fuel for all energy, but as a replacement fuel for gasoline/diesel. In those applications, hydrogen gas is no more dangerous than that of gasoline. The nice thing about hydrogen is that you get an all-over process reduction in pollution: you don’t have to mine hydrogen ore (coal). you don’t need highly toxic chemicals to refine it (uranium as in the uranium hexaflouride), nor huge amounts of electricity to crack it into usable form (oil). You don’t need to expend large amounts of fuel to transport it to the distribution centers (tanker trucks delivering gasoline). Each “gas-station” would have onsite cracking. You would need to provide stations with water and electricity. This WOULD require a complete overhaul, if not out-right replacement of the entire electrical grid… which is needed anyways. Lets just do it all at once!
Cracking has an additional benefit: the creation of free oxygen… you know that stuff we need to breath? Pull in, fuel your car/truck and get a nice buzz at the onsite oxygen bar!
The ONLY drawback is the reduced mileage per gallon. But the primary need for extended mileage/gallon was to reduce the pollutants created by driving. Eliminate that need, and your only reason for extended miles/gallon is to reduce the inconvenience of stopping and fueling.
Thoughts?
Jason,
What happens when you burn the hydrogen in your vehicle? It combines with O2 to make water. So net increase/decrease in O2 is zero.
O2 would just be concentrated a little more around the cracking station, and a little less where you burn the H2 back into water.
Your 9V battery water cracking/launching experiment makes it sound as though you are getting a lot of free energy somewhere.
Is energy created, conserved or lost in the process of cracking water, turning the gaseous H2 into liquid, pumping it into a car’s (thermos bottle) tank, then burning it back to water?
You have all the money needed for a complete overhaul of the electrical grid, plus you are a genius like Nikola Tesla was. In what way would you change our present electrical grid?
You said, “But the primary need for extended mileage/gallon was to reduce the pollutants created by driving.”
Now here, all this time, I thought that I wanted an increase in my car’s mpg because it made driving cheaper !
Man, I must have gone to the wrong school.
Helium sneaks out of a balloon between the atoms that make up the rubber.
At what rate do you lose hydrogen with the car just parked? (evaporation, control valve leakage, leakage between atoms.)
So is the future with Fuel Cells/electric motors or Internal combustion engines?
What do you do if you run out of gas and you’re not at the cracking station?
What keeps your car from acting like your 2 liter bottle if there is an H2 leak under the hood and you hit the starter?
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik
Jason:
Yes, it is fairly straight forward to generate small volumes of hydrogen. It is a relatively low pollution fuel, especially when used in fuel cells. Not so much when burned in heat engines. That means an automobile will need several technologies to work. Each of those technologies require engineering, specialized equipment, high energy inputs, and they create their own set of dangers and waste products.
As for your proposal that hydrogen can be produced at local refueling sites by electrolysis, it is an energy and money loosing proposition. The exact water to hydrogen conversion efficiency numbers depend on the specific process, but they are generally in the 50 to 80% range. In fact, it takes more (heat, electric, or other) energy to generate hydrogen by simple electrolysis than the hydrogen contains. Where do you get this electric energy? Build a coal, oil, or natural gas plant, or a hydroelectric, or a nuclear reactor next door to the gas station?
Hydrogen at atmospheric pressure has a very low energy density as compared to other fuels. That means one either needs very large tank volumes (think a large semi truck sized tank for a trip to town), or you need to compress and / or cool the hydrogen to increase the energy density. The energy required to compress hydrogen, along with the attendant need for high pressure storage tanks is both costly and presents new dangers in dealing with the fuel. Same for cooling the hydrogen to its liquid state. Lots of energy used, along with an even heavier and more dangerous container.
There have been numerous initiatives using a wide variety of processes to apply hydrogen as an automotive fuel. Although some are attractive enough to warrant application to specialized cases, or at least garner more research, hydrogen as an automotive fuel replacement is very expensive both in terms of energy and money. In fact, many researchers agree that it is THE MOST expensive alternative of all possible solutions.
Try Googling something like “hydrogen automobile cost” or “hydrogen economy” and see what comes up. As a researcher, I am not saying never, but there is a large gulf between making enough hydrogen to propel a model rocket a few hundred feet and the application of large volumes of hydrogen in our everyday lives.
Bottom line: There is no free lunch.
Happy RRing,
Jerry
Yup. The stumping question is always, “So where do you get all that electricity?”
There is a fairly new technology for nuclear power that operates at REAL high temperature and extracts almost all the energy from the nuclear fuel, leaving spent fuel that is much less dangerous. It also has lots of extra heat to get rid of. Now interestingly enough, there is also a process for separating water into H and O that takes lots of heat. Curious, eh? Nobody has built one of these yet.
A third unit went boom 6:10am Tokyo time. This one may be leaking water. Word is, the Japanese officials say the situation is ‘stable’ - as in they’re hanging on by their fingernails and praying like crazy nothing else goes wrong.