A thought I haven’t seen offered much, but could give Biden an ego-soothing role instead of being put out to political pasture - a Harris:Biden ticket.
She gets to be the energetic go-getter at the front (that the Maga hate-oil salesmen are shrieking about atm) while Biden can play the ‘elder statesman’ role of advice and experience to Kamala instead of running himself. You defuse a lot of the competency/decline arguments against Biden, and gird against one of Harris’s biggest threats - her lack of international experience.
Kamala is not a political unknown, but Biden is losing/equal right now to Trump with the DNC money & publicity machine working for him the last eight years. I’d argue Harris has a better shot if those efforts are swung her way. I don’t like Harris, but needn’t convince me to vote team blue - it’s the ~9% undecided we need to convince.
I agree, she’s not the candidate I’d want leading the dems—far from it. But people are used to voting between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich as their president. Biden is something different, more agreeable than some other candidates the Dems have run. But people are seriously concerned about voting for a man who’s mental acuity is declining rapidly towards senility and very possibly will not live through 2028.
Plus, I haven’t read too far into it but I’ve heard that only Kamala would be able to use the Biden/Harris campaign war-chest. It’s sad as hell that that is so important, but it is nonetheless.
Oh shit. I don’t know why that’s so surprising but I think I kind of thought of him as immortal. Shout out to Sweatin’ to the Oldies, which was me and my sister’s weird hobby as kids.
There are those that will be quick to call this an unproductive effort towards green/less carbon future, just like Hydrogen powered cars. For cars I would agree, for these ships…perhaps this IS viable, or at least no worse today. There’s a lot to unpack here if you want to go along for the ride. I had no intention of writing this post as long as it turned out but its where the data took me. Buckle up:
The main problem people will point out is the source of nearly all hydrogen available for use today is from carbon based emitting sources, so called “Gray Hydrogen”: This is an undisputed fact.
…however, this ferry has some things going for it. Consider the ferry this hydrogen one is replacing was diesel.
Sea Change can travel about 300 nautical miles and operate for 16 hours before it needs to refuel. The fuel cells produce electricity by combining oxygen and hydrogen in an electrochemical reaction that emits water as a byproduct.
While its fueled with Hydrogen, its actually uses that fuel cell for electricity production instead of combustion.
Immediately this means that at the dock on either side during idle or docked times, it can be tied to the shore for power instead of running its diesel engines to make electricity to run the ship.
Having electric motors also means, if in the future, battery technology advances beyond hydrogen for energy density/weight, the power source can be swapped without having to change any of the propulsion systems. Even if batteries just get lighter (without the density), this ferry could be converted to hydrogen/battery hybrid where the batteries may not last the entire duration, but could contribute to a portion of the journey before the ship switches to less efficient hydrogen. This would not be easily possible on the old diesel ferry.
Now lets look at energy of old diesel vs bad Gray Hydrogen.
Diesel carbon emitted and energy produced = 10kg of carbon for 40kWh of energy:
One gallon of diesel fuel emits 10,180 grams of CO2 when combusted. So about 10 kilograms roughly. source
That one gallon of diesel fuel equals 40KWh of energy source
Gray Hydrogen carbon emitted and energy produced = ~12kg of carbon for 23kWh of energy:
Grey hydrogen produces greenhouse gas emissions: between 11.1 – 13.7 kg of CO2 equivalent for every 1 kilogram of hydrogen source.
When used as part of a fuel cell, 1 kg of hydrogen can produce up to 23 kWh of electrical energy source
On the surface it looks like diesel produces more energy for less carbon, except lots of that energy is lost as heat that doesn’t move the boat. Diesel use in ferry boats is said to be 42% efficient source.
This means our actual energy from diesel would be 16.8KWh while hydrogen would be 23kWh of energy. (note some lack of accuracy here from not calculating the ~20% more carbon from Gray Hydrogen, and also lack of information on hydrogen to fuel cell conversion inefficient. It likely will change the answer some, but not enough to invalidate the Hydrogen approach immediately).
Other factors not calculated here against diesel vs hydrogen is the carbon emitted during the production of the diesel fuel vs the carbon emitted during the production of the methane used to make the Gray hydrogen. Diesel emits more carbon here too!
Pump Diesel = 609.86g CO2e/Litre and 16.97g CO2e/MJ
Compressed Natural Gas = 537.62 CO2e/Litre 11.90g CO2e/MJ
So the conclusion here is that even with bad Gray hydrogen, the hydrogen powered ferry is better than diesel. Add in the extra benefits that this gets much MUCH better with the future use of Green hydrogen (generated by solar or wind) or the use of White Hydrogen (naturally occurring hydrogen out of the ground that does not come from a carbon source), better battery tech, and use of on-shore electricity power to supplement/replace some hydrogen usage.
My dad was a fitness enthusiast. He exercised daily, ate what he was supposed to eat, didn’t drink or smoke, no drugs, and he died at 68. My mother, whom doesn’t exercise, smokes, eats whatever she wants (usually junk food and highly processed foods), is still alive and kicking and is now 77.
I lost faith in the whole “exercise for a healthier/longer life” mentality 9 years ago. Live your life, be happy, do things in moderation, and make sure you do what you love with the people you love. If that includes exercise, good for you.
IIRC, my grandfather who didn’t exercise, smoked his entire adult life, drank, and ate whatever his southern wife fried up for him, lived longer 🤣. Not by much, but still longer.
I live in the comfort that the men in my family don’t live super long. I’m okay with that.
There’s more to life than living long. I would rather be healthy and energetic than lethargic and tired all the time. Even if genetics play a large role in longevity, my own choices decide how I feel, and I feel way better if I exercise. Healthspan is more important than lifespan.
I know plenty of examples like that in my circle of family and friends.
But you know what, a lot of those people who have shitty health, eat whatever and live to be 80 are miserable, senile, weak and unhealthy people for the last ten years of their lives. They do live long lives but what sense is it to survive to 70 or 80 if you are going to be miserable and probably not be aware for the last ten years of your life?
It’s fun to say eat whatever you want and not exercise but if you risk torturing yourself for the last few years of your life … what’s the point?
I’d rather be as healthy as possible right up to end if I can help it. I certainly don’t want to be a helpless old man who can’t think anymore and leave my family to decide when and if I should go.
Depends on what you want out of life. I eat a fair amount of healthy stuff but I also eat fried xhicken, chicken wings, plenty of sweets, etc. I’m not going to deny myself small pleasures on the offchance it let’s me live a bit longer.
That said, I also don’t want to basically be suffering for the last 10 years of my life. If it gets that bad, maybe I’ll just end it myself.
I’m no fan of exercise. But as I imminently approach 40, I’m feeling and seeing its value more and more. The purpose of fitness is not longevity - it is independence and quality of life. Just assume you’re going to live to age 90 either way. Look around at some 80 year olds. Breathing machines, walkers, bed ridden… how do you want to spend your years? Years! Your body will become a torture prison unless you tend to it. Dying is the least of my concerns.
One theory about why he disappeared is because he had to have bilateral knee replacements and couldn’t exercise anymore. I thought that sounded pretty plausible.
A little story about why Richard Simmons became a fitness and diet guru. He was in the Frederico Fellini film Satyricon and he was fat. A fan wrote to him and said, “fat people die young, Richard. Please don’t die.” He took it to heart and his relentless positivity became an inspiration to so many people.
I think it probably does have a low success rate. Very few people can be shamed by strangers into making such a big change in their lives… But it probably has a higher success rate for someone who wants to be in movies and TV since body image is a big deal there as is looking healthy.
Anyway, I am glad that, whatever the reason, he became the delightful person we will remember him as.
And yes, the Who’s Line episode he was in was a real classic. I wasn’t a huge fan of the American version of the show, but that one is undeniably just hilariously funny.
Isn’t it painfully ironic that right wingers who cried about being told what to do by the state suddenly imposed a non-scientific law imposing what people can’t do to their own body?
They are absolutely trash…the party of small government until they’re in charge, then it’s fine as long as the laws punish other people. (Hint none of the shit they want to impose affects anyone. Like gays getting married. Hasn’t changed my life one but, why should I care about preventing things that don’t impact my life? Shouldn’t I mind my own business?) Also the party of fiscal responsibility until they are in charge, then it’s spend spend spend, for the rich, tax breaks for the rich and less services and higher taxes for us.
Freedom means freedom… for them. For them to do what they want, impose what they want on others, and to do it all without repercussions.
This is a fine example of it. They want the freedom to be free of “burdensome” mandates. but they want the absolute authority to impose mandates on others, without anyone being able to push back against it
That’s because they’re authoritarians. They are protecting a hierarchy that they believe exists in the world. That’s why they don’t mind if rich white men hurt them. Those people are higher in their hierarchy, so it makes sense to them.
They don’t like it if non-white people or women in general try to subvert this hierarchy. They believe if someone else rises in status they might fall in status. To them it’s “not right”; it’s a moral issue that people should “stay in their place” in the hierarchy.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.