Structure of Water and Ice

Water is a covalent compound. It consists of two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded with the oxygen atom at the centre. In water molecule, the central atom goes SP3 hybridization. According to VSEPR theory, it should have tetrahedral structure but the presence of two lone pair of electron in oxygen increases the repulsion between the H atoms and its shape becomes distorted tetrahedral. The HOH bond angle decreases from 109.5o to 104.5o.

Due to the strong electronegative character of oxygen, water molecule is highly polarized. Therefore, there is a formation of intermolecular hydrogen bonding between oxygen of one molecule and hydrogen of another molecule. The extra energy is required to break this molecular bond. Due to this strong association between the hydrogen and oxygen, water molecules become liquid and solid at room temperature. In the absence of hydrogen bond, water would be in gaseous state as that of H2S. This is the reason for H2O being liquid at room temperature while H2S is gas at same temperature while both of the compounds have similar bonding. This is also the reason for anomalous behaviour of water.

Scientist studied that water molecules in ice are arranged in such a way that they form open cage like structure with vacant space due to hydrogen bonding as shown in figure below. With the vacant space, the volume of ice increases. So, as volume has inverse relation with density. Ice has lesser density in compared to water and hence float in water. The figure above shows the arrangement of molecules in ice and water respectively.

Narrated by James Golden, Limbaugh’s long-time call screener and “official show observer” known to listeners as “Bo Snerdley”, the 12-episode series will detail legendary radio host Rush Limbaugh’s award-winning, 30-plus year career in radio that revitalized the spoken-word format, and provided a platform for him to develop and lead modern conservatism in America. Featuring Limbaugh’s own words and never-before-heard stories shared by colleagues, friends and family, the series will give listeners a guided tour of the five-time Marconi Award winner’s historic journey from Cape Girardeau, Mo., to becoming the No. 1 talk radio host in America

The SOURCE® Hydropanel is a technology that incorporates multiple patented inventions alongside proprietary trade secrets, making it a one-of-a-kind renewable water technology that uses the power of the sun to extract clean, pollutant-free drinking water from the air. Collected water is then mineralized for ideal composition and taste, making premium-quality drinking water a readily available resource.

1. Solar energy powers the panel completely off-grid

2. Fans draw in ambient air and push it through a hygroscopic, or water-absorbing material, that traps water vapor from the air

3. The water vapor is extracted and passively condenses into liquid that is collected in the reservoir

4. Minerals are added to make perfect drinking water

This is a head scratcher. Well, not really, but one wonders who is paying whom, or who is threatening whom, in order to keep this particular circus stocked with monkeys.

On December 16 the Department of Energy reversed a decision made nearly 70 years ago by leaders of its predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, to revoke the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientist who led the first group of scientists and engineers at what would eventually become Los Alamos National Laboratory as they built the first atomic bomb. While it comes far too late for Oppenheimer, his family, and his colleagues to appreciate, the McCarthy-era campaign to discredit Oppenheimer is now itself officially discredited as “a flawed process that violated the Commission’s own regulations,” in the words of the DOE’s recent announcement.

Oppenheimer’s story has been told many times by biographers and chroniclers of the Manhattan Project; a new feature film is expected in July 2023. Today, we offer a #ThrowbackThursday post that examines the scant coverage of Oppenheimer’s life and work in the pages of Nuclear News to date and draws on other historical content—and the DOE’s recent move to correct the record—to fill a few of the gaps.

CBS "60 Minutes" sacrifices its credibility in selling apocalyptic pseudoscience

Give The Gift Of A Story Told Through Letters This Winter
Immerse yourself in a brand new storytelling experience full of history, romance and pulse pounding adventure, delivered to your doorstep 2X/Month.

Subscribe for $12/mo and receive 2 beautifully illustrated letters per month for an entire year. Each letter is packed with elements designed to enhance the storytelling experience. Whether it's a telegram, post card, coded message or map - each will draw you deeper into this truly immersive story experience.

Nuclear Newswire is back with the final #ThrowbackThursday post honoring the 80th anniversary of Chicago Pile-1 with offerings from past issues of Nuclear News. On November 17, we took a look at the lead-up to the first controlled nuclear chain reaction and on December 1, the events of December 2, 1942, the day a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction was created and controlled inside a pile of graphite and uranium assembled on a squash court at the University of Chicago’s Stagg Field.

When it comes to choosing which types of energy technology to prioritize and build in order to address climate, we need to stay focused on low-carbon sources, or what we now call “clean” energy. Many people may not realize that all of what is “renewable” is not “clean.”

Renewable energy is defined to focus on types of energy that come from “sources that cannot be depleted or which naturally replenish,” an appealing concept but actually a red herring with respect to carbon emissions. Clearly, some types of renewables are low and non-carbon-emitting energy sources, such as wind and solar. But some renewables are highly emitting sources of energy, namely bioenergy, which includes burning ancient forests, also called biomass energy. //

Lately, the large and growing bioenergy industry has been seen as contributing massively to deforestation. Yet, bioenergy has the burnish of appearing to be “green” because it’s made the political cut and is included as “renewable.” This means that companies cutting down trees have benefitted from the subsidies and incentives intended to increase clean energy. Fortunately, many are starting to be more discerning and are specifically excluding ecologically-damaging types of bioenergy as unsustainable and not worthy of prioritization with climate-focused subsidies.

Politics, lobbying and powerful ideologic preferences are what have brought the term “renewable” into vogue in the first place. This also means that what’s included as renewable differs from place to place. California specifically excludes large hydro power but includes small hydropower stations. Not because large hydro emits more carbon or doesn’t rely on the renewing resource of rain but rather because California policymakers decided dams posed too great an ecologic impact and didn’t want to prioritize building more large dams. In other places, renewables includes large hydro. The fact that the definition of what’s renewable varies from place to place, contributes to confusion and lack of clarity. When folks in California hear that there are Canadian provinces running almost entirely on renewable energy, they may think that means they’ve succeeded in building out lots of wind and solar. In fact, it’s predominantly large hydro—which isn’t counted as “renewable” in California.

Nuclear’s Contributions to Clean Energy are Sidelined

The biggest problem by far with using the term renewable, however, is that it is invariably defined to exclude nuclear power. This causes the entire nuclear industry—which for decades has produced more clean energy than all other low-carbon sources combined—to be discounted and even sometimes excluded. Not surprising since nuclear has long been maligned and even demonized. Even so, the omission of nuclear as a renewable energy source, whether intentional or not, causes significant problems for those trying to use good data to address climate change.

We cannot make good decisions about how to invest in new energy generation if we don’t get good information about where our clean energy is coming from. Most energy agencies now include reports on levels of Renewables, because they are politically potent. They don’t create reports based on carbon intensity (such as by grouping the low-carbon energy technologies and the high-carbon energy technologies). Thus, people are not shown that their nuclear power plants are contributing to the clean energy being produced. This may induce them to think that nuclear is carbon-emitting—which it isn’t. They will think biofuels are a good thing for the climate—they aren’t. They will also think we have less clean energy than we actually do and agree to pay for more renewables. In certain areas, nuclear power plants are not even credited with producing carbon-free energy that counts towards the region’s clean energy goals! //

We need clear and accurate information on climate impacts as we make increasingly large investments in transitioning our energy systems, commiting us to energy projects that will have 20, 30, 50-year and longer life-spans. For this, we definitely should avoid anything that hints at ambiguity and stick with what we mean: clean energy. So, in 2023, let’s work to reject use of the word “renewable” and demand that we focus on the distinction that does matter: carbon intensity. Without clear language and understanding, neither the public nor those negotiating our future world agreements can be expected to make good decisions.