Slashdot Mirror

\http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120909150446.htm

http://inhabitat.com/carnegie-institution-study-finds-there-is-enough-wind-power-to-meet-global-energy-demand/

We can do this, but we have to contain and neutralize the political power of the fossil fuel companies and their ideological compatriots.

There is a reason why massive battery arrays really don't exist ...

Don't tell BOB that...
http://inhabitat.com/bob-americas-biggest-sodium-sulfur-battery-powers-a-texas-town/

Link at the bottom of TFA: http://inhabitat.com/nasa-solar-powered-micro-satellite-will-clean-space-debris/

Also, I initially was thinking how it was kind of cool that he was able to build a satellite that he actually intends to launch, even if it's not especially useful. C'mon, how many of us started coding with "Hello World" programs? IMHO, this is kind of like that.

Then I RTFA'd (don't revoke my /. membership card!). Maybe it's just the author's tone and Song really is a cool guy, but in the article, he just came off...kinda pretentious, y'know? <shrug> Whatever. As others have noted, it will probably deorbit soon enough, and if he can drum up $100K to launch the thing, more power to him, I guess.

Don't know where you think you got your information on where pump hydro can work; Lewiston is a pump hydro at Niagara Falls... if you've ever visited the Buffalo area that's where the midwest begins. It's flat. The topology needed could be found in probably every state in the country (about 200 feet of head). That reservoir is almost entirely a man made creation (earth berms).

Pump hydro needs 1.3 MWh for every 1 MWh returned to the grid later. That is true end to end efficiency. It's comparable to any battery in efficiency, but is several orders of magnitude cheaper than batteries. We just LEM'd (life extension and maintenance) our pump hydro plant (16GWh delivered at 1.2GW) after 40 years in service at a cost of $135M.

http://www.nypa.gov/press/2010/100610a.html

Probably this plant was say $1.3Bn one time cost to build in 2012 dollars (based on Bath County being 50% bigger at $1.7Bn); I know we were about ~$100M in 1970. That's a one time cost... since we pump and gen we don't develop silting issues. We cost $11M to run annually, because we're a bureaucracy. We could be run full auto or at a much lower staff. Still, that's 16GWh at >$.001/Wh annually. This is why global capacity of pump hydro is increasingly quickly in areas with lots of renewables (the EU is adding about 30% more capacity by 2020).

But anyway, there's also molten salt Stirling engine solar, which can't ramp (because of heat constraints), and in effect can run all night... eliminating the need for any external storage.
http://inhabitat.com/nevadas-new-molten-salt-solar-plant-will-produce-power-long-after-the-sun-sets/

First there was never any realistic suggestion of 4000mph, I think he made it up as a premise to write his fluff article.
The story is about as thin on science or facts as your typical comic book.

If you could achieve 400mph that would be sufficient. Nobody has seriously suggested 4000mph land based travel.

400mph tube trains would allow you to have fixed stations supplying the propulsive power, and the mag-lev or air-suspension engineering can easily handle any defects that would affect the ride at that speed, or at least detect them before they became serious issues

However, what remains to be seen is if the cost of building the tubes is worth the hassle, vs more conventional electrical powered surface trains.
After all there is no free lunch, and removing the air from in front of the train while pumping it in behind induces some rather huge air movement requirements, and inefficiencies in that process may well be higher than more conventional electric trains pushing air out of the way.

The problem we have in the US with high speed trains is our rail system is beat to crap by freight trains, meaning our trains can't go very fast. Other countries tend to use new and separate facilities for passenger and freight. Even Amtrak is starting to gear up for high speed rail, but it is dependent on private railroads for track. But laying new track, or improving existing track is far cheaper than building tubes all over the country.

In short, this article sets up the straw man and knocks it down very handily, but the fact of the matter is this was never seriously a contender for mass transit.

My neighbourhood has been a construction zone for about two years as old apartment blocks are ripped down and shiny new ones erected, all with requisite upgrades to infrastructure necessary to support denser settlements. This involves the use of diggers to create trenches, barriers to prevent seepage and pumps running 24/7 to keep flooding minimised. Water (including central heating or stadsverwarming - municipal hot water), sewage, power, gas and telecoms are all laid down in their respective tracks, covered and never paid attention to.

The only time cables or poles are visible is when their function specifically requires elevation, such as overhead power for trains and trams, traffic signals and street lighting and, of course, purpose-built camera poles.

A very interesting interview explores the approach taken here for water management, and the last photo on page one (although unfortunately low-res) illustrates the effect - not a pole or cable in sight. It's actually quite a shock to visit Miami (I was there in March) and see how blighted the average street is.

Wonder if this is a part of an lead-in on the research.

Looks like WYU is sitting on a ton of patents around spider silk technologies.

Nicer pictures of this article can be found at http://inhabitat.com/genetically-modified-silkworms-spin-super-strong-spider-silk-for-bandages-and-bulletproof-vests/

Right people but wrong answer;

If just 0.3% of the Saharan Desert was used for a concentrating solar plant, it would produce enough power to provide all of Europe with clean renewable energy. That is why 20 blue chip German companies are gathering together next month to discuss plans and investments to create such a massive project. Both the meeting and project are being promoted by the Desertec Foundation , which is proposing to erect 100 GW of concentrating solar power plants throughout Northern Africa. World’s Largest Solar Project Planned for Saharan Desert

,
considering that Libya exports about 1.8 million barrels per day verses Every year, each square kilometre of desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. I'd say Libyan open desert is worth much more than it's oil.

This seems to provide more information: http://inhabitat.com/bnkr-arquitectura-reveals-plans-for-an-incredible-underground-skyscraper-in-mexico-city/bnrk-earthscraper11/?extend=1

Over the past few decades, Mexico City has seen an enormous population boom. Though the steady influx of people is great, the city center is in desperate need of more office, retail, and living space. However, because of Mexico City’s historical significance, federal and local law prohibit the destruction of historical buildings (which is nearly everything) and have placed strict height regulations on new structures, keeping them shorter than eight stories. Thus, with nowhere to go, BNKR decided to invert a massive building design that digs deep into the heart of the city.

The first 10 stories of the structure will be a Pre-Columbian museum. The glass ceiling will allow people walking through the plaza to enjoy the artifacts below as well. The next 10 stories will be for retail and housing. These floors were put below the museum so people would have to travel through it and explore the history of the city they would perhaps otherwise ignore. The following 35 floors will be office spaces.

The whole design boasts a massive central void that allows natural light and ventilation to flow through every single floor. The “Earth Lobbies” on every 10th level also helps keep the building air fresh and clean, with enormous plant beds and vertical gardens filtering air toxins and producing more oxygen. These lobbies also serve as an open and clean communal area to break up and brighten the structure.

The very bottom floors of the Earthscraper are for all of the technical parts of the building. A water turbine generator pushes water into the exterior wall pumps and recycles used and clean water for the building’s facilities while also powering most of the electricity.

Named the Zocalo, the 190,000 square foot city center plaza is the ideal spot for an earthscraper. Surrounded by monuments like the Metropolitan Cathedral, National Palace, and Constitution Square, as well as a massive underground subway station, it is one of the most heavily trafficked sites of the city. BNKR’s design allows for the historical aesthetics of the plaza to remain while a bustling eco-center hums underground.

...compared to an electric vehicle. I'd be more much interested if it could travel 155 Miles on a gallon of biofuel.

Like this?

Solar cells are potentially made from carbon :
graphene - http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/carbon-based-solar-cells/
or carbon nanotubes - http://www.bitsofscience.org/solar-cell-carbon-nano-energy-3418/
http://inhabitat.com/carbon-nanotubes-could-create-better-solar-cells/

The other technologies like wind turbines and those steaming solutions are just alternative green solutions to solar cells that are often cheaper. When the solar cells are going to continue to get cheaper like they are and no new alternative pops out, then they will probably be the prefferable choice of green energy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/20/solar-panel-price-drop
Their co-existence with new ways of storing electricity would make them even more practical.
New cheaper ways for making hydrogen:
http://www.gizmag.com/fukai-hydrogen-extraction-process/16674/
or carbon based supercapacitors?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512150731.htm
My point is, that there are actually new advancements in every horizon, which make this article a bit outdated.

Cri-Cri electric plane ;-)

Solar doesn't produce anything at night.

Don't limit yourself to solar panels. They have solar collectors that concentrate energy onto molten salt that never cools. Energy is added during the day but small amounts of heat are used to power turbines throughout the day/night.

http://inhabitat.com/worlds-first-molten-salt-solar-plant-produces-power-at-night/

And it isn't even the coolest train-related article on that site. Check out the one on moving platforms

Actually it's "London to New York" intercontinental continuous rail. I know, this is crazy, but theoretically possible. They are showing this especially in one of those pictures on that website.

The map of the rail on Inhabitats' website:
http://inhabitat.com/russia-green-lights-65-billion-siberia-alaska-rail-and-tunnel-to-bridge-the-bering-strait/siberian-alaska-railway-2/

Check out this image:
http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/08/The-Secret-of-the-Fibonacci-Sequence-in-Trees-3.jpg

He's used 18 cells on the tree, but 10 in the flat array. So an increase of 80% in cell numbers results in an increase of 20-50% in yield. I don't see a massive future for this.

It looks like he may have twenty on the tree and ten on each side of the the array.

Someone else also pointed out something below that I missed because the image didn't load on my first read-through:

18 cells on the tree. Only 10 on his supposed "control" set.

SCIENCE FAIL.

Check out this image: http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/08/The-Secret-of-the-Fibonacci-Sequence-in-Trees-3.jpg

He's used 18 cells on the tree, but 10 in the flat array. So an increase of 80% in cell numbers results in an increase of 20-50% in yield. I don't see a massive future for this.

Did you read it here?

If so, apparently, we are the only two.

And still, a year later, no significant discussion of the uplink. Not much if a WiFi replacement if it's one-way, is it?

Honestly, /. is drifting into the mediocraty. One more upgrade, and slashcode/CSS/javascript will make it entirely useless for all but the browser snobs.

http://inhabitat.com/obama-gives-nasa-2-4-billion-to-study-climate-change/ Why are liberals so anti-science? They don't like GMO food, despite no scientific evidence it's harmful, they don't like nuclear power, don't like research on racial genetics and intelligence etc etc. And now they cancelled the space shuttle to give more handouts to fraudulent climate scientists.

http://inhabitat.com/obama-gives-nasa-2-4-billion-to-study-climate-change/

Just in case anyone is wondering where the money went.

Obama Gives Nasa $2.4 Billion to Study Climate Change Oh really? Seems that 2.4 billion couldn't launched about... 5 shuttles.

Visited a beautiful bookstore in the south of the Netherlands a few weeks back -- located in a redecorated church it is the best possible place to have a bookstore. It has a great feel to it.

But its likely not going to last , last I heard the company has payment problems -- shame really.

Same AC here. NASA is working on hydroponics. I can't find the link I remember, but there was something the size of a double-wide trailer created over 15 years ago that could support 80% of the nutrients necessary for a crew of three.

Here's detail on a recent ISS experiment for validating one type of growing technology (Lada-VPU-P3R). It looks like they've grown barley. What's next? Space beer?

I love renewable, clean energy, I do, but I wish journalists remembered enough junior school level mathematics to understand why technology like this will not be replacing coal, oil, and nuclear power any time soon. This is a positive step forward, but lets not pretend it's going to solve the looming energy crisis.

Lets do some back-of-the-envelope maths to understand why:

The specs of the Oyster 2 say that it generates a peak output of 800kW and has a length of 26 meters. Of course, you can't put them exactly side-by-side, not all locations are suitable, and 800kW is the maximum burst power output, not the average power, but lets just use optimistic numbers for the moment.

I can't find power usage numbers for Scotland, but the average citizen of Great Britain uses 5218.2 W total, factoring in indirect energy use (oil, coal, manufacturing, etc...). Multiply that by the population of Scotland, which is apparently 5.2 million people, and you get a reasonable sounding 27 GW of power usage.

This means that the total length of coastline needed to generate that amount of power using technology like the Oyster 2 is: 5218.2 W * 5,200,000 * 26 m / 800,000 W = 882 km.

That doesn't sound too bad relative to Scotland's 11,800 km of coastline, but that's counting every little bay, nook, cranny, and island. The coastline of a country depends on how you measure it. Wave energy comes from big waves created in the ocean, so a much more reasonable estimate for the coastline is the perimeter of a circle with the same area as the land mass. For Scotland, this is a mere 995 km, from which we may as well subtract the 95 km land border with England, leaving 900 km.

This means that the estimate of 882 km of needed wave power generators is 98% of the available coastline. Oops.

Don't believe me? Here's another source that states that the total exploitable power available near the shore (ignoring overheads, inefficiencies, etc...) is 18.5 kW/m, which works out to 16.7 GW. In practice, there's no hope of achieving anywhere near 100% of that. The maths for solar and wind power is similar, for much the same reasons.

The inevitable conclusion of this kind of trivial mathematics is that densely populated countries would have to pave over huge fractions of their land with solar cells, put wind farms on every hilltop, and surround much of their coastline with wave generators to even begin to approach their present power needs, let alone future growth.

Don't think biofuels like ethanol or biodiesel help either, the most efficient plants are only 9% efficient at best, in ideal tropical conditions, and that's not factoring in the energy overheads of fertilizer, harvesting, and conversion!

Meanwhile, a nuclear power plant with an output of 1 GW requires a mere hectare of land area, which is why nations that have leadership with some common sense are planning on building more nuclear power, not less.

On the bright side, I live in Australia, where we have plenty of land, coastline, sunlight, coal, and uranium. This all sounds like someone else's problem to me! 8)

... when a hideous noise, probably a precursor to some major mechanical failure, was hear to emanate from the vicinity of the device. See TFA, page 2 photo.

it raises an important point. not every technology is good. notice how it was found out that gsm signals are confusing and leading to eradication of honeybees.

http://inhabitat.com/its-official-cell-phones-are-killing-bees/

This URL got trimmed. Sorry!

Where does the power come from then!?

The government must now determine how it can make up the difference with renewable energy sources, natural gas and coal-fired plants.

I mean, really? That'll end up being 90% coal at the very least. I love sentiment driven politics, It's crappy, but waaay more interesting.

Does anyone remember this?

If just one percent of the Saharan Desert were covered in concentrating solar panels it would create enough energy to power the entire world.

Solar Energy from Sahara Will Be Imported To Europe Within 5 Years

I've seen a lot of pro-nuclear advocacy on this site, and I feel that people need to have a perspective on what that choice represents. It's opportunity cost. That's a term for when you give up your chances on one side in the pursuit of another. If your choices are poor your loss includes what you did not pursue when you had the chance.

Right now we have gotten wind down to where it has much to offer and very little drawback. Laddermills can provide power 24-7. Offshore windfarms have been heavily studied and show little impact. A better grid could distribute the uneven power effectively. Ribbon generators and windbelts can, in arrays, compete with solar panels.

Where heat is needed we can concentrate solar thermal energy, whether through passive solar buildings, solar towers and troughs which heat molten salts to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit for storage in insulated tanks to drive turbines 24/7. You can even get hot water from running hoses through a compost pile - several compositions yield a proven 140 degree internal temperature and you're getting fertile soil too.

If you do in fact need electricity, solar panels on a microgrid close to their point of demand circumvent our hugely wasteful grid with its losses due to resistance and the unnecessary surplus generated by redundancy of huge, centralized powerplants.

These are not perfect, but when you consider the subsidies fossil fuels and nuclear plants require, the wars being waged to control their supply, and the costs of pollution whether we're paying them now or ignoring it at the peril of future generations, we are being very foolish to waver in the pursuit of a resilient, safe energy supply.

In the words of Bill Maher on offshore wind turbines: "You know what happens when windmills collapse into the sea? A splash."

Supporting links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laddermill
http://www.truth-out.org/wind-energy-can-power-much-east-coast-study-says63637
http://inhabitat.com/windbelt-innovative-generator-to-bring-cheap-wind-power-to-third-world/
http://gliving.com/power-tower-wind-turbines-a-brilliant-idea-in-this-issue-of-metropolis-magazine-may-2009/
http://www.solarreserve.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trough
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-microgrids.html

Space-based isn't even required. Neither are 20 year R&D. Just pave the Sahara with solar panels and you're done. "If just 0.3% of the Saharan Desert was used for a concentrating solar plant, it would produce enough power to provide all of Europe with clean renewable energy."

Yup. That's the from link I thanked ThreePhones for.

I got the quote from the link in the summary. Have a read. It's worth it if you enjoy giving yourself a headache...

I seriously just had to re read it to try and figure out what the hell the author is getting at. I really wonder how anybody found any information in it meaningful enough to submit it to /. in that form. I also wonder how the hell it got past an editor.

There's people designing power plugs that provide and receive power, so you can make your car into a power plant and provide electricity to your house.

I know at least a couple of guys at the University of Delaware working on it.

This has to be one of the most vague articles I have ever read. Here are some things it misses;
1. What pollutants does it purify? Heavy metals in the air would not be effected by a catalyst.
2. How such clothing could be cleaned?
3. How long will the dress be effective?
4. It says two universities were involved. What departments in those universities? Fine Art or Engineering? If it is the Fine Art department I would question the feasibility and effectiveness.

Even the technology as described is questionable. It would take 40 people one minute to 'purify' 8 cubic meters of air. That is a lot of people for a little bit of air.

In the article it says the dress is made with sprayed concrete but actually links to this which is cloth impregnated with concrete. The cloth becomes rigid when water is added and it is allowed to cure. A rigid dress is a sculpture not wearing apparel.

This looks to me like one of many artsy concepts that have little or no basis in science and questionable use as fashion.

Because mirrors are easier than a ginormous magnifying lens.

http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/12/Rice-Solar-Project-CA-2.jpg

Proof I am not just seeing cigars: http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/12/Rice-Solar-Project-CA-3.jpg

Good stuff! They seem to be doing a lot of this in Europe too... There's an entire hostel built into a retired 747 in Sweden:

http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/02/11/reclaimed-jumbo-jet-hotel-in-stockholm/

Older article with links to other related projects:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/creative-recycling-jumbo-hostel.php

First off, where did they get that picture of a bunch of mini-tower machines on steel shelving, each with one Ethernet cable, one power cord, and one console connection, sitting on raised floor? That looks like clip art of some data center circa 1998. Here's the actual Yahoo data center in Lockport, which, as you'd expect, is a big farm of 1U rackmounts. The "chicken coop" design is simply a low-cost prefabricated metal building with lots of ventilation grills. Looks like something ordered out of the Butler Buildings catalog.

Yahoo got $9 million in grants and 10 years of no taxes for this. Yet it will employ only 125 people. Probably less, once it's running.

Lockport is desperate. The big employer in town, Delphi Harrison Thermal Systems (formerly Harrison Radiator) had 6000 employees a decade ago. Now it has 2100, and has been threatened with closure several times.

Sorry, already been done, sort of: Spider Boy

This guy is off his rocker and mixes up "Sustainable Housing" with "Natural Building Materials" and overuse of PV panels.

Sustainable housing provides a way to live well without requiring lots of expensive resource use.

There are many styles of housing with many different construction methods to achieve the goal of Good Living with (Considerably) Less Reliance on Resources.

Resources are things like land, energy, water, construction materials, time, money. Good living means different things to different people - maybe a small modest house with no mortgage, maybe having time for family and friends, maybe living in an architectural masterpiece, maybe fitting in, or standing out.

For me good living always has a party now and then, when I have a big fire, leave the lights on, and rock out.

But most of the time, when I am not thinking, a sustainable house helps me live with need for extra heating or cooling energy, has less need for ongoing maintenance, and doesn't cost me that much.

The easiest way to use less resources is to have a beautiful small house that lasts a long time:
http://goldenbayhideaway.co.nz/abodes/little_greenie
http://tinyhouseblog.com/
http://smalllivingjournal.com/

Beauty can come from use of recycled or natural materials.
Straw: http://www.thelaststrawblog.org/2009/08/bit-bale-walls/
Earth: http://www.shac.org.nz/group/whareuku

And may have wavy lines, and be built slowly and experimentally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthship

Or may be slick and modern:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/07/tiny-home-lives-large/1

Or might be built offsite
http://www.fabprefab.com/fabfiles/fablisthome.htm

And in most cases, sustainable living will mean remodeling existing buildings, and encouraging higher density living - next to friends and culture.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/08/03/clip-on-plant-room-adds-green-space-to-apartment-buildings/

Living more sustainably gives me freedom to innovate, and has nothing to do with forcing me to live in a log, as the author seems to think - at least until that idea strikes my fancy.

-Tim

I recently met the guy who heads the BAC's online Sustainable Design course. It seems good. http://www.the-bac.edu/x350.xml

He got rightly modded down for suggesting that "greenies" are technically ignorant. Quite the opposite: I'm a life scientist, and an overwhelming majority of life scientists is environmentally conscious to some degree. That's because we can see exactly how humanity is screwing itself. One needs to be ignorant not to know or care.

That said, I hate inhabitat as much as you do. They give the green cause a bad name. Not only are they a cesspool of ignorance, they're also sensationalist and in every story, they consistently get one or two facts shamefully wrong. Their target audience probably consists of the handful of hippies and new agers that still haven't gotten their feet to the ground after all those years. Slashdot editors should refuse to post stories that link to them.

On a more fundamental level, the whole premise around which the site is built, design will save the world, is woefully optimistic. Design won't save the world. Not even science & technology will, as long as it's in the hands of the same old greedy bastards. Only changes in society, attitude, life style might change the world. Relying on design, science, technology, god,... to save the world is merely an excuse not to work on the change that 's needed.

http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing
"We bring free and open source software development methodology to the physical world."

I help moderate that list, which ranges over a variety of related topics. There are many other related places you can look at or ask questions at, too; some other links to get started which are often more shelter-related:
    http://www.inhabitat.com/
    http://www.os-house.org/english/os-house/home
    http://ostatic.com/blog/open-source-house-launches-design-competition

Other general resources:
    http://makezine.com/
    http://www.appropedia.org/

I've said it before and I'll say it again: geothermal power is a total failure on all levels.

Oh really? So geothermal doesn't really supply Iceland with approximately 24% of it's electricity? It didn't supply California with 13,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in 2007? Geothermal in Hawaii doesn't provide 20% or 30 MW of the Big Island's electricity? And it doesn't provide the Philippines with 27% electricity? Oh, and MIT scientists are lying when they say GeoThermal to Supply 10% of Energy Demands?

Falcon

... that kind of kills it for me. Any politician making such proclamations must be taken with a pound of salt. Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?

The difference between then and now is that Nevadans didn't want nuclear waste dumped there but once they know about geothermal they probably will want it developed. I don't know how much geothermal energy can be harvested there, TFA does not say and neither does Harry Reid, but according to MIT STUDY: GeoThermal to Supply 10% of Energy Demands "the combined energy of geothermal plants in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada is comparable to all the solar and wind power produced throughout the U.S."

Falcon

'Northern Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.'

Neither the TFA nor Harry Reid back up that claim. Until facts such as how many terawatts geothermal can generate in Nevada versus California and Hawaii then Nevada will remain behind CA and HA in capacity. As for a Saudi Arabia of Geothermal energy, that title belongs to Iceland. However TFA MIT STUDY: GeoThermal to Supply 10% of Energy Demands says:
"You'll be happy to know that the United States is ahead of the rest of the world, being the largest producer of geothermal energy. And, according to Nafi Toksöz, a geophysicist at MIT, the combined energy of geothermal plants in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada is comparable to all the solar and wind power produced throughout the U.S."

Falcon

Oil can be replaced by green tech. First, one could use wind turbines to synthesize oil. Wind turbines are quite cheap, even without subsides - they just produce most electricity when no one is using any. That sounds like a great time to make fuel and plastic. Second, you could do the same thing with nuclear powerplants. Third, one can use arrays of mirrors to heat up trash and produce oil.

I reckon a website displayed on one of these would probably work ok.

what catches my eye is the fact that this is basically blogspam taken from gizmodo. Interesting, no?