Slashdot Mirror

umm.. sekrit?

http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19068/

Given 35kg of hydrogen per acre, and that

http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech-R&D/wtr_16523,295,p1.html?a=f

says that a fuel cell car needs about 5kg per fill up of 350 miles, we're looking at roughly 1750 car miles per acre per day, or, about 640,000 miles per acre year, assuming that you can grow algae year round.

Assuming that the USA has 240 million drivers , driving on average, 11,000 miles per year (wikipedia), then, we're talking about a demand for about a little over 4 million acres of algae. So, this could actually work, and work a lot better than ethanol.

Even a 10% hydrogen conversion efficiency would require only 20 million acres of land, and that's considerably less than the several hundred million acres (more than the area of the USA, to grow enough corn to make ethanol with for fuel).

At $2.8 per Kg, this would be one of the cheapest ways yet to extract hydrogen, but it still leaves the problem of containing it in a vehicle, the cost of building the fuel cell or engine you'd burn it in, and so on. The fact is that gasoline has an incredible energy density by volume, and in absolute terms, it's still very, very cheap.

Something I find rather more promising is the work described in an earlier MIT review article, where bacteria are being modified to make gasoline directly. Just like petroleum-based gasoline, except that it's carbon-neutral, and sulphur-free. We're talking gasoline from anything that E. coli can ferment.

-jcr

Not in commercial production yet but there are several competing technologies
that do at least 40%:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18910/page2/
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18415/

And thank you to the commenters who have done the math: the pay back period is a fairly tricky thing to calculate even if you assume linear functions of time for efficiency decay and money costs and the KWH cost of competing sources like the power co.s

Not in commercial production yet but there are several competing technologies
that do at least 40%:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18910/page2/
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18415/

And thank you to the commenters who have done the math: the pay back period is a fairly tricky thing to calculate even if you assume linear functions of time for efficiency decay and money costs and the KWH cost of competing sources like the power co.s

Thanks, I was wondering about that distinction. Seems like First Solar is already doing some of this though their efficiency is coming in around 9%: http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/19095/?a=f.

I hope somehow that sanity prevails in the trial location. Network Applications Inc filed their case in Lufkin TX.

Lufkin is very long way from anywhere. I live in Dallas TX and Lufkin is a long 3hr 18m trip South and East from here. Yet Network Applications Inc is a Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company. Both Sun and Network Applications Inc are based in California.

Formerly the haven for patent pirates was Marshall TX. The same thing is probably going on in Lufkin TX.

Check out this article. "A Haven for Patent Pirates In one federal court in East Texas, plaintiffs have such an easy time winning patent-infringement lawsuits against big-tech companies that defendants often choose to settle rather than fight."
http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech-Software/ wtr_16280,300,p1.html?a=f

May the company with the best case win,
Jim

Wasn't Google going to do something like this?

Oh, that's right. one of the worst factories ever with regard to the environment; an Integrated Circuit Fab. I like it when hippies talk about how perfect solar is. Let's not forget that we need nasty chemicals like Arsenic to make solar cells.

*ahem ahem*

Berkeley Scientists Synthesize Cheap, Easy-to-Make Ultra-thin Photovoltaic Films
40% efficient solar cells to be used for solar electricity
Titania nanotubes could boost solar cell efficiency
Pink solar cells provide green power on the cheap
Carbon nanotubes could help make nanoparticle-based solar cells more efficient and practical.
Quantum Dots Enables New Advances in Solar Cell Industry

Green and cheap enough for ya?

So wait -- do physical fuzzy dice count as prior art in patent challenge? I thought obviousness was a grounds for dismissal. Although the need for "virtual fuzzy dice" is far from obvious, the patent proposal itself slaps you in the face. I mean, it's the same concept as a bloody "digital" speedometer or fuel guage isn't it? Then again, one could hardly have foreseen the popularity of a "virtual" solitaire. Thank God the US Supreme Court seems to agree

Video and Audio presentations should go with each paper to a reviewing publication if it helps reviewers and laymen. More importantly the reviewers need to be able to remember their primary motivation. To be skeptical in the name of science.

cluge

Here's a direct link without the ad: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19179/?a= f

nope, that's not it. the article it points to is on the same site, but this is the article i was thinking of.

There's something you're missing, but I'm not sure what and am too lazy to guess. Because it's being done. Personally, I think it's WAY cooler than gasoline from sugar. MIT had a demonstration unit scrubbing exhaust from a small powerplant on campus, and growing up algae. They then could squeeze the algae for oil.

See: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18138/

http://www.technologyreview.com/player/07/08/06Sau ser/1.aspx

OMG, tt's yarn! The brain is full of yarn!

Yeah, they stole truly innovative programming techniques like linked list. So they could either license this innovative technology for $x of they could fight the patent which would cost anywhere from $x to $5x. Oh and the cost for fighting would tend towards the higher since the case was filed in the patent friendliest court in the US, good old Marshall, Texas Just the fact of that patent being granted shows how broken the current patent system is.

No. They should have to give up the idiotic patents like the one above. Unfortunately the current system has fostered a climate where 1000's of such patents (I dare say the vast majority) are not only granted but prove profitable for the owners of the patents. The idea of patents was put in the US Constitutions, despite the reservations of most of the framers of the US Constitution, for the exclusive purpose of fostering competition. You need to show me how the current system is in any way fostering innovation because the examples of the current patent system stifling innovation are rife. Until you do that, to bad if some poor little company making money and/or destroying truly innovative companies loses their business model of blackmailing with idiotic patents. The reservations of the founding fathers have been proven more than valid. I'm sure they would be scribbling that little part out if they saw the system as it is today.

You are completely clueless as to the purpose of the patent system. It's not there so some companies can profit from it. No shit some companies profit by being granted a monopoly. But they generally profit by stopping innovation. The whole point of the patent system is supposed to be to stimulate innovation. Until you grasp this fundamental point you'll never see how broken the current system is.

In fast moving tech fields granting monopolies do nothing but stifle innovation because the company holding the monopoly no longer has to innovate to compete.

Face Recognition Vendor Test with actual tests and results.
http://frvt.org/

HowStuffWorks page on face recognition. See page 3 on Surface Texture Analysis to see how changes in face features do not break face recognition using that method. (ie, the distance between your eyes, shape of your eyes, skin texture on cheeks and forehead, etc. are all used to recognize a face.)
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/facial-recogniti on.htm

Brief introduction discussing 2D and 3D face biometrics. Notes how 3D imaging of faces defeats someone using a photo to fake the system.
http://www.3dface.org/home/introduction.html

MIT article talking about face recognition in detail (actually, discusses results of the FRVT 2006 test from first link).
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_a rticle.aspx?id=18796

Also, some of these articles mention "liveness." This is a test where the camera takes multiple images, or is actually a video camera where every frame is analyzed (yes, you can analyze almost every frame in decent quality video for faces on a regular desktop PC). The algorithm looks for blinking eyes, slight movements in head position, etc, to ensure that the subject is "alive" and not a photo/fake.

Last note, the Surface Texture Analysis method can distinguish between identical twins. One company, Identix, has publicly tested this and challenged twins to present themselves to be identified. The system successfully identified each twin differently from the other. Even considering makeup, etc. (I can't find a good link for the test results, though there are several statements by Identix that their software ABIS 3.0 can distinguish between identical twins.)

In fact, roof top concentrators look quite practical: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18718/. I wish the original article had given a diagram of how their system is laidout, but it definitely mentioned rooftop use.

You won't be all that competitive is you are producing 11% efficient solar today. I think perhaps you are thinking that most solar panels already sold have a lower efficiency. One company is selling at $3.00/watt for lower efficency panels as compared with $4.20/watt for most. You have to compete on price to offset the higher installation costs of lower efficeincy panels.
--
Solar power you can afford: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

From DSL/Broadband Reports' security forum thread, robotic flies created.

Most single storey houses have enough roof space to allow current silicon panels to both power the house (under net metering) and charge a plug-in hybrid. It does not take acres. If you have a taller house, you might need some yard space since you've got more floor per unit roof to power. Polymer panels may hit 10% efficiency befor to long. The current record is 6.5%http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19044/, so there is not all that far to go to catch up with 16-20% efficient silicon.
--
Sprout silicon leaves: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

This recent article mentions the efficiency factor is getting better and it has tried this method out:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19044/
Unlike the theoretical method mentioned by slash dot.
Disclaimer: I am a graduate of UCSB so I am biased.

These guys have developed a microbial synfuel that could possibly be used as the blend fuel.

In the lab, their fuel has a higher energy density than Jet-A and a lower freezing point: -57C as opposed to -40C.

The technology's being backed by Virgin Biofuels and Boeing but they readily admit that they're targetting the product as a blend stock. They can't produce enough for it to be used as a pure fuel and I'm guessing the price would be up there too.

I agree with this guy. As we all know, the computers, like our cars, are alive. That's why we talk to them. That's why Apple made design the centerpiece of their HDLC and SDLC: see the piece by the MIT guy here: http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18621/page 1/ Does that make me a mac fanboy? Maybe, though I'd read this before drawing any conclusions: http://www.dailyrevolution.net/2007/07/geek-bless- america.html

MIT is working on a battery that uses a virus. This could win. imagine a battery 1 inch in size and paper thin but could be more powerful than today's lithium Ion batteries. check the article out


http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_16673, 296,p1.html

to avoid the roadblock ad: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18986/?a= f

To anwser my own question, I found a better article:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18986/

Ok still a long way to go but here is a link to a MIT Review article with panels getting over 40% and hopefully expected to get up to 50% http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18910/

It's great that some sort of electromagnetic field might have a therapeutic value against brain tumors. But this news doesn't decrease the concern about cell phone/Wi-Fi radiation and brain tumors...quite the opposite...since something that has ANY demonstrated effect can obviously have a negative effect as well. The cell phone industry has maintained for years that there could not possibly be any effect on a living brain of cell phone radiation, even in the face of studies showing increases in tumors as well as negative cognitive effects. Now, perhaps, they will say that there are effects...but only beneficial ones...not those nasty bad ones.

I came across this page on the subject of Running Cars on Hydrogen Made from Starch. The page's subtitle is A new way to make hydrogen from corn or potatoes could make fuel-cell vehicles more practical. They provide some links, and have a discussion area.

IMHO, although this might work, I doubt the technology could be scaled to meet any substantial need, such as we now have with Gasoline.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion. I don't care if you're Hindu, Voodoo, Greek (pagan), Seikh, Muslim, Wiccan, or Catholic--evolution has nothing to do with religion.

If you decide to ignore all the evidence out there that supports evolution (including its laboratory use, and as a basis for creating new technology), that's your choice, but realize you lose credibility with everyone else that decides not to ignore the evidence.

Also, Catholicism supports theistic evolution. Even Pope Benedict's more recent comments on the situation weren't actually against evolution in spite of what many have said, but rather the use of evolution to push atheism.

Peacefully co-exist? Sure, but you and everyone else that says evolution isn't science should just be honest and say that you don't really believe in science, instead of hiding behind some pseudo-science like ID.

I've heard similar ideas, but just because I've heard them doesn't make them true; most such stories sound like another version of old men waving their canes and telling those damn kids to get off their lawn. This article from Ars reports on an Irish report essentially agreeing with what you say, but Ars also cites a Toronto report contradicting the idea that young people are losing their ability to spell based on IM.

This article from Technology Review argues that the increasing pervasiveness of writing in students' lives is actually improving their language skills rather than the opposite. Given these contrasting viewpoints, I'm not sure what is the "right" answer, but I bring a healthy amount of skepticism to any claim like the one you're repeating. Most people I know spell fairly well if they care or if what they're doing is important and don't if the inverse is true. I'm part of the "txting" generation, but as my website probably indicates, I'm probably a reasonably proficient writer. (Anecdotes, blah blah, yes, I'm aware, but they help make the point I was raising above).

i just finished reading this on another article. what a coincidink!

/me shoots self in the face for saying coincidink

tip the screen around all willy-nilly like. it'd be fun for emulating those old tilt-the-thingy-and-get-the-ball-in-the-whole games.

Here is a set of concentrators that run on a single motor. This might reduce PV cost by half though I'd worry about using this where there is snow and ice: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18718/. This is coming to market this year. They are also working on a 2-D array.
--
Get afforadable solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

inspire the troops. MS acted like bullies, that doesn't win you friends. They also didn't really design for the user. That is why Apple has such a following. Apple's look was soft, pastel and rounded. MS's look was primary colors and sharp edges.

Since XP they have paid attention to the look of the interface, but it looks cartoonish. Ugly and annoying is not a good marketing strategy. Kudos to them for trying rid Windows of the ugly interface. They still need to work on the annoying.

Here's an article that spells out Apple's design philosophy:
from Technology Review

Whats better than a hybrid?
Building a better hybrid.

In particular a plugin hybrid electric vehicle.
Or in this case a prius with a bigger battery.
(Although a fully electric car, with the bare minimum for a gasoline generator is more ideal)

This study found that in regions where electricity comes primarily from natural gas, a plugin hybrid puts up 3x less CO2 emmisions.
And in the least green region of the United States powered almost entirely by coal.
They found that the CO2 emmisions per mile were practically idential to a normal hybrid.
http://www.aceee.org/pubs/t061.htm

Whats more, we could replace 84% of the US fleet of cars with electric, and not need to build even 1 new power plant by leveraging downtime grid usage. (More fuel use, but no new infrastructure needed)
http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2006/12/plu gin_nation_g.html

Whats more, by having the distributed battery network stabalize the grid capacity.
We could actually make the grid far more reliable than it is today.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17930/
http://news.com.com/2100-11392_3-6174672.html

And there's some pretty sexy electric cars on the way.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png

_

Cool part about all this?
You can get electricity from the grid at a cost similar to 50 cents a gallon.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/plugins

And it's the perfect, "flexible fuel", since electricity can come from practically anything.
Unlike Ethanol for instance, which might be even worse than gasoline in pollution.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/ethanol2
http://www.greyfalcon.net/ethanol3
And biodiesel, which could potentially make Indonesia/Malaysia put up more CO2 than China.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/biofuel

Best part about this from an environmental perspective, is that combines two big problems into one.
So all you have to do is green the grid, to green everything.

And that can readily be provided by printable solar panels
http://www.greyfalcon.net/pv

And geothermal using inexpensive super powered electric drilling motors
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1206
http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/well_to _wheels.html
http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1088

Linked below is an interesting example:

A Sponge's Guide to Nano-Assembly
A new way to create complex nanostructures will improve batteries and solar panels.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/16959/

i remember this. good to see it's making its way to the market.

The OLPC unit does not have a wind-up crank. It uses an ordinary battery. There is a cranked generator available as an accessory, but it was unfeasible to integrate. Most kids will be charging their machines from the grid (at school, if they don't have power at home.) (Technology Review)

and once you capture the CO2, you can use it to make gasoline.

;-)

The MIT Technology Review has just posted an article titled The Case for Burying Charcoal. It showed up on my RSS reader shortly after I posted my comment.

(Because dangit, I wanna invisibility cloak too.)

"Juries in East Texas, unlike those in Houston, Dallas or Austin, are much less likely to have a member with any technical training or education, which exacerbates the problem from the defense perspective, but makes East Texas federal courts an attractive venue for would-be plaintiffs, who know that the jury will, instead, gravitate toward softer or superficial issues that are difficult to predict." http://www.wsgr.com/news/PDFs/09202004_patentpirat es.pdf

Maybe they should have hired Erin Brockovich to do their research.

dont look at the red wine though. red things make you stupid.

MIT publishes a magazine called Technology Review, which I have been a reader of for some time now. There came a time a few years back when they required a subscription to view online material, much like Scientific American and many other magazines do. This was after the school had begun their OpenCourseWare program, and I thought it seemed contrary to where the school was headed. I emailed the magazine and told them essentially that. I have no idea if my email played a part (I'm sure it was one of many similar emails--Technology Review really is a great magazine (one I'd be willing to pay for if I wasn't so darn poor...I'm a student)). But anyway, within a few days, the content was all freely accessable again.

I found this article + graph on CO2/Temperature levels over the past 400,000 years quite interesting. Puts the current CO2 levels in perspective.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx? id=17057&ch=biztech
http://www.technologyreview.com/articlefiles/clima techart.pdf

I found this article + graph on CO2/Temperature levels over the past 400,000 years quite interesting. Puts the current CO2 levels in perspective.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx? id=17057&ch=biztech
http://www.technologyreview.com/articlefiles/clima techart.pdf

Couple that with these nanometer-scale silicon lasers (made with standard chip fabrication), and Moore's law will definitely survive. Our current tech will look like molasses when these are coupled.

Imagine fiber optic motherboard traces with chips made out of graphene. It might to move us to counting in terehertz.