Slashdot Mirror


Orbiting Lasers for Hydrogen Power

DerekLyons writes: "Yahoo is carrying a story about a Japanese scientist who plans to use giant orbiting lasers to extract H2 from seawater. The interesting part of the scheme is that design uses solar pumped lasers, which avoid the loss of efficiency (and increased launch weight) from powering the laser with electricity from solar cells. Is the way to finally break the main dilemma of the hydrogen economy? (That it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you gain in using it.)"

402 comments

  1. Backup Plan by Bartmoss · · Score: 1, Funny

    And if that doesn't work, we can always use the Lasers to take care of spammers.

    1. Re:Backup Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? You don't need to use lasers on shit to extract the methane.

    2. Re:Backup Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only there were a way to get Quad damage with that too.

    3. Re:Backup Plan by Shifman's+Idol · · Score: 1

      Before they get started they should know that 10 megawatts is a measure of power, not energy.

    4. Re:Backup Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know if we don't uses for any thing else we can fix kramers noise or remove some of the fat off of oprah

  2. IMPORTANT - The Linux Gay Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.

    What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

    • Linus Torvalds is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
    • Richard M. Stallman, spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
    • Alan Cox is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

    I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

    Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail, which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

    As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

    And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo slut!

    Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children. To quote from the article linked:

    'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

    Is this why you were touching your penis in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

    We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and copyright of posters to Slashdot by gathering together their postings and publishing them en masse to further his twisted and manipulative journalistic agenda.

    Sick, disgusting antichristian perverts, the lot of them.

    In addition, many of the Linux distributions (a 'distribution' is the most common way to spread the faggots' wares) are run by faggot groups. The Slackware distro is named after the 'Slack-wear' fags wear to allow easy access to the anus for sexual purposes. Furthermore, Slackware is a close anagram of claw arse, a reference to the homosexual practise of anal fisting. The Mandrake product is run by a group of French faggot satanists, and is named after the faggot nickname for the vibrator. It was also chosen because it is an anagram for dark amen and ram naked, which is what they do.

    Another 'distro,' (abbrieviated as such because it sounds a bit like 'Disco,' which is where homosexuals preyed on young boys in the 1970s), is Debian, an anagram of in a bed, which could be considered innocent enough (after all, a bed is both where we sleep and pray), until we realise what other names Debian uses to describe their foul wares. 'Woody' is obvious enough, being a term for the erect male penis, glistening with pre-cum. But far sicker is the phrase 'Frozen Potato' that they use. This filthy term, again found in the secret homosexual 'Sauce Code,' refers to the solo homosexual practice of defecating into a clear polythene bag, shaping the turd into a crude approximation of the male phallus, then leaving it in the freezer overnight until it becomes solid. The practitioner then proceeds to push the frozen 'potato' up his own rectum, squeezing it in and out until his tight young balls erupt in a screaming orgasm.

    And Red Hat is secret homo slang for the tip of a penis that is soaked in blood from a freshly violated underage ringpiece.

    The fags have even invented special tools to aid their faggotry! For example, the 'supermount' tool was devised to allow deeper penetration, which is good for fags because it gives more pressure on the prostate gland. 'Automount' is used, on the other hand, because Linux users are all fat and gay, and need to mount each other automatically.

    The depths of their depravity can be seen in their use of 'mount points.' These are, plainly speaking, the different points of penetration. The main one is obviously /anus, but there are others. Militant fags even say 'there is no /opt mount point' because for these dirty perverts faggotry is not optional but a way of life.

    More evidence is in the fact that Linux users say how much they love `man`, even going so far as to say that all new Linux users (who are in fact just innocent heterosexuals indoctrinated by the gay propaganda) should try out `man`. In no other system do users boast of their frequent recourse to a man.

    Other areas of the system also show Linux's inherit gayness. For example, people are often told of the 'FAQ,' but how many innocent heterosexual Windows users know what this actually means. The answer is shocking: Faggot Anal Quest: the voyage of discovery for newly converted fags!

    Even the title 'Slashdot' originally referred to a homosexual practice. Slashdot of course refers to the popular gay practice of blood-letting. The Slashbots, of course are those super-zealous homosexuals who take this perversion to its extreme by ripping open their anuses, as seen on the site most popular with Slashdot users, the depraved work of Satan, http://www.eff.org/.

    The editors of Slashdot also have homosexual names: 'Hemos' is obvious in itself, being one vowel away from 'Homos.' But even more sickening is 'Commander Taco' which sounds a bit like 'Commode in Taco,' filthy gay slang for a pair of spreadeagled buttocks that are caked with excrement. (The best form of lubrication, they insist.) Sometimes, these 'Taco Commodes' have special 'Salsa Sauce' (blood from a ruptured rectum) and 'Cheese' (rancid flakes of penis discharge) toppings. And to make it even worse, Slashdot runs on Apache!

    The Apache server, whose use among fags is as prevalent as AIDS, is named after homosexual activity -- as everyone knows, popular faggot band, the Village People, featured an Apache Indian, and it is for him that this gay program is named.

    And that's not forgetting the use of patches in the Linux fag world -- patches are used to make the anus accessible for repeated anal sex even after its rupture by a session of fisting.

    To summarise: Linux is gay. 'Slash -- Dot' is the graphical description of the space between a young boy's scrotum and anus. And BeOS is for hermaphrodites and disabled 'stumpers.'

    FEEDBACK

    What worries me is how much you know about what gay people do. I'm scared I actually read this whole thing. I think this post is a good example of the negative effects of Internet usage on people. This person obviously has no social life anymore and had to result to writing something as stupid as this. And actually take the time to do it too. Although... I think it was satire.. blah.. it's early. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    Well, the only reason I know all about this is because I had the misfortune to read the Linux 'Sauce code' once. Although publicised as the computer code needed to get Linux up and running on a computer (and haven't you always been worried about the phrase 'Monolithic Kernel'?), this foul document is actually a detailed and graphic description of every conceivable degrading perversion known to the human race, as well as a few of the major animal species. It has shocked and disturbed me, to the point of needing to shock and disturb the common man to warn them of the impending homo-calypse which threatens to engulf our planet.

    You must work for the government. Trying to post the most obscene stuff in hopes that slashdot won't be able to continue or something, due to legal woes. If i ever see your ugly face, i'm going to stick my fireplace poker up your ass, after it's nice and hot, to weld shut that nasty gaping hole of yours. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    Doesn't it give you a hard-on to imagine your thick strong poker ramming it's way up my most sacred of sphincters? You're beyond help, my friend, as the only thing you can imagine is the foul penetrative violation of another man. Are you sure you're not Eric Raymond? The government, being populated by limp-wristed liberals, could never stem the sickening tide of homosexual child molesting Linux advocacy. Hell, they've given NAMBLA free reign for years!

    you really should post this logged in. i wish i could remember jebus's password, cuz i'd give it to you. -- mighty jebus, Slashdot

    Thank you for your kind words of support. However, this document shall only ever be posted anonymously. This is because the 'Open Sauce' movement is a sham, proposing homoerotic cults of hero worshipping in the name of freedom. I speak for the common man. For any man who prefers the warm, enveloping velvet folds of a woman's vagina to the tight puckered ringpiece of a child. These men, being common, decent folk, don't have a say in the political hypocrisy that is Slashdot culture. I am the unknown liberator.

    ROLF LAMO i hate linux FAGGOTS -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    We shouldn't hate them, we should pity them for the misguided fools they are... Fanatical Linux zeal-outs need to be herded into camps for re-education and subsequent rehabilitation into normal heterosexual society. This re-education shall be achieved by forcing them to watch repeats of Baywatch until the very mention of Pamela Anderson causes them to fill their pants with healthy heterosexual jism.

    Actually, that's not at all how scrotal inflation works. I understand it involves injecting sterile saline solution into the scrotum. I've never tried this, but you can read how to do it safely in case you're interested. (Before you moderate this down, ask yourself honestly -- who are the real crazies -- people who do scrotal inflation, or people who pay $1000+ for a game console?) -- double_h, Slashdot

    Well, it just goes to show that even the holy Linux 'sauce code' is riddled with bugs that need fixing. (The irony of Jon Katz not even being able to inflate his scrotum correctly has not been lost on me.) The Linux pervert elite already acknowledge this, with their queer slogan: 'Given enough arms, all rectums are shallow.' And anyway, the PS2 sucks major cock and isn't worth the money. Intellivision forever!

    dude did u used to post on msnbc's nt bulletin board now that u are doing anti-gay posts u also need to start in with anti-black stuff too c u in church -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    For one thing, whilst Linux is a cavalcade of queer propaganda masquerading as the future of computing, NT is used by people who think nothing better of encasing their genitals in quick setting plaster then going to see a really dirty porno film, enjoying the restriction enforced onto them. Remember, a wasted arousal is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church. Clearly, the only god-fearing Christian operating system in existence is CP/M -- The Christian Program Monitor. All computer users should immediately ask their local pastor to install this fine OS onto their systems. It is the only route to salvation.

    Secondly, this message is for every man. Computers know no colour. Not only that, but one of the finest websites in the world is maintained by a Black Man . Now fuck off you racist donkey felcher.

    And don't forget that slashdot was written in Perl, which is just too close to 'Pearl Necklace' for comfort.... oh wait; that's something all you heterosexuals do.... I can't help but wonder how much faster the trolls could do First-Posts on this site if it were redone in PHP... I could hand-type dynamic HTML pages faster than Perl can do them. -- phee, Slashdot

    Although there is nothing unholy about the fine heterosexual act of ejaculating between a woman's breasts, squirting one's load up towards her neck and chin area, it should be noted that Perl (standing for Pansies Entering Rectums Locally) is also close to 'Pearl Monocle,' 'Pearl Nosering,' and the ubiquitous 'Pearl Enema.'

    One scary thing about Perl is that it contains hidden homosexual messages. Take the following code: LWP::Simple -- It looks innocuous enough, doesn't it? But look at the line closely: There are two colons next to each other! As Larry 'Balls to the' Wall would openly admit in the Perl Documentation, Perl was designed from the ground up to indoctrinate it's programmers into performing unnatural sexual acts -- having two colons so closely together is clearly a reference to the perverse sickening act of 'colon kissing,' whereby two homosexual queers spread their buttocks wide, pressing their filthy torn sphincters together. They then share small round objects like marbles or golfballs by passing them from one rectum to another using muscle contraction alone. This is also referred to in programming 'circles' as 'Parameter Passing.'

    And PHP stands for Perverted Homosexual Penetration. Didn't you know?

    Thank you for your valuable input on this. I am sure you will be never forgotten. BTW: Did I mention that this could be useful in terraforming Mars? Mars rulaa. -- Eimernase, Slashdot

    Well, I don't know about terraforming Mars, but I do know that homosexual Linux Advocates have been probing Uranus for years.

    That's inspiring. Keep up the good work, AC. May God in his wisdom grant you the strength to bring the plain honest truth to this community, and make it pure again. Yours, Cerberus. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    *sniff* That brings a tear to my eye. Thank you once more for your kind support. I have taken faith in the knowledge that I am doing the Good Lord's work, but it is encouraging to know that I am helping out the common man here.

    However, I should be cautious about revealing your name 'Cerberus' on such a filthy den of depravity as Slashdot. It is a well known fact that the 'Kerberos' documentation from Microsoft is a detailed manual describing, in intimate, exacting detail, how to sexually penetrate a variety of unwilling canine animals; be they domesticated, wild, or mythical. Slashdot posters have taken great pleasure in illegally spreading this documentation far and wide, treating it as an 'extension' to the Linux 'Sauce Code,' for the sake of 'interoperability.' (The slang term they use for nonconsensual intercourse -- their favourite kind.)

    In fact, sick twisted Linux deviants are known to have LAN parties, (Love of Anal Naughtiness, needless to say.), wherein they entice a stray dog, known as the 'Samba Mount,' into their homes. Up to four of these filth-sodden blasphemers against nature take turns to plunge their erect, throbbing, uncircumcised members, conkers-deep, into the rectum, mouth, and other fleshy orifices of the poor animal. Eventually, the 'Samba Mount' collapses due to 'overload,' and needs to be 'rebooted.' (i.e., kicked out into the street, and left to fend for itself.) Many Linux users boast about their 'uptime' in such situations.

    Inspiring stuff! If only all trolls were this quality! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    If only indeed. You can help our brave cause by moderating this message up as often as possible. I recommend '+1, Underrated,' as that will protect your precious Karma in Metamoderation. Only then can we break through the glass ceiling of Homosexual Slashdot Culture. Is it any wonder that the new version of Slashcode has been christened 'Bender'???

    If we can get just one of these postings up to at least '+1,' then it will be archived forever! Others will learn of our struggle, and join with us in our battle for freedom!

    It's pathetic you've spent so much time writing this. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    I am compelled to document the foulness and carnal depravity that is Linux, in order that we may prepare ourselves for the great holy war that is to follow. It is my solemn duty to peel back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.

    As with any great open-source project, you need someone asking this question, so I'll do it. When the hell is version 2.0 going to be ready?!?! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    I could make an arrogant, childish comment along the lines of 'Every time someone asks for 2.0, I won't release it for another 24 hours,' but the truth of the matter is that I'm quite nervous of releasing a 'number two,' as I can guarantee some filthy shit-slurping Linux pervert would want to suck it straight out of my anus before I've even had chance to wipe.

    I desperately want to suck your monolithic kernel, you sexy hunk, you. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    I sincerely hope you're Natalie Portman.

    Dude, nothing on slashdot larger than 3 paragraphs is worth reading. Try to distill the message, whatever it was, and maybe I'll read it. As it is, I have to much open source software to write to waste even 10 seconds of precious time. 10 seconds is all its gonna take M$ to whoop Linux's ass. Vigilence is the price of Free (as in libre -- from the fine, frou frou French language) Software. Hack on fellow geeks, and remember: Friday is Bouillabaisse day except for heathens who do not believe that Jesus died for their sins. Those godless, oil drench, bearded sexist clowns can pull grits from their pantaloons (another fine, fine French word) and eat that. Anyway, try to keep your message focused and concise. For concision is the soul of derision. Way. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    What the fuck?

    I've read your gay conspiracy post version 1.3.0 and I must say I'm impressed. In particular, I appreciate how you have managed to squeeze in a healthy dose of the latent homosexuality you gay-bashing homos tend to be full of. Thank you again. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    Well bugger me!

    ooooh honey. how insecure are you!!! wann a little massage from deare bruci. love you -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    Fuck right off!

    IMPORTANT: This message needs to be heard (Not HURD, which is an acronym for 'Huge Unclean Rectal Dilator') across the whole community, so it has been released into the Public Domain. You know, that licence that we all had before those homoerotic crypto-fascists came out with the GPL (Gay Penetration License) that is no more than an excuse to see who's got the biggest feces-encrusted cock. I would have put this up on Freshmeat, but that name is known to be a euphemism for the tight rump of a young boy.

    Come to think of it, the whole concept of 'Source Control' unnerves me, because it sounds a bit like 'Sauce Control,' which is a description of the homosexual practice of holding the base of the cock shaft tightly upon the point of ejaculation, thus causing a build up of semenal fluid that is only released upon entry into an incision made into the base of the receiver's scrotum. And 'Open Sauce' is the act of ejaculating into another mans face or perhaps a biscuit to be shared later. Obviously, 'Closed Sauce' is the only Christian thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that it is what Cathedrals are all about.

    Contributors: (although not to the eternal game of 'soggy biscuit' that open 'sauce' development has become) Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, phee, Anonymous Coward, mighty jebus, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, double_h, Anonymous Coward, Eimernase, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward. Further contributions are welcome.

    Current changes: This version sent to FreeWIPO by 'Bring BackATV' as plain text. Reformatted everything, added all links back in (that we could match from the previous version), many new ones (Slashbot bait links). Even more spelling fixed. Who wrote this thing, CmdrTaco himself?

    Previous changes: Yet more changes added. Spelling fixed. Feedback added. Explanation of 'distro' system. 'Mount Point' syntax described. More filth regarding `man` and Slashdot. Yet more fucking spelling fixed. 'Fetchmail' uncovered further. More Slashbot baiting. Apache exposed. Distribution licence at foot of document.

    ANUX -- A full Linux distribution... Up your ass!

  3. main dilemma? by s20451 · · Score: 3, Offtopic

    Is the way to finally break the main dilemma of the hydrogen economy? (That it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you gain in using it.)

    No. In order to do that, you would have to repeal the laws of thermodynamics.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:main dilemma? by Cesaro · · Score: 1

      hehehehe..... I think he MEANT to say that it would take less of our GENERATED power to make it than to use it.

      I didn't think anyone else would notice that. ;)

    2. Re:main dilemma? by RC514 · · Score: 1

      You can GENERATE power?

      --

    3. Re:main dilemma? by Cesaro · · Score: 1

      I can. It is simply taking nothing and making it in to something. I don't know why people always make such a big deal out of creating something. Sheesh.

      Forgive me for using the colloquial term in my prior statement regarding the "generation" of power. I should know by now that it is an unforgivable error here on /. :)

    4. Re:main dilemma? by RC514 · · Score: 1

      Forgiven, if you promise not to do it again in a reply to a comment which refers to the laws of thermodynamics.

      --

    5. Re:main dilemma? by Cesaro · · Score: 1

      Am I still OK if the comment references any other basic laws of physics/nature/ or anything else?

    6. Re:main dilemma? by RC514 · · Score: 1

      For safety's sake you might want to avoid that too, but forgiveness is only bound to the promise that you won't write about creating energy in the context of thermdynamics comments.

      --

    7. Re:main dilemma? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, that isn't the problem with Hydrogen.

      The problem with Hydrogen is that to make it, the process is only 20% efficient. This compares unfavourably with other processes, e.g. batteries are more like 50% efficient. Still, if you have a pollution free, inexaustable source of energy ('the Sun') this doesn't matter as much.

      The other problem with Hydrogen is its low density. This can be improved by compressing it or storing it in a metal 'catalyst', but then it stops being low density and becomes rather too heavy for cars and such like.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    8. Re:main dilemma? by Boatman · · Score: 1

      And you know the big power conglomerates aren't going to stand for that. Write your congressperson today!

      (T-shirts from thinkgeek will be forthcoming.)

      --
      --Just the place for a snark!
    9. Re:main dilemma? by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Of course, E=MC^2, matter can be turned into energy, therfor generating energy. Now a practical way to do this? Umm would you like to buy some motorcycle doors?

    10. Re:main dilemma? by bitflip · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The poster is guity only of imprecise phrasing. It should've reflected the costs of such conversions. Right now, it costs more to create hydrogen than the income converting the hydrogen to energy would create. A hydrogen-based economy doesn't exist because of the costs involved, not the physics behind it.

    11. Re:main dilemma? by Uggy · · Score: 1

      *Generation* of power (as in either you or a machine is moving some mass a distance in an amount of time) is perfectly acceptable because it is NOT energy/time, but work/time ... kinda the same thing, (Both joule/sec) but does not imply potential... If you expend a joule per second to hold a block still in the air, yer not doing any work (no matter what weight lifters tell you) only force acting over a distance divided by time is work.

      This post brought to you by Halliday and Resnick *G*.

      --
      Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
    12. Re:main dilemma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      "Right now, it costs more to create hydrogen than the income converting the hydrogen to energy would create."


      It's only a matter of scaling. Prototypes are always more expensive that mass produced product.


      http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/from_oil_ we lls_to_solar_cells.htm
      (about half way down the page)


      http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable_Energy/solarther ma l/NSTTF/index.htm


      If we began a "Manhatten Project" for Solar II we could be energy independent within a decade. As it is, the teenagers alive today will consume ALL of earth's fossile reserves in their lifetime. And, even if we could find 10X more coal and oil than is presently known, or increase the efficiency of our use of fossile fuels by 90%, the gains would only postpone the end by 10-20 years. Given Joe Sixpack's ledgendary stupidity and short sightedness our politicians have no need to worry about the future till it gets here. Unfortunately, by then it will be too late.

    13. Re:main dilemma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully, carbon nanotubes can do something about that.

    14. Re:main dilemma? by xercist · · Score: 1

      Now a practical way to do this?

      Almost all the power we use today comes from mass being converted into energy. Coal, oil, nuclear.

      Actually I suppose solar power would count too because the sun is doing the conversion in a bigass nuclear reaction.

      And wind/hydro are all powered by the sun...

      --

      --
      grep "xercist" /dev/random ...you'll find me in there someday
    15. Re:main dilemma? by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      No thats chemical energy. You don't actually lose mass in burning something. Nuclear energy causes a small mass lose. As well as the sun does. If you could turn atoms straight into their energy equivilent. You would have a lot of energy. E=MC^2
      1 gram of matter turned into energy would yield
      1*(3*10^8)^2=30000000000000000. I believe that measure is in Joules, anyone care to correct me on that?

    16. Re:main dilemma? by Analog+Squirrel · · Score: 1

      The idea here is to use solar power - which is available so abundantly that it doesn't matter whether or not the process is very efficient. Simply use the (nearly) free solar power to convert seawater to hydrogen, then use the hydrogen from there. It's more a matter of economics than thermodynamics...

      --
      I'd rather be flying
    17. Re:main dilemma? by Uggy · · Score: 1

      only force acting over a distance divided by time is work....err _power_ (this stuff is complicated)

      --
      Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
    18. Re:main dilemma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Lisa in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!!" - Homer.

      Ahh... the Simpson, quotes for everything.

    19. Re:main dilemma? by dfetter · · Score: 0

      In fact, you do convert some tiny fraction of the mass into energy. The Gibbs' free energy of formation of water at STP is 385.8 kJ/mole, which is to say that every 18 or so grams of water is missing about 3 nanograms of mass which represents the chemical bonds between hydrogen and oxygen, and to a much lesser extent the intramolecular bonds among oxygen molecules.

      </nit>

      --
      What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    20. Re:main dilemma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's MISTER Sixpack to you.

    21. Re:main dilemma? by pokeyburro · · Score: 1

      No thats chemical energy.

      Correct.

      You don't actually lose mass in burning something.

      Indeed. In a way, you actually gain mass, in that whatever you're burning is chemically bonded to oxygen drawn from the environment. (cf: phlogiston)

      Nuclear energy causes a small mass loss. As well as the sun does. If you could turn atoms straight into their energy equivalent. You would have a lot of energy. E=MC^2 1 gram of matter turned into energy would yield 1*(3*10^8)^2=30000000000000000. I believe that measure is in Joules, anyone care to correct me on that?

      Using your units, 1g*(3*10^8m/s)^2 = 3*10^16 gm^2/s^2, or 3*10^20 g*cm^2/s^2. An erg is 1 gcm^2/s^2. A joule is 10^7 ergs. So you just produced 3*10^13 joules. If you could do this once per second, you'd be generating 30 trillion watts (assuming I didn't make a mistake).

      --
      Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
    22. Re:main dilemma? by C0WB0YN34L · · Score: 1

      inflation? What about the fact that satalites cant stay up in space for more than about 15 years at the moment? The cost of launching satalites is too great to make it worthwhine atm. And when satalites are able to launch into space cheeply, fusion power could well be more promanant... Hydrogen might become more important in batterys (the only waste product being water). I Don't think it will ever be used in power plants as a source, the sun is renewable but other power sorces are still cheeper. The efficancy of good solar cells rarely get above 13%.

  4. maxis didn't see this one coming by ComaVN · · Score: 1

    This would have been a nice power plant in simcity. Then again, it would have the same drawbacks as that dish thingy

    --
    Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    1. Re:maxis didn't see this one coming by hebertpa · · Score: 1

      actually maxis was close the dish thingy ran off of microwaves which is what the american Idea was for this

      although does any on remember was happens when that power plant got old.

      a laser shoots out of the sky and cuts into your city

      that doesnt' sound like fun at least not in my neighborhood

      --
      madness takes its toll please have exact change
    2. Re:maxis didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There ought to be a way to just launch a surface-to-space missile and blow up the orbiting laser once it reached that point. If they're going to think that far ahead, they might as well give the tools to destroy it, too.

    3. Re:maxis didn't see this one coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could just de-orbit it....

  5. Replies by Syberghost · · Score: 4, Funny

    I predict that within 30 minutes, there will be at least two confused posts saying that we should just use solar panels to generate electricity to "crack" the hydrogen from sea water.

    I further predict that at least one of these will, after someone posts a brief reply explaining why that's not a workable idea, dissolve into flames.

    1. Re:Replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should just use solar panels to generate this "electricity" to crack the "hydrogen" from the so-called "sea water". Better yet we should use lasers in space to boil the water and thus drive a turbine. And when we aren't making power we can take out small countries with those lasers. They could even use missle defense funds for this. Thus when we aren't defending ourselves we can make more power.

    2. Re:Replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah I forgot to add that any extra power we can stick in a giant capacitor. We'll hook that up to the fence on the north and south border...that will take care of homeland security.

    3. Re:Replies by pmc · · Score: 5, Informative

      We should just use solar panels to generate hydrogen from sea water....

      I predict that within 30 minutes, there will be at least two confused posts saying that we should just use solar panels to generate electricity to "crack" the hydrogen from sea water.

      ...except that, instead of using electrical conversion followed by electrolysis they will use photocatalysis, as described in this Physics World Article, which talks about the implications of a paper published in Nature.

      The jist of it, for the link weary, is that by the use of a cunning contrived semiconductor it is possible to arrange the band-gap to be higher that the reduction potential of H2, which allows the production of H2 from the H+ ions that are always present in water.

      Early days yet (efficiency is 0.66%, compared with an break-even of 4%), and lifetimes are unknown at the moment. But using solar panels to generate hydrogen should not be rejected out of hand just because the energetics are unfavourable with one particular type of solar cell.

    4. Re:Replies by Mr_Matt · · Score: 1

      I defy you, oh clueless moderator, to point out the "troll" section of this informative post. What is the sound of one neuron firing? I submit it's the sound this guy's mouse made when the "-1, Troll" option got selected. Maybe the moderator sneezed when attempting to mod this up? One can only hope...

      --


      But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
    5. Re:Replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, funny, but an important part of 'Japanese' did you miss in the story?

      Hint: Japan doesn't have land borders.

    6. Re:Replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'sokay, got the joker in meta-mod...

  6. That's why this will never be implemented by Master_Ruthless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any government or corporation that puts anything into orbit that could even potentially be used as a weapon is going to face resistance from the entire world. Even if you went into contortions trying to prove that the tool could never be used for military purposes, the media would get ahold of the term "space lasers" and that would be curtains for the idea.

    1. Re:That's why this will never be implemented by PEdelman · · Score: 1

      But why should they care about resistance from the entire world? The US doesn't when they want to actually put weapons in space.

      Anyway, for some reason the word "vapor" kept spooking around in my head reading this article. Maybe it has something to do with hydrogen gas. The again, maybe not.

      --
      Like science? Comics? Wicked...
      Funny By Nature
    2. Re:That's why this will never be implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      every satellite in orbit can be used as a "weapon". IF the satellite is large enough, it could have inherent design "features" that make it possible to use as (an incredibly inaccurate) a bomb (think Skylab).

      But primarily, it can be used most easily against other satellites (think: ISS).

    3. Re:That's why this will never be implemented by InfoVore · · Score: 5, Funny

      AP-WORLD NEWSBURST 10 Jan 2019:

      BUSINESS:

      A spokesman for the Empire of Japan announced the successful launch of the last power-sat in their highly successful Laser Power Satellite System. The system, which provides 98% of Japan's power, has been extended to allow them to provide power to any point on the globe. "We can focus 10 terawatts of laser energy to any point on the earth. The market for our space based power is unlimited and unstoppable." said Energy Minister Hirohito.

      POLITICS:

      U.S. Trade Secretary Jenna Bush announced that all trade sanctions against the newly reformed Empire of Japan would be removed. "The Japanese are old and trustworthy friends of the United States. The restoration of the Empire should not be seen as an aggressive anti-democratic move. Instead, it should be seen as an old and honorable society returning to its cultural roots. We applaud them."

      FASHION:

      The World Fashion Expo in New York provided a peak at this year's hot fashions. For the second year in a row, chrome and silver were the materials of choice. The new fashion accessory for this year is mirror-silvered umbrellas. Elite fashion designer Mano had this to say about the trend- "Shiny Shiny Shiny. Is beautiful and functional, No?"

      --
      "These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
    4. Re:That's why this will never be implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but what about the little girl who who gets a psychic link that allows her to control the orbital laser when she gets threatened? Doesn't anyone think these things through?

  7. Don't trust them by Ricky+Glaze · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think that it would be wise to let the Japanese have that much power that they can point anywhere. It would take up valuable government resources to monitor the direction the laser is pointed and its use. And what if they decided to just blow a city away, then what? Sounds shady to me.

    1. Re:Don't trust them by Amarok.Org · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're absolutely right! In fact... why do we let them have airplanes? We've established that *those* can do significant damage to a city, so lets go take away those commie bastard's airplanes. Hmmm... I bet they could ram a Toyota into a school and kill children! We'd better take those away.

      It's for the children!

      --
      -- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
    2. Re:Don't trust them by ComaVN · · Score: 1

      The Japanese probably didn't think it was very wise to let the americans have a weapon they could use to blow away an entire city. Stop being so self-centered.

      btw, I'd say Japan is one of the few countries I'd trust to use such a device wisely. (Except maybe that they'd use it to blow whales right out of the sea into the Sushi bar)

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    3. Re:Don't trust them by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      On a slightly off-topic tip, i think we can safely say that the WTC event makes it pretty unlikely that we`ll be seeing flying cars, no matter what they say in the movies.

    4. Re:Don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never seen the Dukes of Hazzard. Flying cars everywhere.

    5. Re:Don't trust them by Stone+Rhino · · Score: 1

      ever seen their anime? you know they're gonna TRY to blow something up with it!

      --


      Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
    6. Re:Don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever seen Commando... 'nuff said.

    7. Re:Don't trust them by JimPooley · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but a flying car won't cause much damage. I mean that Cessna smashed a window and mussed up the external cladding, but caused no major damage to the building structure. Give it a week you won't know anything hit it!

      Not that that will stop the doom-mongers whining about private planes, like.

      --

      "Information wants to be paid"
    8. Re:Don't trust them by rm-r · · Score: 1

      So they would have one weapon that, if heavily modified, might(please read the article!) be able to destroy a city versus a country with hundereds of devices designed only for this purpose, and have already used them twice? You're an idiot. The Japanese are probably the only people of the world who might be trusted.

      --

      J-aims
      --
      Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
    9. Re:Don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they did that, then it'd be Japan Vs. the entire planet. Heck, no weapons would even need to be used, just close off all trade to Japan. We'd lose a few cool toys, and they'd lose: their entire economy, their oil, a significant amound of food, and probably a bunch of other stuff that I can't think of right now.

    10. Re:Don't trust them by syphax · · Score: 1

      Although not Japanese myself, I'm pretty damn offended by this remark.

      Of my many concerns about global security, laser-wielding Japanese are pretty low on the list.

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
    11. Re:Don't trust them by nege · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At some point....we will have to learn to live with the fact that there will be many (at least more than 2) organazations that can kill millions of people anywhere at anytime. The technology is within grasp and so we know that if it is within grasp we will grab it. The delema will not be "how do avoid this technology getting into the wrong hands" it will be "how do we as humans overcome our instinct to kill each other and assert control over one another?"

    12. Re:Don't trust them by Amarok.Org · · Score: 1

      Ok, so he's "Interesting", but since I disagree with him and use sarcasm to illustrate my point, I'm a troll? Save your mod points for the fp's of the world.

      --
      -- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
    13. Re:Don't trust them by Mostly+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Akira comes to mind. That focusing space laser thingy gave me the heebie-jeebies.

      --
      Chika Chik-ah... do-e ow ow.
    14. Re:Don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A flying car (to say nothing of a private plane) filled with plastic explosive will probably ruin whats left of your day.

    15. Re:Don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess we could build our own space lasers and point them at their cities.

    16. Re:Don't trust them by Squareball · · Score: 1

      "Let them" HUH??? Since when do we have the right to tell other countries what they CAN and CANNOT have

    17. Re:Don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when do we have the right to tell other countries what they CAN and CANNOT have

      You're joking, right?

    18. Re:Don't trust them by mprinkey · · Score: 1

      Not that that will stop the doom-mongers whining about private planes, like.

      You might want to be a bit less cavalier. True enough, the physical kinetic energy of a small aircraft is not going to be enough to do much damage to a large structure, but even a small plane can carry a few hundred pounds of explosives. That would do some serious damage. And, it is clear that security at local airports is essentially nonexistent.

      Sufficiently motivated intelligent people will always be able to find clever ways to hurt you.

    19. Re:Don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Sufficiently motivated intelligent people will always be able to find clever ways to hurt you.

      And that's exactly why you shouldn't waste your time stopping them.

      With every single airport initiative I've heard up to date I've been able to figure out a way to defeat it. Now, I'm a nice guy who isn't a 120+ IQ. If I can figure it out, imagine what an evil genius with 120+ IQ can do.

      Its a waste of money, and a waste of my time when I hear of things like "you're stuff will be confiscated unless it works for the security guards". Sheesh, do they really think there's no way something could be a bomb _and_ work properly at the same time?

    20. Re:Don't trust them by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2

      Well said. This is exactly what I was thinking. I'm glad that someone here has some sense.

  8. Thermodynamics by Hard_Code · · Score: 4, Informative

    "That it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you gain in using it."

    Look, due to the laws of thermodynamics it will ALWAYS take more energy to obtain a resource than to use it. Same applies for oil - once we're out of it, it will be very damn expensive to "make" it. So a lot of these arguments against renewable energy sources are just rubbish. Sure, you don't get as big of an *immediate* payoff, but you get a much steadier, reliable payoff over time. The trick is amortizing the expense of using a certain fuel by using the byproducts in a very efficient way. We waste such vast amounts of energy both in direct use, and in unrecaptured efficiency, that I'm sure any number of energy sources will be totally viable (hydrogen, wind, solar, thermal, hydro, methane). But of course many of these will require social changes that nobody is willing to make. To paraphrase Denis Leary, everybody wants to get themselves a 1967 Cadillac El Dorado convertible, hot pink with whaleskin hub caps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights, drive around in that baby at 115mph getting one mile per gallon, sucking down quarter pounder cheese burgers from McDonald's in the old-fashioned non-biodegradable styrofoam containers and when they're done sucking down those grease ball burgers, wipe their mouths with the American flag and toss the styrofoam container right out the side and there ain't a God damned thing anybody can do about it.

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    1. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we got the bomb.

    2. Re:Thermodynamics by MikeyO · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look, due to the laws of thermodynamics it will ALWAYS take more energy to obtain a resource than to use it.

      So since his lasers are powered by the sun, you are saying that he is not going to produce enough energy to renew the sun?? Damn, I guess this isn't going to work.

    3. Re:Thermodynamics by CSieber · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Look, thermodynamics isn't the most relevant thing here. We're talking about energy sources and fuel, not energy in general. Obviously we all know that its impossible to truly create energy (dE(universe) = 0).

      The point here is fuel, and there are two types of fuel: Efficient and Inefficient. An inefficient fuel is one in which you must spend more energy to obtain and process the fuel into usable energy than you get back when you're done. An efficient fuel is the opposite. You put less energy in than you get out.

      Right now, fossil fuels are an excellent example of efficient fuels. We put minimal effort in and get an incredible return. However, once we run out of what the Earth has stored over the last several million years, fossil fuels will become extremely inefficient, so it is to our advantage to find much more plentiful efficient fuels.

      If this technology makes hydrogen into a more efficient fuel then we should probably support it, as there is a LOT of hydrogen around. :)

    4. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's pretty cheap to make "oil" - you just grow fields of sunflowers, hemp, etc. and process it.

      Stupid Environmentalists actually tend to be against biomass projects, since they mean big fields of (probably genetically modified) monocultured plants, and they don't really mean that pollution goes down. HOWEVER, with petrochemicals from fields, one can do everything we currently do with fossil oil, but cheaper. The oil companies are fighting tooth and nail to stop people implementing such things:

      Just a few months ago, the oil companies and the French government attacked a local project to make biodiesel. No prizes for guessing why...

      Please note that that reference is from a respected European national newspaper (the Irish Times), not some enviro-kook. Many europeans are _really_ becoming pissed off with the oil cartel.

      People don't seem to realise just how criminal the oil companies really are, from their terrible human rights abuses, to their microsoftish grip on the world's energy economy.

    5. Re:Thermodynamics by Alsee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look, due to the laws of thermodynamics it will ALWAYS take more energy to obtain a resource than to use it. Same applies for oil - once we're out of it, it will be very damn expensive to "make" it.

      Sigh. It does NOT currently take more energy to obtain a Oil than to use it. We aren't out of it. That is why renewable energy sources have such a hard time being competitive. It's hard to beat a dense source of energy that's lying around.

      a lot of these arguments against renewable energy sources are just rubbish.

      Arguements shmarguements. There will be a massive switchover to renewables when the tech improves enough to make it as cheap as oil, or when we start to run out of oil.

      Until then, ranting about social change is nothing more than another source of greenhouse gas.

      Anyone who's played Civ or MOO etc, knows the way to win the game is to maximize research.

      (And to save umpteen people from replying to point out that I just suggested people base national / global policy in a video game, yeah yeah, I know. I still think it's a valid point.)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    6. Re:Thermodynamics by squaretorus · · Score: 2

      Swiss Tony Says:

      The Hydrogen Problem is like making love to a beautiful woman! You could always just have a wank - but its a whole lot more rewarding to put some effort into seducing the beautiful woman.

      The wanking is oil okay - the beautiful woman is hydrogen, or solar, or wind or whatever.

    7. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It does NOT currently take more energy to obtain a Oil than to use it. We aren't out of it."

      Right. Which is precisely why the original poster wrote, "...once we're out of it..."

      I'm sure he appreciates you pointing out the obvious.

      Argumentative jackass.

    8. Re:Thermodynamics by Mister+Snee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So renewable energy sources will always require more energy to be put into them than you get back out. But in that case, it doesn't matter, does it? We use such an insignificantly tiny amount of the energy coming off the sun that throwing some more solar collectors into orbit isn't going to negatively effect our current thermodynamic economy in any appreciable way whatsoever. Now, if we'd built a big ol' whopping dyson sphere around the sun collecting 100% of its energy, the shadow cast by the satellite would cause an actual energy trade-off... a negative one, due to the energy lost in firing that big ol' laser and everything. But, um, we don't have a big ol' whopping dyson sphere. We're just tapping into an energy source we're using pathetically little of right now. So, screw thermodynamics. :D

    9. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Which is precisely why the original poster wrote, "...once we're out of it..."
      I'm sure he appreciates you pointing out the obvious.
      Argumentative jackass.


      My^H^HHis point was that until we're out of oil (or other tech advances) your^H^H^H^Hthe original poster's rant about "thermodynamics of making oil", "rubbish arguments against renewables", and "1967 Cadillacs getting one mile per gallon" is nothing but greenhouse gas.

      Simple economics. People will use whatever energy source is cheapest. The cheaper it is, the more of it's they'll use. If/when renewable energy is half the price of oil, people will (figuratively) drive Cadillacs that get a half a mile per gallon.

      There's no point in ranting about cheeseburgers, promote research.

    10. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you know why?
      Because we got the bombs...
      "I'm an Asshole"...

    11. Re:Thermodynamics by crashcane · · Score: 1
      Anyone who's played Civ or MOO etc, knows the way to win the game is to maximize research.

      (And to save umpteen people from replying to point out that I just suggested people base national / global policy in a video game, yeah yeah, I know. I still think it's a valid point.)

      An interesting observation, but I think that it is possible that the reason that this works in Civ or MOO (though I have played neither) is that, in that defined system, maximizing research delivers maximimum game-end benefit. I don't think the same is necessarily true in meatspace (ie diminishing returns from long term investment as we reach limits of what is possible). Also, there is no game end the real world.

      Of course, I agree that more research is needed to make alternative energy sources cheap enough to compete with oil.

    12. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Civ3 I like to attack early in ancient times and knock them out quick. So I put most of the resources into taxes and building military units not research.

    13. Re:Thermodynamics by starseeker · · Score: 2

      "the way to win the game is to maximize research"

      YESS!!! Finally, someone points that out. Now, how do we convince the GOVERNMENT to fund the research? Big business sure isn't going to, and universities can only do so much by themselves - they need funding. Unfortunately, the government also responds to pressure from big business, so it's a problem.

      This point is not well understood by a lot of people who need to understand it - we NEED research very badly. It isn't something we do (as a society) just for the heck of it. As long as population pressures increase (and I can't see anything short of a plague or mass starvation changing that), demands on resources will get more intense. At some point in the future, we will burn up all the oil which we economically can. At that point, we are in deep S**T unless we have been gradually switching to something else. And in order to do that switching, we have to know how to build whatever we are switching to. Preferably, we would like to work out those details BEFORE our economy starts sliding due to rising energy costs. Yes, it will do so anyway, since unless we work out practical fusion we won't have the sheer mass of power we can generate right now, but the more gradual the shift, the better.

      OK, enough ranting. Just remember, we WANT to here about politicians giving more money to research. It's not a luxury, folks. It's an absolute necessity.

      --
      "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
    14. Re:Thermodynamics by paranoidia · · Score: 1

      Actually, it isn't "everybody" that wants to get the 1967 Cadillac El Dorado etc... But the guy who does is just, an asshole.

    15. Re:Thermodynamics by soboroff · · Score: 2

      It does NOT currently take more energy to obtain a Oil than to use it.

      He didn't say "obtain," he said "make". When we run out of oil, we'll find out how hard it is to make... we're all out of dinosaurs and don't have a hundred million years to wait besides.

    16. Re:Thermodynamics by lmaali · · Score: 1
      He didn't say "obtain," he said "make". When we run out of oil, we'll find out how hard it is to make... we're all out of dinosaurs and don't have a hundred million years to wait besides.

      Fortunately for us, both plants AND animals have been dying for hundreds of millions of years since the dinosaurs left us thus completing the cycle and continuing to *make* more "fossil fuels" for us. Sheesh. Why do I need to point out the obvious?

      --
      "Twenty-five signatures turns the most frightful stupidity into an opinion" -Kirkegaard
    17. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oil is "cheaper" because one does not have to pay the energy to "create" it. It's already been created. And to recreate it on the scale that we use it now would be...astronomical [pun intended].

      Look at how much energy the German "gasoline from coal" system required. For those who are clueless, Germany eventually got to the point in the later half of WWII where it had no significant petroleum resources (they couldn't get it from Asia, and we finally bombed the oil refineries in Rumania), but they did figure out how to make light petrol distillates(gasoline, fuel oil) from coal, and limped along on this...

      Why don't we use that process in North America, with our significant coal reserves now? Like I said, it is VERY energy-intensive. If you can still suck oil out of the ground somewhere, it's definitely cheaper to do so.

      I don't quite understand the US reluctance short-term to become "oil independent". If I were the president, I'd shut down most domestic oil production and really commit militarily to sucking as much out of the Arabian Peninsula, Indonesia, Nigeria and Mexico as fast as I could, with the goal being to dry up everyone else's oil reserves. When they were exhausted, I'd then reopen the US reserves... Of course, the WTO and everyone else would sue the US to death if this happened.

      Good thing I'm not el presidente, no?

    18. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny thing is, we're running out of oil faster than anyone wants to admit. Its also interesting that Saudi Arabia has more than 1/4 of all the worlds reserves, Nort America is quickly going to run out even if we start digging up our parkland. So seeing as oil is the most important thing in the world we better start sucking up to Saudi Arabia, theyve kinda got our nuts in a vice.

    19. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Sigh. It does NOT currently take more energy to
      > obtain a Oil than to use it. We aren't out of
      > it.

      Well, there were millions of years of energy expenditure involved in creating the oil we drill, but since the oil companies don't have to pay for that it doesn't count.

    20. Re:Thermodynamics by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > To paraphrase Denis Leary, everybody wants to get themselves a 1967 Cadillac El Dorado convertible, hot pink [ ... ] and toss the styrofoam container right out the side and there ain't a God damned thing anybody can do about it.

      Except the Japanese! Why? Because they got the laser!. That's right, two words, solar fuckin' weapons! ;-)

    21. Re:Thermodynamics by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Informative
      > > [You win Civ and MOO by maximizing research]
      >
      >An interesting observation, but I think that it is possible that the reason that this works in Civ or MOO (though I have played neither) is that, in that defined system, maximizing research delivers maximimum game-end benefit. I don't think the same is necessarily true in meatspace (ie diminishing returns from long term investment as we reach limits of what is possible). Also, there is no game end the real world.

      Fair enough - but we've seen it happen in the real world, too.

      ca. 5000-7000 BC: "Dawn of Civilization" - agricultural societies gradually came to dominate over their nomadic brethren, because the ability to grow more food than your people can eat allows the development of a leisure class who can invent stuff. Technologies: Agriculture, Religion, Writing.

      16th-Century North America: Cavalry with muskets (4-2-1) beat foot-mounted soldiers with hand weapons (2-1-1). Kill ratios of 100:1. (Technology: Domestication of the horse, which didn't exist in North America at the time)

      Poland, 1939: Mechanized infantry beat mounted cavalry. (Technology: Internal combustion engine)

      Iraq, 1990: Air power (better aircraft, higher-rated pilots) and sea power (nuclear-powered aircraft carrier) cut off lines of supply long enough to wear down enemy troops, which could then be mopped up. (Technology: Air power, fission plant)

      Yugoslavia, Afghanistan: Air power beat ground power hands-down. Just yesterday, I read a plausible account in the mainstream media of 10 Green Berets using force multipliers like remote sensing equipment, superior communications, and smart weapons to direct air power and achieve a 100:1 kill ratio. (Technology: Air power multiplied by semiconductors as used in communications, computer chips, CCDs and laser diodes)

      The reason why Civ designers made technology a key to "winning the game" is because it's been demonstrated to work in the Real World.

    22. Re:Thermodynamics by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Civ or MOO (though I have played neither)

      If you have the patients for a long turn-based game, I strongly recommend them. As will almost everyone on slashdot. They have achieved legenadry status. Latest versions are Civ3, and MOO3 will be released in the next few months.

      I think ... maximimum game-end benefit ... no game end the real world.

      It's not just an end game effect, it's an ongoing compound-interest effect. Research increases GNP, which gives you more to spend on research, lather, rinse, repeat.

      I just did a google search, and I'll use figures from the first result.

      According to the chart, average research spending is 2% of GNP, with no listings above 3%. Hypothetically double spending on research for a few years. It's pretty reasonable to assume that within a few years, double research will provide benefits that add more than 3% to GNP. Once you hit that point, the GNP leftover after research spending is the same as you had at the single research rate, but now the double research is "free". The "free" research keeps giving you "free" GNP growth.

      I don't think the same is necessarily true in meatspace (ie diminishing returns

      At less than 3% research, somehow I don't think we've quite hit the diminishing returns point yet.

      The problem is that budgets are generally planned with a 1 year horizon. Politians (and many businesses) can't deal with research investment - pay now, break even in 9 years, benefit for the rest of eternity. They run deficits - get something now but pay through the nose later. If you live in the US, 1/3 of your taxes just goes to float the INTEREST on the debt.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    23. Re:Thermodynamics by JWhitlock · · Score: 1
      An interesting observation, but I think that it is possible that the reason that this works in Civ or MOO (though I have played neither) is that, in that defined system, maximizing research delivers maximimum game-end benefit. I don't think the same is necessarily true in meatspace (ie diminishing returns from long term investment as we reach limits of what is possible). Also, there is no game end the real world.

      That may be true, but I'll consider the game won when I'm in the first 10K to be put into cyro-statis for the first flight to Alpha Centari.

      Screw the diplomatic victory.

    24. Re:Thermodynamics by Alsee · · Score: 2

      That may be true, but I'll consider the game won when I'm in the first 10K to be put into cyro-statis for the first flight to Alpha Centari.


      Only 10k? Sounds like a desperate last ditch effort not to lose.

      In a real victory you can toss together a 40k ship without breaking a sweat, chuckle.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    25. Re:Thermodynamics by Alsee · · Score: 2

      If I were the president, I'd shut down most domestic oil production and really commit militarily to sucking as much out of [everone else] as fast as I could ... When they were exhausted, I'd then reopen the US reserves...
      Good thing I'm not el presidente, no?


      Yes, a very good thing. By the time those oil reserves are sucked dry there will be new energy technologies. They'd have all our money, and all we'd have is a bunch of worthless black gunk in the ground.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    26. Re:Thermodynamics by Deadplant · · Score: 1

      While we're pointing out the obvious, there isn't nearly enough new 'fossil fuel' being created to meet the demand. So yes, fossil fuels are a renewable resource... but then so are diamonds, what's your point?

    27. Re:Thermodynamics by Alsee · · Score: 2

      we're running out of oil faster than anyone wants to admit.

      Things look pretty bad based on that report. Per capita oil production starts a nose dive this year.

      The problem is that the sites I found say that report is wrong.

      I probably shouldn't bother replying to this AC, but someone might have believed him.

      We will run into an oil shortage, but we still have some time to develop alternatives.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    28. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oil ain't worthless just because we're not burning it.

      Plastic anyone?

    29. Re:Thermodynamics by olman · · Score: 1

      Two words.

      Nuclear. Power.

      Isn't it terrible when technology really does solve the problem?

    30. Re:Thermodynamics by gessel · · Score: 1

      All potential energy on earth is either the result of past accumulation and storage of solar energy (fossil fuel, biomass, etc.) or the consequence of the structural creation itself (nuclear, geothermal, etc.). All of these stored energy reserves will run out, some much sooner than others; almost certainly the ones we're using most and most cheaply first.

      Once they're gone the earth, if it's still livable after all the biomass ever acculated is loosed into the atmosphere, will operate in steady state where the energy available is the energy incident on it (or nearby).

      Might as well start learning to live within 164 watts/sq meter now.

    31. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as population pressures increase (and I can't see anything short of a plague or mass starvation changing that)

      AIDS. Unfortunately. Check the latest stats for some African states (20-30% in some places).

      "In Botswana, where about one in three adults are already HIV-infected - the highest prevalence rate in the world - no fewer than two-thirds of today's 15-year-old boys will die prematurely of AIDS."

    32. Re:Thermodynamics by GunFodder · · Score: 1

      Whoops you forgot a couple of words: radioactive waste. Maybe we can put it in your back yard?

    33. Re:Thermodynamics by SectoidRandom · · Score: 1

      "the way to win the game is to maximize research"

      YESS!!! Finally, someone points that out. Now, how do we convince the GOVERNMENT to fund the research?


      Because quite simply, the govt knows just as well as we do, that another easy way to win (in Civ) is the destroy everyone else! :)

    34. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sigh. It does NOT currently take more energy to obtain a Oil than to use it. We aren't out of it.

      That's true, but it won't be around forever, and as it is we have to go to a bad neighborhood to get it.

      Hydrogen is the way to go. It's clean, it's portable ( gas, liquid H2 or NaH ) and it can be made easily from water, which literally falls from the sky. The problem , to state the obvious, is where to get the energy to make it.

      Nuclear power. From an energy density standpoint, turning mass into energy is as good as it gets. The Integral Fast Reactor was a program that was canceled during the mid 1990's that has a few of the following advantages:

      • coolant flow is necessary to keep the reaction going. Loss of coolant shuts the reactor down, unlike Chernobyl/TMI.
      • it can run on a "lower grade" of fuel than other reactors - in fact it can run on waste that is now being stored on-site at many plants because there is noplace else to put it.
      • its final waste products are less toxic with shorter half-lives.
      PBS's Frontline did an interview with Charles Till, one of the designers.
    35. Re:Thermodynamics by nanojath · · Score: 2
      Precisely. I live in MN and believe me, I love my cheap nuclear electricity. But even igonoring the concerns of intrinsic safety issues, the threat of terrorism, and the danger of having fissionable materials available in a commercial environment, the plain fact is that we build nuclear facilities without dealing with two serious questions: Where is the radioactive waste going to get put, and how are we going to deal with decommissioning the plant when it goes past its safe and economically justifiable lifespan.


      And you may say that these issues can be resolved, and maybe they can, but the facts that you can see here in the real world is that these issues are a constant, constant hassle and problem. And the reason, as GunFodder implies, is that nobody wants the damn waste in their neighborhood. We deal with this all the time with the MN Prairie Island facility, Excel Energy (formerly NSP) is constantly stretching its agreements and pushing the safety boundaries of casking and storing its waste.


      I'm of a liberal & environmentalist political senisiblitity, but I think nuclear COULD be a sustainable element of a rational energy policy. But only if we sort these issues out BEFORE we start building new facilities and generating the waste.

      --

      It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

  9. AKIRA!!! by CrazyJoel · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    That crazy Tetsuo kid will probably take control of the orbital laser and start shooting up NeoTokyo.

    --

    Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
    1. Re:AKIRA!!! by JimPooley · · Score: 2

      I'm glad I'm not the only one to whom the phrases "Japan" and "Orbital Laser" immediatly summon up manga and anime!

      --

      "Information wants to be paid"
    2. Re:AKIRA!!! by Maran · · Score: 1

      Maybe manga and anime are nature's way of telling us that orbital particle beams and lasers are a Bad Thing?

    3. Re:AKIRA!!! by Genom · · Score: 2

      Especially considering as whenever they're portrayed, they invariably get taken over, malfunction, or otherwise cause mass havoc.

  10. Re:not fp by slakdrgn · · Score: 1, Funny
    you *DO* know there is a difference between the *first* post, and the first *smart* post right? :)

    anyways, this could have numorus benifits for science. I do wonder, communication satellites, using laser transmissions could be smaller, more efficient and easier to deploy. I wonder how much this satellite runs.

    Now all we need is one to automatically zoom in on thoes -1:TROLL types :)

    why does a cheesy Dr. Evil line come to mind?
    Mini-me, don't hump the "laser"!

  11. hydrogen economy issues by mysticbob · · Score: 3, Interesting
    two objections to the front-page commentary here:
    1. the issue with adoption of hydrogegn is the entrenched position that fossil-fuels have. it's not that hydrogen is harder to use, it's that there is billions invested in transport, wells, autos, etc, all which would have to change. not to mention the industry mogul's (and current usa administration's) vested interest. in additon, you don't need so many specialized resources to create hydrogen, eh - just some electricity and water - think of the threat that poses to the oil hegemony...
    2. there are always energy costs to creating portable forms of energy, but that's the issue, not that it's more energy-expensive to create hydrogen than to use it. add up the costs in shipping oil around the planet. not cheap. the real benefit is that oil is portable once extracted.
    1. Re:hydrogen economy issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      oil is portable once extracted

      As opposed to hydrogen which is nailed to the floor upon extraction...

    2. Re:hydrogen economy issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As opposed to hydrogen which is nailed to the floor upon extraction...

      I guess that means the people in Louisiana wouldn't be able to fry it. They'll pretty much fry anything that isn't nailed down. :)

    3. Re:hydrogen economy issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't the "current usa administration" just yesterday announce a government initiative to develop autos using hydrogen fuel cells in place of a previous initiative to develop more efficient gasoline autos?

    4. Re:hydrogen economy issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there is one issue that this solution does seem to address: who has control of the oil?

      The US has some control of the world's oil, but in general - Muslim nations have oil.

      Now I am not saying Muslim nations are all unable to be trusted, but hey - after Sept 11th, we saw some people who were Muslim first, Nationalists 2nd.....this will mean more coutries have control of their own energy sources, without relying on paying places like Saudi Arabia or Lybia.

      Just food for thought.

    5. Re:hydrogen economy issues by krlynch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, but you managed to be substantially wrong in parts of BOTH of your points :-)

      not to mention the industry mogul's vested interest

      You keep hearing this ridiculous statement from people, and I don't understand how people think a future hydrogen economy would be any different. If and when we move to a hydrogen based energy economy, who do you think will be the ones extracting, storing, shipping, and selling the hydrogen? I'll give you one guess... the current players that dominate the petroleum/coal based energy economy. They're the ones that have the capital to make it happen.

      Incidentally, the energy industry would LOVE to be able to natively produce hydrogen, and be paid for creation, distribution, and sale; they would drop oil in a heartbeat if they could, because there would be more profit at a lower cost, and that is always a win. There is VASTLY more uncertainty in doing business in the parts of the world that have the most oil than it is to do business in the first world, and that drives up costs tremendously. There are huge expenses in extraction, transportation, storage, refinement, bribes, legal issues, and taxation that just would not be encountered if they could do all of these things at home. And let's not forget that they would score a big PR win for their support of the "environment" (no more "pollution", no more spills, no more ground water contamination, etc...). There is no upside to "protecting" oil once the technology is there to produce/store/transport hydrogen cheaply.

      there are always energy costs to creating portable forms of energy, but that's the issue, not that it's more energy-expensive to create hydrogen than to use it.

      No, that really isn't the point. The point the previous poster was trying to make is that the energy cost of extracting, processing, shipping, and selling petroleum based products is substantially LOWER than the amount of energy extracted from the oil. This is because the energy has already been stored for us, for free, in the oil; burning the oil releases the stored energy, and digging it up costs almost nothing energy-wise. For hydrogen, however, there is no such "free store" we can dig up. Combine hydrogen with oxygen to get water, and you get a relatively huge release of energy, but we have no previously STORED source of hydrogen; we have to disassemble water to get that hydrogen. But, the energy cost of cracking water is substantially HIGHER than the amount of energy that can later be extracted from the stored hydrogen. So, there is currently no feasible way to phase out our use of petroleum; in fact, if we switched to hydrogen power in our cars today, it would drive UP the demand for oil, not decrease it (a similar problem would occur if we all went out and switched to electric cars today). The real benefit of oil is not its portability; the real benefit is that it stores vastly more chemical energy than it takes to extract it from the ground.

    6. Re:hydrogen economy issues by zaffir · · Score: 1

      And exactly who is going to pay for and build a hydrogen station in every bumfuck town in the US? A town isnt' a town unless it has a gas station. Yuppies don't want to have to LOOK for a place to refill their SUVs, they expect to be able to do it anywhere anytime. If only the inner city has a place to fill up your new hydrogen-powered explorer, what's gonna happen to all the yuppies in the suberbs?

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    7. Re:hydrogen economy issues by dublin · · Score: 2

      ust some electricity and water - think of the threat that poses to the oil hegemony...

      You couldn't be more wrong: Hydrogen is stupid, but the oil companies would benefit most if it were to gain ground:

      In case it has somehow escaped your attention, pretty much all the hydrogen that's "all around us" has the distressing property of being bound up in water. Water is an incredibly stable molecule that's notoriously difficult to tear apart, so it's not a practical source of hydrogen, because of the energy input required.

      The simple fact is that Natural Gas is the ONLY large-scale source of hydrogen that's economically feasible with present technology. (Almost all hydrogen commercially available today is produced from natural gas.)

      But there are two big problems even to this approach: 1) converting natural gas (methane, CH) to hydrogen is still expensive and inefficient and 2) Natural Gas is already one of the cleanest-burning fuels known, so why not just burn it directly? NG is considerably better in terms of storage and transport as well, and existing engines can be easily modified to run on it. In short it has almost all the benefits of hydrogen, with almost none of the drawbacks. (Keep in mind that hydrogen still creates pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen when burned in air rather than pure oxygen.)

      add up the costs in shipping oil around the planet. not cheap. the real benefit is that oil is portable once extracted.

      Actually, shipping anything (including oil) on a large scale is incredibly cheap. Shipping oil, or even gasoline, is oconsiderably cheaper than shipping equivalent energy densities of hydrogen. (Not to mention that when shipping crude oil, you're shipping much more than energy - you're shipping everything that can be made from oil, too: Asphalt, plastics, petrochemicals and all their derivatives, etc. Look around your desk - much of what you see was sloshing around in an oil tanker not long ago.)

      To sum it up: Using hydrogen as a large-scale fuel is just flat stupid, but there are enough idiots that believe the propaganda that it's "the perfect fuel" that we'll be fighting off their ignorance (or worse yet, paying for it) for years.

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    8. Re:hydrogen economy issues by 2names · · Score: 0

      and another lobbyist is born. woo hoo. shut up.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    9. Re:hydrogen economy issues by dolanh · · Score: 2
      There is no upside to "protecting" oil once the technology is there to produce/store/transport hydrogen cheaply.


      How about these downsides:

      • Re-investment in transport mechanisms (what are you going to do with billion dollar oil tankers?).
      • Re-investment in drilling mechanisms, etc. (i.e. Oil Rigs).
      • Re-training of specialized engineers, geologists, etc.

      In the long term I agree, but in the short term there is a subtantial industry investment in the simple extraction and transportation of oil which is going to be tough to throw away.
  12. Solar cell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't we use this premise to develop a specialized solar cell that would work with a narrow beam of energy?
    It seems easier than attempting to farm large fields of dispered light.

    1. Re:Solar cell by Sobrique · · Score: 2, Informative

      Problem is that solar cells are _really_ inefficient. Well, as I recall they had an efficiency rating of 10-30% or so. Lasers are also pretty inefficient (I think they're about the 10% mark too, but I'm sure someone with the appropriate knowlege can correct me), so you'd be wasting an awful lot of power, not to mention probably melting the solar cell. (10% efficient means that almost 90% of that energy turns into heat on the cell)
      Using it to boil water for a steam engine might work. Or just powertrip and kill everyone else using the energy of the world and then you don't have to worry about conservation anymore :)

    2. Re:Solar cell by Turing+Machine · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Using it to boil water for a steam engine might work.



      Most of the "conventional" space solar power ideas (not this one, of course) are based on that. Big-assed focusing mirror (can be very, very thin and very, very cheap in orbit, since you don't have to worry about it collapsing under its own weight) aimed at a boiler. Steam spins turbines, turbines produce electricity, electricity generates microwaves, microwaves beamed to earth. Way more efficient than photovoltaics.

      Of course the envirowhackos are going to throw a clot if this idea ever looks like it might take off.

    3. Re:Solar cell by Cesaro · · Score: 1

      "Wasting power" Uh... Okay this is a satellite sitting in space. The solar energy it would be using is stuff that would either miss earth totally or get mostly dispersed in the atmosphere. It is already being wasted. 10% that we get out of it, is 10% than we are currently using.

      This isn't like stealing money out of your own wallet.

    4. Re:Solar cell by Tiroth · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should have read the article. One, I believe your efficiency rating is incorrect, and two, the design in question does not use solar cells.

    5. Re:Solar cell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps you should have read the parent comment

    6. Re:Solar cell by SnapShot · · Score: 0

      damn them envrowhackos if rush and me and turingmachine had our way we would round up those envirowhackos and take em out in the back of our pickup trucks and beat them with rubber hoses and stuff because the only thing those envirowhackos ever do is complain when i want to through my mcdonalds and burger king wrappers on the ground when did then become the king of me anyway those envriwhackos and feminazis just dont get it there is no way im going to stack up my beer cans and take them to no communist recycling center and if i want to hunt tigers i dont see why i shouldnt be able to hunt tigers my grandpap hunted tigers when he was a young man and its not fair that i cant hunt tigers as well i am sure glad that turingmachine brought up those damn envirowhackos because i needed to get some of this stuff off of my chest.

      ;)

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    7. Re:Solar cell by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Laser efficiency
      Apparantly a 'really efficient' laser is 30%, of course this may be a little out of date.
      For solar cell efficiency
      Looking at the tables 30% ish is about the maximum on a solar cell too.
      I was a bit out.
      I think an AC also responded to the fact that my post wasn't a reply to the main article either, so I'll leave that one.
      Have a nice day.

  13. Boats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pity the fool who goes fishing with these around

  14. Solar Lasers suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All known solid state laser gain substances have fairly narrowband excitation spectrums. This presents a two fold problem: 1) fairly little power is available in that window (the sun is a blackbody raditator) 2) Energy outside of that window tends to just heat the medium and either cause breakdown or unacceptable thermal lensing.

    I've built a solar pumped nd:yvo4 laser, but it was a waste: because of those factors I could have extracted more power and probably energy from a solar electric system.

    Without some serious new developments in laser substances with ultra broadband pump inputs, this won't work too well.

    1. Re:Solar Lasers suck by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      I've built a solar pumped nd:yvo4 laser, but it was a waste: because of those factors I could have extracted more power and probably energy from a solar electric system.

      I have almost no knowledge in this arena. But I have to ask, was your solar pumped laser placed into orbit and operating outside our atmosphere? Maybe that difference would improve things?

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    2. Re:Solar Lasers suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh.. It would improve things.. My laser was a small project, nothing on that scale.. But for what they are talking of doing, they would need a trillion-fold improvement in output power AND energy.. Better engineering could maybe give 10x on my system, being in space maybe another two orders of mag.. being 100x larger, would give two more.. Still no where near enough.

  15. Um no by whanau · · Score: 2

    "Is the way to finally break the main dilemma of the hydrogen economy? (That it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you gain in using it.)"

    Unfortunately in the real world it is impossible to make hydrogen from water that holds more potential energy thany you put in. There are always inefficencies in the conversion process, and this process is likely to lose a lot of the solar energy in transmission through the atmosphere. The thing about hydrogen that people forget is that it is just a store for energy that has to be "charged" as it were by separating it from water, rather than a energy source in itself like traditional fossil fuels. However this hydrogen conversion system is better than most in that the energy source for the conversion process is largely free.

    1. Re:Um no by cheese_wallet · · Score: 1

      As 400 other people have pointed out, that person was talking about the hydrogen economy, not any laws of thermodynamics.

      With that in mind, I think the author meant "(That it takes more of our generated energy to make the hydrogen than you gain in using it.)"

      This idea is a conversion from solar energy to the potential energy of a load of hydrogen. It doesn't really matter that it is very inefficient, and that we are using way more solar power to get the hydrogen than the hydrogen contains itself. It doesn't matter because solar power is abundant, virtually inexhaustible, and our only expense is harnessing it.

    2. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, fossil fuels are just storing solar energy from millions of years ago. In fact, one of the most viable (and consequently most suppressed) alternate energy systems is production of petrochemicals from big fields of plants, which is, again, just a way of using the massive amount of solar energy hitting the earth's surface....

  16. weapon for hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not want this monster ray flying over my head.

    1. Re:weapon for hackers by ComaVN · · Score: 1

      combined with this article, you could be right... Goldeneye, anyone?

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
  17. Energy Storage Misconception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


    Is the way to finally break the main dilemma of the hydrogen economy? (That it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you gain in using it.)

    You always use more energy to store than to take out. This includes petroleum and regular agriculture. If you think about it, almost every stored chemical energy from earth comes from the sun. In the case of petroleum, we are just using a little energy to EXTRACT the energy BANKED underneath for years.

    The question becomes what is our desired medium for energy storage? Batteries can't store a lot of energy. Hydrogen stores a lot per weight but takes too much space. Hydrocarbon/gasoline/liquid fuel is good mix of high energy density for a given weight and a given space. If the US finally able to provide Hydrogen fueling infrastructure, this solar technology might make a lot of sense.

  18. so what if it takes more energy to make... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...hydrogen than what you get using it?
    We're mere miles (precisely, an average of just under 1.01 AU's) from a source of fusion sending out more energy in one hour than our current electricity needs add up to in a billion years.
    The problem? The Sun doesn't fit nicely in a portable fuel cell.
    Hydrogen, on the other hand, does.
    Therefore, if we can use a bunch of solar energy that isn't useful right now, to make a little clean-clean-clean hydrogen power, all the better! The ONLY question is, "If we add up the cost to the environment and the cost of labor and materials required to produce a plant (or in this case, an orbiting laser) that gives us X amount of hydrogen, how does that compare to X amount of hydrogen as seen on Ebay?"

  19. solar panels by Lord+Puppet · · Score: 2, Funny

    We should just use solar panels to generate electricity to crack the hydrogen from sea water!

    1. Re:solar panels by ComaVN · · Score: 1, Funny

      This wouldn't work, since solar panels are highly inefficient at the moment

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    2. Re:solar panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      LOL. Even the moderator got into the act!

    3. Re:solar panels by Archie+Steel · · Score: 1

      Wow! 17 Minutes! Say, Syberghost, do you have any suggestions for winning lottery numbers?

      (By the way, the "flame" portion of this multi-message joke got modded down unfairly. It should be brought back up for humor's sake. Humor is good. It makes me feel tingly all over. Seriously.)

      --

      Reminder: find a new sig
    4. Re:solar panels by ComaVN · · Score: 2, Funny

      Always happy to lose some karma for humor's sake.
      It's been good posting with you people, we should do this again some time

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
  20. Giant Orbital Lasers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this guy's complaining that supertankers hauling oil is are unsafe?

    Hmm..if you have an object shooting a laser at the earth from very far away and you alter its direction even slightly, the target of the laser shifts greatly. What happens when a little piece of rock or space junk hits it and jiggles it a little bit?

    I could almost see this if you evacuated all of the islands in the Pacific and then had this facility in the middle of the pacific, but if we're going to move away from oil into other energy sources, couldn't we stick to nuclear power or something? At least those things have a track record and don't blow up (too often).

    1. Re:Giant Orbital Lasers. by vrmlknight · · Score: 1

      "...couldn't we stick to nuclear power or something? At least those things have a track record and don't blow up (too often)."

      if you look at the track record of an orbiting laser technically it has NEVER destroyed anything on earth... correct me if you feel the need to...

      --
      This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
  21. Similarly: It doesn't take money to buy a car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the amount of money in the world is constant :)

    1. Re:Similarly: It doesn't take money to buy a car by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      1 word.
      Inflation.

  22. Very Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want one! Time to get that H2 powered car. ;)

  23. Let's hope he can aim. by NiftyNews · · Score: 1

    Let's hope the aiming technology doesn't fail on this one.

    ...and you thought your car got hot sitting in a sunny parking lot.

    1. Re:Let's hope he can aim. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets hope the NASA engineer (or whoever) that aims the thing doesn't mistake people for ants. Cuz you just know he'd want to find out what happened.

  24. Woah... by GreyyGuy · · Score: 2

    And here I was just reading about how Unreal Tournament 2 was going to have a way of firing an orbiting laser at your opponents.

    Cool.

  25. There is always a catch... by Uttles · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Preface: I have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm just proposing a theory to provoke thought, that's all.

    This whole idea sounds really cool and I'd love to live in a world of hydrogen energy, but I've thought for a long time that alternate energy sources have been developed more extensively than we are allowed to know. The political ties between OPEC, car manufacturers, governments around the world, power plants, etc. seem to me to be so entangling that they could easily, and in my opinion have easily, squashed new ideas for alternate power sources. I've heard of everything from water powered cars to solar panel arrays that are 50 times more effecient than those in use today... yet none of these technologies has been allowed to flourish, and I suspect it has something to do with the trillions of dollars that are hauled in by oil companies and any company associated with them. When you think about it in terms of history, oil is the gold of the modern day. People who have it want to make money off of it, so they want to keep supply down (just enough to get by) and demand up, way up. I have no doubts that the people in the oil industry would do anything and everything to keep it the most valuable substance today, just look at some of the evil that came out of the pursuit of gold.

    "NASDA and the Institute for Laser Technology in Tokyo set about joint research development of this system. And it is under application for a patent in cooperation with NASDA, ILT and Mitsubishi Research Institute Inc, which is a private think tank company," Dr. Mori wrote SPACE.com in an email interview.

    Now, doesn't it strike you as odd that Mitsubishi has their hands in this? OK so it says "a private think tank company," but really, I think this "private" think tank company named "Mitsubishi" wouldn't resist some "inspiration" by the automotive industry (heavily linked to Big Oil) and somehow sabotage or discredit this research.

    Anyway, I'll stop ranting, but I'd like to know if anyone has any facts that go along with what I'm saying or if I've just been reading the Drudge Report too much.

    --

    ~ now you know
    1. Re:There is always a catch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Now, doesn't it strike you as odd that Mitsubishi has their hands in this? OK so it says "a private think tank company," but really, I think this "private" think tank company named "Mitsubishi" wouldn't resist some "inspiration" by the automotive industry (heavily linked to Big Oil) and somehow sabotage or discredit this research.

      So you know, Mitsubishi is the name of a large number of unrelated Japanese corporations. I believe that at one time (pre WWII) they were all one corp, but were broken up by the Allies as part of the surrender terms (as they were heavily involved in the Japanese War industry).

      Despite their previous ties, they are now completely unrelated companies, aside from the same name and the normal cartel dealing which is otherwise common in Japanese industry.

    2. Re:There is always a catch... by s20451 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Unlike in the States, big compaines in Japan have a little bit of everything. Mitsubishi makes cars, trains, ships, aircraft, televisions, stereos, agricultural chemicals, food additives, synthetic rubber, molasses, canned foods, textiles, semiconductors ... the list goes on. Any large project in Japan couldn't avoid being associated with a company that also makes cars.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    3. Re:There is always a catch... by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well since Japan has virtually no natural resources, and is therefore even more dependant on foreign sources for energy. I think it is likely that Japan will be the first to break the ties with the oil cartels. They have the lowest concentration of automobiles of any first world country, so most likely to use alternative fuels for public transportation. The also DO have technology and ready access to water (island nation remember). I would think that if the worlds second largest economy could break itself of one major foreign dependence, they will at least try, especially since that coutry is extremely xenophobic.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:There is always a catch... by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      All of these oil/auto company conspiracy theories are laughable. If anyone comes up with a cheap, reliable renewable energy source, they'll be able to buy all the oil companies out of pocket change in short order. Same thing goes for all of the other theories about great conspiracies keeping increadible inventions from the public. If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door.

    5. Re:There is always a catch... by krlynch · · Score: 2

      You've been reading the Drudge Report too much.

      The political ties ... have easily, squashed new ideas for alternate power sources.

      Well, no. Those political ties cost vast amounts of money ... money that would otherwise be profit, bonuses, stock options, etc... The conspiracy theories may be fun, but they don't make sense, because conspiracies only make sense in real life when everyone benefits. While OPEC certainly benefits, everyone else loses, and are only tied together because they have to be to get what they need to stay in business. What would you prefer: deep, entagling ties to corrupt regimes and vast transportation costs, or having complete control over the whole process, without having to pay anyone off?

      I've heard of everything from water powered cars to solar panel arrays that are 50 times more effecient than those in use today

      None of which exist, because all of them would violate the laws of physics (that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics).

      doesn't it strike you as odd that Mitsubishi has their hands in this?

      Others have discussed your misperception here, so I'll not bother.

      So, basically, you're conspiracy premise makes little sense, your grasp of the science of these "squashed new ideas" is inadequate, and your knowledge of the industries involved is minimal (much like Matt Drudge!). So, I'd say you've been reading too much Drudge, and not enough fact.

    6. Re:There is always a catch... by GospelHead821 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, consider this: If one automobile company realizes that by making its cars dependent on a foreign, expensive substance (like oil), it's crippling itself. Imagine that this field of study comes to fruition and this Mitsubishi-sponsored technology begins pumping out hydrogen. All Mitsubish has to do then is build a car that will safely run on hyrdrogen and suddenly, they've got a perfectly good machine to which they control the source of fuel. Granted, they can't make a killing off of this right off, because they have to undercut the oil companies, but so long as they're making a profit, they can continue to do this. If it's cheaper to use hydrogen, then people will and this will spur a change in the economy/infrastructure as oil-dependent companies realize they're being outsold by a cheaper, cleaner solution. Mind, Mitsubishi's motive isn't change. It's the returns they'll make while everybody else is retooling to use hydrogen. Not to mention that it gives them that much longer to advance their technology ahead of the competition.

      --
      Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
      Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
  26. Enviromental effects ???? by CDWert · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok Im not a tree hugger, BUT what are the long term effects say on the Ozone of pumping a laser of this magnitude though the atmosphere not to mention ionizing radiation effects while it travels through the air ?

    My understanding is it REQUIES VERY HIGH temperatures to Dissacociate water on the order of 3500 degreesf plus (PS Dont ever try to quelch a thermite reaction with water :)

    Ok so were using Ti02 as a catalyst, what my question is what about thermal evnviormental pollution, hell in some cases its worse than chemical pollution. Hmm were encountering a greenhouse effect globally lets fire oh say 50 or so 10+ megawat lasers at earth. (Its only one until it works)

    If this is going to be succesfull youll see a commercial proliferation of these without regard for saftey, No dont think so , look at the oil companies and their rigs , then consider again when Oil companies see this as the next big thing ?
    Hell with all that free hydrogen you could manufacture your own hydrocarbons CHEAP, aka GAS ...
    Nice big vicious cycle Gotta Love Science

    --
    Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
    1. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by MikeyLikesIt! · · Score: 1
      ...what about thermal evnviormental pollution...

      If there is a significant amount of heat radiated, why not use it to generate electricity via turbines?

      --

      I dunno... What do you wanna do?

    2. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by Cesaro · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that we might just need to make some portions of these oceans off-limits due to the slightly hotter than normal conditions that I might encounter if I happened through there on my 60' yacht?

    3. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your understanding is very flawed. If you want to split H and O from water, you don't bulk-heat it up to 4000 degrees so that it becomes an atomic plasma (which would work, but seems... inelegant), you just electrolyse it. You can produce respectable quantities of hydrogen just using a battery - one of the most sensible, environmentally clean, things to do would be to using nuclear fission plants to generate electricity to electrolyse water.

    4. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Meanwhile, the pressure to break the petroleum addiction in Japan is growing. It is the second largest "Greenhouse Gas" producer among the G-7 circle of the world's most advanced economies.
      Japan is already surrounded by the largest greenhouse gas producer -- the Pacific Ocean. Water vapor causes the vast majority of the planet's greenhouse effect.
    5. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (PS Dont ever try to quelch a thermite reaction with water :)
      why? Other then it would vaporize?

    6. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by CDWert · · Score: 1

      Actually the heat in a thermite reaction is great enough it can break water into its parts, hydrogen / oxygen BEFORE it vaproizes thus releasing hydrogen and oxygen gasses which can freaking explode themselves reforming water.

      There are more ways to seperate water than electrolysis, you can do it with heat, lots of it VERY hot, guess what thermite fits that bill, always use sand not water for playing Junior Mad Scientist....

      --
      Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
    7. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by meridoc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hold on to your horses, Fermi.

      High temperatures do not dissociate molecules; high amounts of energy do (there's a big difference). A laser, being a concentrated energetic source, could provide that much energy. By the way, you can't quench thermite with water simply because it's too hot and the water will vaporize before quenching anything.

      TiO2 (not "tee-eye-zero-two") is a common catalyst. Catalysts, by definition, are retrieved after the reaction and not consumed. There should be little pollution from the use of this material.

      I'm not sure about thermal pollution, but I believe that because air is mostly nothing (there's only a few atoms in a relatively large volume of air), there shouldn't be much increase in the temperature of the air (or deflection of the laser). Once it hits the water on the floating island, the desired reaction should take place. I think most of the energy in the laser would be used to break the water molecules and little would go to the surroundings.

      Free hydrogen will not get you cheap hydrocarbons. You'd have to use more energy to do this (although you could easily hydrogenate more of those lovely animal fats in your diet).

      Nice big cycle; you do hafta love science.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
    8. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by JWW · · Score: 2

      The long term effects on the Ozone would be generation of more Ozone.

      I know that high energy output will create Ozone out of regular O2.

      It seems you are worried about the Ozone layer, it in actuallity would be fine, but Ozone would be generated all along the lasers path and waft along with the wind. With Ozone being posionous and all you probably wouldn't want to downwind from the beam.

    9. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by gewalker · · Score: 1

      Ozone damage? Why should there be any ozone damage. The energy density in the laser downlink would not be powerful enough to notice. It cerainly would not be ionizing. At the wavelengths I would expect it to operate, the energy absorption by atmosphere within the ozone layer should be almost zero.

      Where would you ever see 3500 degrees is the system (except where you specifically want it). So, if you are using 3500 degrees to break down water, so what?

      You're convcerned about a measly 500 MW of added heat load? 500MW is a pretty typical coal-fired power plant. And to generate that 500 MW, you get an additional 300 MW of waste heat (this is assuming a quite modern, efficient coal fired plant BTW). Eventually, all 500 MW worth of electricity is converted to hear as well.

      Now compare with space based laser, zapping us with 500 MW of beamed power, unless the conversion effieciency of beamed laser power to electricity you have no extra thermal load on the planet.

      Of course, this does not give you the advantage of CO2, CO, O3, NOx, Hg, H2SO4 and many other interesting chemical discharges in the air, water, and land.

      Ok, CO2 may actually be beneficial, but the others most certainly are not in terms of increasing concentrations in the environment.

      BTW, the darling of most environmentalists is earth based solar (significant land and materials use issues, significant environment impacts), solar (don't ignore the bird kills), geothermal (actuall pretty friendly environmental, when you can get to it easily), tidal (who knows what damage you may be doing to the little fishies, big problems in energy density.

      And of course fusion -- which just happens to have considerably more waste heat than a coal-fired plant. It still a steam-turbine design, but has additional heat loss in the form of gamma rays, etc. that will not be converted into electricity, and has potential harmful emissions (remember to gamma rays), radioactive materials, and will still cost lots of money.

      I know just about everybody likes high-tech goodies, hot water, heating, air-conditioning, fresh food, health-care, etc.

      Self-interest guarantees that most people will get their goodies, regardless of what the greens want. So the question is which methods work best (environmentally and econmically) not which is perfect.

      Any space-based beamed power solution is among the lowest impact environmentally (mostly waste heat, which is not a significant problem compared to the other environmental costs)

      To my knowledge, the only technology that has a potential to radically change the equations above, is ground-based solar cell based on nano-technology. You may be able to become non-invasive environmental, eliminate the materials cost issue, and have it be dirt cheap, though never too cheap to meter, assuming someone else is collecting the energy for you. BTW, although no waste heat this does not necessarily means no heat impact on environment -- if less heat is reflected back into space, then there is that many more BTU's captured from the sun.

    10. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by CDWert · · Score: 1

      Ok, first , Yes you are correct on 2 points TiO2 not Ti02 , typo....

      Second...Energy, correct,

      Third "By the way, you can't quench thermite with water simply because it's too hot and the water will vaporize before quenching anything. "

      Sorta , I said , or meant to say try, you CAN dump enough water on the reaction that some will dissacoiate , I have done it, both before and after being warned. The latter was to see if it was in fact true, it is.

      I should have made my concern on thermal polltion more clear, Air , correct no problem there, not major, BUT we are talking an island over the pacific , WATER VAPOR in that air is where the potential exists. After it hits the island Im not concerned, its its inbound path I wonder about, atmospheric conditions VARY greatly, are we gonna shut em all down in the spring or while its raining , which brins up another point about the laser dispersial in adverse weather....

      Lastly ....
      BIG WHAM !
      "Free hydrogen will not get you cheap hydrocarbons. You'd have to use more energy to do this (although you could easily hydrogenate more of those lovely animal fats in your diet).
      "

      You are apparently not familliar, with Fisher-Tropsch chemistry on sytnetic hydrocarbon fuels.It requires the most energy to convert methane to CO an H2, once the "synthesis gas" is produced it is a far less "expensive" process, HERE we are Being GIVEN the H2, Co is EASY to produce en masse CHEAPLY, Guess what at this point another catalyst later and weve got you guessed it HIGH Quality Diesel

      --
      Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
    11. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not doing it thermally, but electrically.

      It takes a LOT of energy to split h2o. The bonds are pretty strong.

    12. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...unless you're playing with burning alcohol.

    13. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > My understanding is it REQUIES VERY HIGH temperatures to Dissacociate water on the order of 3500 degreesf plus (PS Dont ever try to quelch a thermite reaction with water :)

      Well, you can try, so long as you do it from a safe distance, and so long as you expect the attempt to fail spectacularly. (I mean, isn't "spectacular" why you ignited the thermite in the first place? ;-)

    14. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, being Nostradomous, you can tell us exactly how many birds this will vaporize each year? Or, possibly how it may kill zooplankton that will die because of the heat that will be generated as a result of this activity? Blah Blah Blah. I watch too much Sci-fi. Blah Blah Blah.

    15. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded up to 3???
      What environmental waste?? A catalyist is something used in a reaction that is not consumed in the reaction... Last time I checked water was hydrogen and oxygen.. Those are the *only* byproducts of this reaction..Are we having oxygen pollution?! And also, last time I checked, O3 (ozone) is made from the ionization (adding of energy) to elemental oxygen... Oh God, I think we're in for big trouble... Next time, do yourself a favor and do some research before you post- It helps your credibility quite a bit.

    16. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obvioulsy need to read before you rant ....

      I never said a catalyst was anything else, and I never said the pollution was chemical, or from that said catalyst. Not pollution as a byproduct of the reaction but rather from the means of transporting the energy (THE LASER) to the reaction.

      I said THERMAL POLLUTION !,

      Second passing a 10MW laser through earths atmosphere for over a 100 miles , dont you think it will come in contact with Oh , say a few oxygen molecules ? Depending on the wavelength it could be near zilch as far as the ionization goes or it could be massive, The Japaneese have succesfully directed lighting with Ionization of the air(guess what there happens to be some friggin o2 in there as well) to a given location in just this manner.

      My actual question was regarding the dissacociation of the Ozone layer itself with the focused lasers on a LARGE scale no just the test unit alone.

    17. Re:Enviromental effects ???? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2

      There is no reason to worry that something which catches sunlight that was about to hit the planet anyway, and then beams some of that energy to the surface, will cause an overall heating. Actually, because the energy transfer from sunlight to laser will be nowhere near 100% efficient, you can argue that the thing will act as a shade for the planet, reducing the total energy we absorb.

  27. Re:not fp by rxs · · Score: 0

    Well, then, I guess that means we're both out of the running. ;\

    --



    ---
    I could've sworn I disabled .sig viewing. . .
  28. Joke on similar topic by hatchet · · Score: 1

    Two borthers share everything.. and when it comes to it, there is 1 hydrogen atom left.. what to do now? And one got the idea... Hey, lets split it!

  29. What has this guy been smoking? by ArcSecond · · Score: 1
    "The costs should not boggle the mind. Petroleum infrastructure on the Earth will cost about one trillion dollars over the next decade and will be useless for producing energy when the oil runs out," argues SSI's Valentine. "A similar investment in SSPs built of non-terrestrial materials would give us an inexhaustible energy source and open the universe for settlement, too."

    Exsqueeze me? First, all that oil infrastructure CAN be adapted to refine other hydrocarbon sources like bio fuels. Second, turning asteroids and lunar rock into lasers is probably going to cost a LOT more than a trillion dollars, and take a few decades. And what is all this "colonizing the galaxy" drivel?

    I'm quite interested in radical ideas for H2 creation, and improving efficiency of conversion, and making hydrogen infrastructure work economically. Fusion would be nice, if they'd drop more than lunch money into the pot. But do we need to be focusing on building stuff in orbit to make something to put in the car?

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

    1. Re:What has this guy been smoking? by GypC · · Score: 2

      Or, as one cro-magnon said to the other, "..and what is all this 'colonizing the world' drivel?"

    2. Re:What has this guy been smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But do we need to be focusing on building stuff in orbit to make something to put in the car?"

      We do need to move off-planet and around the galaxy. All our eggs are in one basket. We need to be spread out so one asteroid won't wipe us out. We need to be spread to other solar systems before Sun runs out of fuel. We need to be widely spread around the Galaxy so a nearby supernova's radiation blast won't wipe us out (yup, that has happened to Earth before and will happen again -- fortunately we weren't wiped out yet).

    3. Re:What has this guy been smoking? by Morgoth_Bauglir · · Score: 1

      And existing diesil engines can pretty easily be converted to bio-diesil. That's a lot of infrastructure right there.

      The real reason there is such interest in H as a fuel is that it would be a collosal pain in the ass for the consumer to deal with-- so the people who can deal with it will control it and make money.

      Biodiesil however (vegetable oil) has been produced for millenia by Joe Farmer around the world. So, you don't hear corporations talking about that eh?

      I'm not saying anyone is *suppressing* these alternative fuels, they're just not being played up in the press by corporations because they're not good for the corporations-- they're good for people. Imigine if every corn farmer realized that the farm could produce all its own fuel...

      As for energy in general-- houses are already being built that are net energy producers (excluding manufacture cost admittedly) and this is without the savings of up and coming LED lighting.

      There is no energy shortage. There are just people who use too much energy. However, because of the obvious military applications, orbitting lasers will happen, and probably within our lifetimes.

    4. Re:What has this guy been smoking? by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      The only way I see this having anything to do with colonizing the galaxy, it that if you turn the laser away from earth you can use it to give a solar sail a nice power boost.

    5. Re:What has this guy been smoking? by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      Uh, the world was (except for Antarctica) colonized in prehistoric times, mostly by foot, and otherwise by small boats. The world just isn't very big.

      The solar system, not to mention the galaxy is a far, far larger place. Given that we don't yet know of any habitable planet outside our solar system, a glib confidence that we will somehow colonize the galaxy is preposterous.

    6. Re:What has this guy been smoking? by GypC · · Score: 2

      Oh come on, where's your pioneer spirit? *poke* *poke*

      Personally, I have a feeling that homo sapiens or descendants thereof will infest this galaxy like cockroaches eventually. But I admit there is no reason for "glib confidence."

    7. Re:What has this guy been smoking? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      I can't believe I'm explaining this on SlashDot, but: The conversion to a hydrogen-fuel-based society will make space travel affordable because it will link terrestrial fuels and their always-favorable economics to the fuel of space travel, liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  30. Nice idea by Sobrique · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not quite correct on using less power to produce hydrogen than you gain consuming it - fundamentally that's against thermodynamics, and a source of infinite energy
    Burn hydrogen, use energy produced to make more, sell surplus, repeat.
    It is quite an old concept, that of an orbiting solar power plant. The medium for energy transferrence is slightly different, but the idea is the same (I seem to recall the early forms of the idea used microwaves beamed down from orbit. Shudder).
    Nothing new and revolutionary, but if they can get it working we have tapped another energy source (yes, I know we already have solar power, but an orbital power station doesn't have the limits on size that a ground based one does.)

    1. Re:Nice idea by Uttles · · Score: 2

      I think you missed the point. The article was saying that less energy is used than is gained by the people actually running the system. The Sun, an infinite power source in respect to the span of a human life, provides the rest of the energy. So in total, yes, more energy is used than is gained, a lot more. But as far as we care, we've gained a lot more than we've used.

      --

      ~ now you know
    2. Re:Nice idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...actually, an orbital powerstation has to get into orbit somehow, and, lessee...what are the costs on the space shuttle, $1000/lb these days, when terrestrial shipping can be measured in $/ton?

  31. Seriously though... by Uttles · · Score: 2

    Would this "laser" sent to earth have destructive powers? I'm guessing yes. Someone who knows about this stuff... what would be similar to this beam of light hitting a target? A hand grenade? A stick of TNT?

    --

    ~ now you know
    1. Re:Seriously though... by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      The article mentions 10 megawatts.
      Of light energy.
      That's going to give you one hell of a sunburn :)

    2. Re:Seriously though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it would provide enough power to break hydrogen off from oxygen in a highly ionic bond, in large volumes, all through the earth's atmosphere at a distance of 50 miles. What do you think?

    3. Re:Seriously though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if this is like most lasers, the beam will be pretty narrow; probably less than a couple feet wide. Something like that could probably dig a couple thousand feet of hole before it could be turned off.

  32. Don't let them? What? by The_Unforgiven · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "let them"?

    When did we become their mommy and daddy?
    It's science, and something like this would undoubtabley be monitored and studied world-wide. They can't exactly just sneak around with it, and vaporize L.A.

    If we were doing this, you wouldn't want Japan contimplating "letting us".

    --
    http://wsulug.org
    1. Re:Don't let them? What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think it was after world war 2, when we wrote their constitution for them. Macarthur was the mommy, truman was the daddy.

    2. Re:Don't let them? What? by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Actually, we've been their mommy and daddy since 1951, when the US-Japan security treaty was signed, at the Japanese government's request. We provide Japan with complete military protection, ever since we rather completely thwarted their attempts to take over the Eastern Hemisphere in the middle of the last century.

      Even today, 50 years since the treaty was instated, every major political party in Japan supports our military presence, in spite of some of the awful blunders of our GIs in Okinawa. This support allowed them to rebuild their economy post-WWII, and keeps the huge burden of policing the Pacific Rim off of the shoulders of their government.

      This is why we get a rather amplified voice in their doings.

      BTW, it's 'comtemplating'.

    3. Re:Don't let them? What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sure looks funny when you attempt to correct someones spelling and you screw it up yourself!

      'contemplating'

    4. Re:Don't let them? What? by The_Unforgiven · · Score: 1

      ...and now we can help them, and in result, ourselves and the rest of the world, research more sources of power. After all, we need to get rid of our dependancy on oil.

      I see your point, and it is valid, but I disagree.
      If positions were reversed, I wouldn't want them here.

      The past is the past. It's a new generation of people. I doubt that Japan still wants to take over the hemisphere.

      --
      http://wsulug.org
  33. Oh, sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Giant orbiting MIND CONTROL lasers.

    Sheesh. Put on your aloomineeum-foil hats, kids.

  34. Re:Page Lengthening Day!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it too much to ask for an option to not display posts from foes? And yes, I want to keep browsing at -1, there are some true gems amongst the trolls...

  35. I will call it... by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 1

    ...my "Death Star" (air quotations) and I will use my "Death Star" (air quotations) to blackmail the world for ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

    Muhahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

    etc.

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  36. You can't fool me by JahToasted · · Score: 1

    Masahiro Mori? It's a trick, It's Dr. Evil... that's just a mask
    *pulling Mori's hair*
    Oops, sorry my mistake.

  37. Use in space would be even more efficient. by Decimal+Dave · · Score: 1

    I think a good extension of this would be to attach a large enough solar collector to a spacecraft which could convert water into fuel in-flight. It's probqably easier to focus a laser through space anyway... How about a moon orbiting collector that can power a station whose only fuel source is ice?

    --

    "Leave the strategizing to those of us with planet-sized brains." -Tycho
    1. Re:Use in space would be even more efficient. by Tattva · · Score: 1
      Actually, this is not as good as it sounds. What you want in a propulsion system for a space-faring vehicle is a system that provides the most thrust for the minimum expenditure of mass. This means the goal is to accelerate the propulsive mass to the maximum possible speed. The reason this is important is because you must accelerate your propulsive medium as well as your craft until you have expended all of the medium, which means you need a really good ratio to hope to achieve a reasonable velocity.

      A hydrogen-oxygen recombination doesn't provide that much energy per gram compared to the ion drive some recent experimental vehicle used (powered by a nuclear source IIRC.)

      Also, solar panels are only effective within the orbit of the asteroid belt or so, the sun's radiation is pretty weak out at Jupiter.

      --
      personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
    2. Re:Use in space would be even more efficient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummmm.....where would you get ICE on the moon?

      The only place that any significant ice MIGHT be at the poles (unconfirmed).

      And even then it's not likely to be much...

  38. YAGOLP by RareHeintz · · Score: 2
    Yet Another Giant Orbiting Laser Project.

    While I'm sure the scientist in question was utterly serious and that this is a flat-out spiffy idea, I'm kind of curious if I'm the only one who lets loose a secret chuckle at every article mentioning giant orbiting lasers?

    OK, maybe that's just me.

    - B

    1. Re:YAGOLP by handorf · · Score: 2

      Secret chuckle? Heck no...

      Maniacal laughter, yes.

      Oh, and a phone call to my Senator. I want an orbital laser!

      --
      -- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
    2. Re:YAGOLP by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Secret chuckle? Heck no...
      > Maniacal laughter, yes.

      My all-time favorite orbital laser cartoon: "The Flower Who Cried Wolf"

    3. Re:YAGOLP by RareHeintz · · Score: 2

      So is that to be the new campaign promise of the 21st century? "A chicken in every pot and a giant laser in geosynchronous orbit over every home"?

  39. Re:Page Lengthening Day!!! by beezly · · Score: 1

    Why not submit this as an RFE to slashcode?

  40. Re: Power and efficiency... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will ALWAYS take more power to split H2 from H2O than you derive from recombining it.

    What the Japanese guy is doing is trading in an inefficient process (solar cells) to a much MUCH larger battery, directly using sun light. He's trying to take advantage of a free lunch.

    The only problem I have with it is what do you about the "target" area, and how do you capture the H2 Earth-side.

    This is right up there with desalination plants. In an ideal world, you'd have a nuclear reactor close to the ocean that ran your desalination plant. Or, if the country in question is one like Saudi Arabia, you use some of that natural gas from the oil fields that gets flared off (wasted energy).

  41. Not flamebait by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

    Its the name of the song!!! Really!!

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  42. A better idea by Sobrique · · Score: 1

    Instead of using energy from burning hydrogen from the sun, to power a laser, to separate more hydrogen to burn it again, what we _really_ need is a giant space vacuum cleaner, and suck up all the hydrogen from the sun directly.
    Far more efficient.

    1. Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's just that silly gravity problem. sucking on jupiter would be more viable.

  43. What about a flock of birds by asmithmd1 · · Score: 1

    What happens when birds fly under this thing? Wait! We could put one at every KFC and a funnel on the roof...

    1. Re:What about a flock of birds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Most Megawatt class lasers tend to be Chemical lasers. Search for Hydrogen Flouride, Duterium Flouride, or COIL. These are typically housed in complex facilities, with lots of people lovingly making sure they work. Think Supersonic gas flows. Not a good bet for an orbital platform.

      Anyone know of a megawatt class solid state light pumped laser ? Too much of the energy pumped in to heats the laser material. You get thermal distortions (it melts). Someone else already pointed out that you need specific wave lengths of light for yout pump.

      BTW. What happens if you fly an aircraft through one of these laser beams ?

  44. Cost in Dollars != value by klaun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One problem when comparing plans like this for producing fuel, to other more traditional fuels is that the cost of crude oil or whatever does not reflect the value of the oil.

    That is if we had to reproduce the oil rather than just extracting it from the ground we'd probably find other more "green" methods of energy production much less of an investment.

    The fact that something that is renewable cost more than something that is irreplaceable is a pointer to the shortcomings of our economic system, not to problems with solar, wind, or other alternative energy sources.

    1. Re:Cost in Dollars != value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we can produce more oil. But it's time-consuming. We have to put organic material in a subduction zone, wait for it to get pulled under the Earth's crust, then wait for the resulting goop to trickle back up through the crust someplace on the planet. And it's probably hard to deposit more organic material than what already is in the right place.

    2. Re:Cost in Dollars != value by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      The fact that something that is renewable cost more than something that is irreplaceable is a pointer to the shortcomings of our economic system, not to problems with solar, wind, or other alternative energy sources.

      Sort of how the fact that a lion sustains its life from eating other animals instead of just converting sunlight to energy is a pointer to the shortcomings of evolution.

    3. Re:Cost in Dollars != value by krlynch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One problem when comparing plans like this for producing fuel, to other more traditional fuels is that the cost of crude oil or whatever does not reflect the value of the oil.


      I disagree, because I don't think your implied definition of value makes any sense; the "value" of a commodity is determined by what buyers are willing to pay for it, and what sellers are willing to sell it for. Currently, buyers and sellers can agree on the cost of buying and selling oil. Currently, what buyers are willing to pay for hydrogen is substantially below what sellers are willing to accept for it. Until that changes, which will only occur by lowering the costs (which will take time and research), not enough people will be willing to switch.

    4. Re:Cost in Dollars != value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A clever comment perhaps, but I couldn't find the insight in it. The victim animals and the grass they eat are "renewable." Oil, except on vast geological timescales greatly exceeding the current lifespan of civilization, is not.

      The poster seems to overlook that the scare resource in the economy is human brains to figure out how to make renewables cheaper. Right now oil is so plentiful that relatively few brains are studying the problem. And some problems are just hard no matter how many brains you throw at them (e.g. AI)

    5. Re:Cost in Dollars != value by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2

      I guess I was trying to point out that just because the poster doesn't see "value" in oil/gas it doesn't mean its not there, or that the economy has somehow "got it wrong."

      The economy goes for what works now, just like evolution. Oil rules right now because the technology to take advantage of it is in place, and its currently cheaper (on the whole) than anything else out there. When that situation changes (for whatever reason) you can expect the big push to look at other avenues for energy.

      You can argue that its prudent to look into the future and try to plan, and I'd agree (as would lots of people-- there's currently TONNES of alternative research going on, a lot of it done by the 'big, bad' oil companies) but the fact of the matter is until something head and shoulders better/cheaper comes along that the market embraces the incumbant tends to keep its advantage.

      You could argue that instead of the market deciding you should mandate it from above, but history shows any large scale, long term, top down attempt to dictate a market just doesn't work.

    6. Re:Cost in Dollars != value by klaun · · Score: 1
      disagree, because I don't think your implied definition of value makes any sense; the "value" of a commodity is determined by what buyers are willing to pay for it, and what sellers are willing to sell it for.

      I think this is a definition for cost, but does not signify value. dictionary.com defines cost as an amount paid or required in payment for a purchase; a price vs. the definition of value which is an amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else.

      So I'm saying that commodity trading reflects the cost but if you were to try to recreate the oil from scratch and hence put an equitable amount of time, effort, energy, and resources into recreating, i.e. value, the cost of those equitable amounts would not equal the commodity cost of oil, so you have an cost1=oil=value=cost2, but cost1 != cost2 and so something is wrong with our economic system.

    7. Re:Cost in Dollars != value by Arjuna · · Score: 1

      Maybe we need significantly different taxes for renewable vs nonrenewable inputs to the economy, to encourage businesses to make the distinction between capital and income resources.
      Our economy does have a fundamental problem assigning a decent value to things that are hard to measure in dollars, like quality education, health, environment. The tendency is to devalue those things.

    8. Re:Cost in Dollars != value by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 2

      The lion's modus operandi only works as long as the other animals reproduce as fast as they are eaten. That is feature of evolution, but a 'shortcoming' from the lion's point of view - if a population uses all of its required resources, that population will die. Thus, the better balanced populations survive. But the lions are not in control of their "economic system" and we are. If we see that our economic system is not self-sustaining, we can change it. Basic economic theory shows that the sooner we start on the change, the cheaper it will be.

      Evolution is great, as long as we aren't the failed experiment.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    9. Re:Cost in Dollars != value by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2

      But the lions are not in control of their "economic system" and we are.

      Yes and no. On a macro sense we can push and nudge (by gov't or central bank meddling), usually not for the better (the jury is out on the Fed Reserve, although I think they've done a pretty good job). The economy, like evolution, has a bottoms-up type structure, not a centrally controled.

      If we see that our economic system is not self-sustaining, we can change it. Basic economic theory shows that the sooner we start on the change, the cheaper it will be.

      And as I said in an earlier post there IS a lot of research going on into alternative fuel sources, some funded by gov'ts, others by private business. Those that claim otherwise have no idea what they're talking about. They equate the fact that we're not all driving around in solar cars TODAY is because the big, bad oil companies, in cahoots with corrupt gov't officials are holding back all research. Bullshit! Very few technological breakthroughs come easily, they take a lot of time and effort, with advances being made one bit at a time. If and when we move away from petroleum it will be "cheaper" than having to start from scratch because folks HAVE been working on it for a while.

  45. No need for insults by Uttles · · Score: 1

    "Unlike in the States"?

    Come on now. Large companies here have many areas of interest also. GE makes more than washing machines. Motorola (yes, that's an American company) makes a lot more than just Cell phones. Most of the Fortune 500 companies here deal in many different industries.

    --

    ~ now you know
    1. Re:No need for insults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      both companies do things related to electricity (GE the heavy stuff, Motorola the small stuff).

  46. Hmmm... 50 million lasers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's see 504 billion killowatt hours needed.
    Each laser is capable of 10 megawatt hours.

    Someone correct my math because that leads me
    to conclude that we need 50 million orbiting
    lasers...

    1. Re:Hmmm... 50 million lasers? by Bearpaw · · Score: 2
      Um. Each laser is capable of 10 megawatts, and the annual energy needed is 504 billion kilowatt hours. You need to make the units match before comparing them.


      Also, the 10 megawatt satellite is a test satellite. Presumably, if it works, later facilities would be more powerful.

    2. Re:Hmmm... 50 million lasers? by Bearpaw · · Score: 2
      Oops, sorry, forgot the math. 10 megawatts = 10,000 kilowatts. ~8,760 hours per year. Therefore, the test satellite would produce over 87 million kilowatt hours annually. (I think?) That means you'd need ~5,700 similar satellites to meet all of Japan's needs, which is still quite a few.

      But the article doesn't say how much power a full-scale satellite would produce, so I dunno.

    3. Re:Hmmm... 50 million lasers? by jelle · · Score: 1

      The first oil/fission power plants had less power than the big ones have now too...

      Same holds for windmills.

      Same will hold for the orbiting laser.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
  47. Science Fiction by DeadBugs · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    To quote the article "Hydrogen can be produced on Earth by water electrolysis. This process may be very efficient (in excess of 80%) I think it would be safer and more realistic to produce hydrogen on earth with a large array of solar cells. Many of the countries in the Middle East that currently rely on oil also have plenty of sunlight and border the ocean. Now would be the time to convert to a hydrogen economy before the oil runs out.

    --
    http://www.kubuntu.org/
    1. Re:Science Fiction by kensail · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Production of Hydrogen with electricity is one of the most interesting ways to "store" the energy produced by wind generated power. The problem with all natural power sources is that it isn't always there are the peak demand period. The sun shines (almost) the same at noon as 4. By producint hydrogen via electricity you can effecticely "store" that energy for peak demand periods.

    2. Re:Science Fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem here, is that current solar->electricity technology is very inefficient. Solarvoltaic cells at maximum (read very costly research materials) produce only 4% of the energy hitting it to electricity. So, do the math, 0.04 * 0.80 is the actual efficiency of a system based on this. Starts to look alot worse huh? Well, even at that efficiecy, the cost per energy unit would be staggering, becuase of the solar cells. It's not realistic at all, sorry. Maybe wind and other solar technologies could make it work, but that's another issue.

  48. Pournelle has been on about something similar... by Goon+Number+1 · · Score: 1

    here. Basically build a satellite that beams down microwave radiation (yeah, yeah, through the ozone layer...heating up the atmosphere) to ground based stations that are set up tp collect it.

    --
    http://radio.weblogs.com/0103443/
  49. Giant "Laser" eh? by InsaneGeek · · Score: 2

    I call it the Alan Parson's Project

  50. I don't see the point by savage_panda · · Score: 1

    Why would they want to build solar array in space? They could just use ground solar arrays, wind mills, tital power genrators. They can then generate hydrogen the good old fashion way of sticking few iron poles into the water, and cranking up the juice.

    It'll Saves the cost of launching satelites. The sun can't be that much weaker on earth. And the cost of transporting the solar cells up to space should allow many more times the same solar cells on earth. Not to mention all the other alternative ways to generate electicity from renewable sources on earth.

    Also satelites can't be over the same spot of the earth all the time, and the more of an angle it is to the island, the more atmosphere the laser will have to travel through, and the more energy will be dissipated in the atmosphere.

    I think this scientist is a quack. Unless this is a ploy a Japanese company who's headed by a mastermind CEO to have giant lasers in orbit to fry things on earth. Then I can see the point. It'll be like a typical Final Fantasy story line.

    N

    1. Re:I don't see the point by anno1602 · · Score: 1

      Why would they want to build solar array in space? They could just use ground solar arrays, wind mills, tital power genrators. They can then generate hydrogen the good old fashion way of sticking few iron poles into the water, and cranking up the juice.
      (1) Yes, the sun is much stronger up there. Atmosphere really prevents a bad sunburn, among other things. (2) There are no clouds in the orbit. No bad weather, always direct sunlight. So much better. (3) If you are high enough, you only have a few hours of night a year. (see article)

      Also satelites can't be over the same spot of the earth all the time
      Yes they can. Geostationary orbit is what it's called. If that wouldn't be the case, you would have to constantly realign you TV satellite dish.

    2. Re:I don't see the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also satelites can't be over the same spot of the earth all the time
      Seems that you aughtta tell Hughes and DirecTV engineers about this issue (also the Military of many large countries), because it seems that you know something they don't.

  51. You only Live Twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm a Japanese scientist putting a space laser in orbit, wasn't that the plot of the Bond fick "You Only Live Twice" or was it "Diamonds are Forever"? I have to stop watching late nite TBS while stoned.

  52. Interesting idea by bryan1945 · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    I first read about something like this is a scifi series by Michael F. Flynn- Rogue Star, Firestar. In those books they used satellites to pump microwaves down to earth to provide electricity.

    But you come up with the same type of questions: What thermal effects will it have on the atmosphere? Can it be used as a weapon? What effect will it have on local weather (how cool would it be to have a _stable_, low-scale tornado centered on the warmed air around the laser!)?

    Solar energy is nearly a holy grail for energy- it's always there and there is a bunch of it. The only problem is collecting it efficiently and delivering it (ok, 2 probs). Personally, I think it would be better to beam down the power and then crack the water, rather than have a huge ass laser bombarding the ocean. How many seagulls are you going to cook? Of course, you could set up "Fried Seagull Emporium" as a lunch stand for the workers!

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:Interesting idea by Zoop · · Score: 2

      Back in the 70's with the Oil Crisis, Uncle Sugar poured a lot of money into researching just this technology (solar satellites beaming microwaves to transmit the power). The usual objections about the cost of launching that much material into orbit versus the money it would make providing power were what killed it.

      However, it did enrich (yeah, right) a member of my family, a well-known bee researcher (well, as well-known as bee researchers get), who did the social insect studies on the collection system (a grid of wires in some fairly far-off place). He found there were no effects, but hey, he got grant money and 27 negative papers to his name! ;-)

    2. Re:Interesting idea by sehryan · · Score: 2, Funny

      from playing simcity, you would know that the only risk is from it missing its target and blowing up a section of town, which is easy to stop by just unchecking "Disasters." DUH!

      --
      The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
    3. Re:Interesting idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Personally, I think it would be better to beam down the power and then crack the water, rather than have a huge ass laser bombarding the ocean.

      In the article, they mention shooting the beam into a tank of water and catalyst, not just shooting it into the ocean.

  53. don't forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could use the power to fuel an army of super-transforming Godzillabot robosoldiers to take over the world. Damn slant eyed yellow bastards.

  54. Low earth orbit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article mentions that these satelites would be in low earth orbit, yet have a stationary generation plant on the surface. Would you not require a geostationary orbit at 36K km in order to do this? And the best place to put your generation plant would probably be on the equator to reduce atmospheric effects.

    My 2c.

  55. Great Scott! by Archie+Steel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Of course, you realize than can only mean one thing: FNORD

    --

    Reminder: find a new sig
  56. Whoops by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember about plans to win energy from the sun by solar panels in low orbit and then emiting this energy to relay stations on earth by way of a narrow focus ion beam or something -- sorry, I ain't no rocket scientist.
    I also distincly remember this being a bad idea because the chance of failure and was too high -- the thought of a high power beam coursing it's destructive path along the earth ad random would make you think twice even about the lowest chances of failure.

    Wouldn't this system be prone to the same kind of risks?

    --

    ---
    "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    1. Re:Whoops by afidel · · Score: 1

      I also distincly remember this being a bad idea because the chance of failure and was too high -- the thought of a high power beam coursing it's destructive path along the earth ad random would make you think twice even about the lowest chances of failure.

      Wouldn't this system be prone to the same kind of risks?


      No, that is not a problem, you just use a feedback loop where a very small portion of the power from the receiving station is used to send an "ok" signal back to the satelite. No "ok" signal, the transmitter shuts off. The misconception that satelite based power production is dangerous mostly comes from Sim City where it a satelite power station randomly frying parts of your city was one of the accidents. In reality the problem is solved by anyone who thinks about it for ~30 seconds.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  57. Thermodynamics need not apply, Re:main dilemma? by bourne · · Score: 2

    Is the way to finally break the main dilemma of the hydrogen economy? (That it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you gain in using it.)

    No. In order to do that, you would have to repeal the laws of thermodynamics [ouc.bc.ca].

    You're playing with the words. The dilemna of the hydrogen economy is that the inefficiencies of conversion cause more energy to be wasted (from the point of view of human users, natch) than is the case with other, less friendly (environmentally, renewability) fuels (like petroleum).

    1. Re:Thermodynamics need not apply, Re:main dilemma? by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      The problem with petroleum is that the hard work has already been done by nature. We're just coasting on the free ride until we run out.

  58. A "Giant Laser"? by Oztun · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah but what happens when Dr Evil gets ahold of this "giant laser" and holds the earth hostage for ONE MILLION dollars?

  59. Thermodynamics no longer holds up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 1st law of Thermodynamics was broken a couple years ago. In fact it was broken by a 7yr old girl. What's amusing is her father, Homer Simpson, was rather unsupportive and upset that she had broken the 1st law. I believe he is a programmer. All day long he listens to QA people telling him his code is broken, so its no wonder he acts this way. Anyway, look into what else this 7rs old girl has done, quite amasing. I've heard through the grape vine that they might create a TV show based off of her.

  60. The real reason they want the lasers: by return+42 · · Score: 1

    Gojira!

  61. Offtopic - Weapons in Space by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 0, Redundant

    When has the United States put weapons in space?

    Or the Soviets for that matter?

    Sure there are rumors of US and Soviet FOBS nukes being up there in the 60s and 70s, but no one thinks anyone has nukes up there now.

    1. Re:Offtopic - Weapons in Space by PEdelman · · Score: 1
      When has the United States put weapons in space?

      Ok, my mistake. Guess I watched Austin Powers one too many times. Anyway, I was referring to the missile defency system the US is developing, which is indeed not located in space.

      Still, my point stands; why should Japan worry about what what the world thinks, if the US does not (both specific and generic). And no, contrary to what the US government wants people to think, I'm not a terrorist because I don't agree with the US government.

      --
      Like science? Comics? Wicked...
      Funny By Nature
    2. Re:Offtopic - Weapons in Space by Bodrius · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because Japan is aware there are other countries in the world and plans their foreign policy accordingly.

      The majority of the United States, however, thinks everything beyond the border (any border!) is some big territorial mass called "Mexico" whose population will speak perfect if slightly accented English when pressed with slower, louder sentences by the tourists, just like in the movies.

      Sometimes, someone belonging to that majority will be elected for some public office, and that along with the pressure from the voters who think Asia is part of the Middle East will invalidate any foreign policy not based on total obliviousness to the external world.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
  62. Re:That's why this will be implemented by mikeee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A weapon system that's PROFITABLE when not in use! Just imagine how the economic numbers on this thing look better if the DOD covers, say 25% of operating costs for the right to commender it during wartime.

  63. Re:Page Lengthening Day!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    and there are some true trolls amongst the gems. Crapflooding is for trolls who have a better grasp on their minuscule genitals than the English language. Furthermore, if their vocabulary rivaled their exaggerated aforementioned genitalia sizes, reading troll posts would be a refreshing, enlightening and enjoyable experience.

    Oh yea, and "Lasers" are cool. 'specially on the moon and shit.

  64. Too vunerable? by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So, when we've run out of fossil fuels and each nation has their orbiting lasers up there generating H2, wouldn't it be incredibly easy for a hostile nation to take out another Nation or Nation's energy source? A few quick zaps and bamb! The hydorgen lasers are knocked out of alignement or disabled and ooops - no power! - and no quick and easy way to restore the power either.

    Those lasers won't be very easy to defend, unlike oilfields and power stations. Well, ok, you can drop a few nukes to take out the powerstations but the country woulnd't be habitable afterwards.

    It seems to me that relying on this tech for power makes you a hell of a lot more vunerable.

    --
    And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
  65. At least by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when Victor Frieze freezes gotham city we'll have a super convenient method of thawing.

  66. Make Popcorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see we could break into someone's house fill it with Jiffy Pop. Hack the laser controls then destroy their house as it erupts from the inside with Popcorn.

  67. Risks by Antity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A giant orbital laser that fires to the ground into a giant salt water swimmingpool.

    • What is the impact of fried birds dropping onto this pool?

    • What can this concentrated energy do to some of the earths outer layers that are important for climate? Atmosphere, stratosphere, and so on.

    • Impact on the ozone layer, which is already (by definition, not by human interaction) quite thin and easy to disturb?

    • What are they going to do with all the Oxygenium? Since the air we breathe consists to more than 70 percent of Nitrogen, not Oxygene, simply freeing large volumes could be problematic. (And can be quite a risk for the installation itself. Think of "no smoking".)

    • What if a mislead plane happens to fly into the beam? A weather balloon?

    • Impact on clouds? Hitting them (and the H2O within them) will also split the H2O, and then Ozone will react from the Oxygenium radicals. And: Ozone is only good in exactly the right height over ground. Every Ozone lower than that is poisonous and, in the volumes we're talking about, could lead to quite interesting weather effects within these clouds.

    • Don't talk about what happens if this cloud of ozone happens to drift over some city. In cities, we usually call this "smog" and try to avoid it.

    • Sulfur dioxide, raising up in clouds from big cities or other things that burn fuel (oil plants?) is known to react to Sulfur Acid in the athmospere, with the help of the power of sunlight. A while after, we call this "sour rain" or "acid rain". What amount of acid could react if a cloud like this is hit by this _very_ strong artificial sun?

    Nice idea, but done by company scientists for company scientists. IMHO, this could cause far too many things to be implemented.

    And, remember: "They" are not fiddling with a x square miles big sector of air above their installation. They're fiddling with the atmosphere that is shared by some billion of people. There is hardly a thing like local effects with wind, clouds, and weather. Ask your European friend if he sometimes finds a thin layer of very fine sand outside his house or on his windows. This comes straight from the Sahara desert in Africa. (No, I'm not kidding.)

    When the reactor in Tchernobyl went "blob", the radioactive dirt was distributed over half of Europe, 1000s of kilometres, which still ended up with enough dirt to have them throw away every vegetable in their gardens.

    And: Science doesn't have any data about what happens to the very highest layers above us when hit by a concentrated stream of energy on a single point that is several times stronger than the strong rays of the real sun around it. It might well cause something or, doing this several months in a row, burn a hole into a layer of gases that we not even know about yet. We Just Don't Know.

    Fiddling with this is just stupid.

    --
    42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
    1. Re:Risks by Antity · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I forgot another scenario, in Today's Feared World Of Terrorism:

      Big satellite takes light from the sun to transform it into a big laser and fire it down to some H2O plant.

      Terrorists take small plane (one of these remote-controllables), fill it with a huge amount of "go-boom-if-ignited" stuff and fly to the plant. A few metres over the ocean, of course. You can't see something like this on a radar.

      (I even read an article about something like this a few months ago. I think the US Navy was thinking about doing exactly this - solar driven little planes, remote controlled, a little bit over the ocean, had enough power to cross a whole ocean and make pictures or deliver bombs to the other side.)

      Well, it would arrive unexpected, go "boom", ignitioning all the Hydrogen and Oxygen that this plant had produced...

      Do terrorists read Slashdot?

      --
      42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
    2. Re:Risks by Tattva · · Score: 1

      It's hard to explode hydrogen efficiently. Don't tell me about the Hindenburg, that was rocket fuel, not hydrogen burning, you can tell by the color of the flames. It would be especially hard if the plant designers did something silly like put the containers underground to exploit the structural stability of the earth and separate the oxygen and hydrogen by a few hundred meters.

      --
      personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
    3. Re:Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Color of the flames? All depictions are black and white. Even the color ones are psuedo-colored technicolor stuff. The burning of the hindenburg is mostly the skin of the aircraft itself, not the hydrogen. Hydrogen can't burn without O2, of course. And rocket fuel, on a baloon? What kind of stupid idea is that?

      I agree that the O2 and H2 at this facility would e seperated by a great degree, only makes sense.

    4. Re:Risks by Tattva · · Score: 1
      And rocket fuel, on a baloon? What kind of stupid idea is that?

      Ask the Germans. They used a compound containing oxygen and aluminum and is similar in composition to rocket fuels used in the American space program. Slashdot had an article about this a month ago.

      --
      personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
    5. Re:Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Uh, have you ever heard of science? You try things out. Find out what happens, and see if it matches your theory. Refine and repeat.


      The reason "something MAY go wrong" is no reason to not explore. "Something MAY go right."

      Not to mention that it is possible to select a laser in the spectrum that passes through the atmosphere (or at least regions of it) without effect. Different materials pass certain wavelengths through while trapping others. The sky is no different.

    6. Re:Risks by Antity · · Score: 1

      Uh, have you ever heard of science?

      Sure. You could even better hear it in the Middle Age. It was them whose houses went "boom" in a periodic way. :-)

      You try things out. Find out what happens, and see if it matches your theory. Refine and repeat.

      Right and Wrong. Yes, you try things out. But sending a sattelite into space that fires a strong laser beam through atmosphere directly to earth and "let's see what happens, if it works or if something is destroyed on the way" is not Science. It's vandalism.

      And it's about fiddling with an atmosphere that doesn't belong to a handful of scientists here but billions of people. This is nothing you play let's-see-what-happens with.

      --
      42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
    7. Re:Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But sending a sattelite into space that fires a strong laser beam through atmosphere directly to earth and "let's see what happens, if it works or if something is destroyed on the way" is not Science. It's vandalism.

      Like, duh, dude. You really think they're going to do a full-up test of this up front? No way. They're going to do lab test after lab test, then (if and only if all goes well) send a weak sat up to study the effects they couldn't study in the lab, et cetera...unless, of course, people like you protest at the possible risks, and prevent them from even doing those studies in the first place because what the studies might lead to is "too dangerous". At least some of the corporate masters are bright enough to realize that, if they vape away the atmosphere, all that money they make is going to mean squat. Sheesh, give 'em credit for at least minimal intelligence in their own self-interest.

  68. Dissolving! by Lord+Puppet · · Score: 2, Funny

    Flames! I'm dissolving in flames!

  69. is it really a smart idea? by pyite69 · · Score: 1


    Taking hydrogen from seawater doesn't sound too smart to
    me. Doesn't life on earth depend on the ocean?

    1. Re:is it really a smart idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! Guess what exhaust is produced when hydrogen is used as a fuel?

    2. Re:is it really a smart idea? by Tower · · Score: 1

      Well, seeing as how much water there actually is, and the fact that when you burn the hydrogen, water is created, which then eventually falls back to Earth, making a path to the ocean... this wouldn't be any different from the normal water cycle (just a little more localized.

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    3. Re:is it really a smart idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you can buy bottled water in the store. Add common household salt, and you can make all the seawater you want. In many ways it would be even better, because some of the bottled waters have vitamins and other good things.

  70. Oil tankers are hazardous... by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 1

    When Masahiro Mori sees international petroleum supertankers groan into Japan's Chiba, it must strike him, like many other energy visionaries, as an absurd image: a hazardous product being hauled thousands of miles across a potentially superior and cleaner fuel, hydrogen.

    So he proposes using an "orbital death ray"? Someone please send this guy a copy of Star Wars.

    --

    'Same speed C but faster'
    1. Re:Oil tankers are hazardous... by FasterThanLight · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within...

      --
      They're a little melty, but damn are they exquisite!
  71. Re:That's why this will be implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    And on the plus side, we'd get to laugh at California being blacked out every time the US went to war.

  72. Re:Page Lengthening Day!!! by rm-r · · Score: 1

    I agree! I like to browse at -1, but don't want to hear from AC's or foes. Being able to completly cut these spastics from loop is the only way to make them stop- after all we all know they only carry on with this kind of cos nobody wants to look at them, let alone communicate with them in the real world. Also is it too much to ask that posts contain the goatse.cx link be diverted to the round file?

    Of course submitting all this to the RFE means all that signing up, which I'm not happy to do...

    --

    J-aims
    --
    Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
  73. Re:ARE YOU GAY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was very good. Now why doesn't something like that go into your journal? You did write that, right?

    -txr

  74. Micheal, dear Micheal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The original story is at Space.com and is a much better story there than the very condensed version republished by Yahoo. You should have pointed everyone to the story at Space.com instead of yahoo.

  75. Weapons in Space? No. by Kozz · · Score: 2

    Every time there's a Slashdot article about putting a laser (on the moon | in orbit | on another satellite), someone says, "Ooooh, but what about its use as a weapon? The rest of the world ain't gonna go for this!"

    The truth of the matter is that the amount of energy needed by an "outer-space laser" to be an effective weapon would be so great, and the cost of this outerspace weapon so great, that it would not be feasible. Why on earth would a government put an unquestionably more expensive space-laser-weapon in orbit if conventional weapons ("daisycutter", anyone?) are already so very effective?

    Aside from the practical reasons, the political fallout of using a orbiting laser weapon would be astronomical.

    Let's be serious, okay?

    --
    I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
  76. Re:Page Lengthening Day!!! by JatTDB · · Score: 2

    Funnily enough, I did send this idea in the other day for the same reasons...and it was rejected pretty quickly by CmdrTaco. Said something like "I don't really plan on that. I just fundamentally think of -1 as the trash heap."

    Oh well.

    --
    "That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
  77. Re:Weapons in Space? No. by cnkeller · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Why on earth would a government put an unquestionably more expensive space-laser-weapon in orbit if conventional weapons ("daisycutter", anyone?) are already so very effective?

    The problem is that they aren't that effective. The turnaround time from intel collection to a conventional bombing run is usally far too long. You need to have bombers in the area, bombs in the arsenal, and generally have a static target that won't move from the time of intel collection to bomb run; generally pointless for taking out personnel; much more effective for equipment. With a space based weapon system (such as lasers), you could more or less pin-point any area under the satellite within a few momements of getting the intel. Throw enough of them above the earth in a geo-synchronous orbit and you could cover all the inhabited portions of the planet. Yes, yes, I'm completing ignoring the political ramifications of a space based assassination system. Remember Real Genius? Well, the movie was quite fantastical, but the theory is sound. Two years ago, a predator drone had a live video feed of Bin Laden in a training camp, sadly they were unarmed and could do nothing but watch him wander about. Any wonder why they are all armed now?

    --

    there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

  78. How can you go wrong? by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

    Heck, how can you possibly go wrong with giant orbiting lasers? Let's do it!

  79. Poof No Eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. Now they can have their own "Star Wars" system in orbit. Don't piss them off ;)

  80. James Bond has the Proof !!! 8) by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 0

    Well, without speaking of Nukes, please note ther ARE weapons in Space...

    1 - An old scheme to destroy russian Sats was to propell steel balls from an US sat, thus destroying the solar panels and damaging the sat itself.
    Cheap, Efficient, and does it validate as a Weapon ?

    2 - Nukes are not the only way. Their was once a "Study Military Sat" with a microwave canon.

    Not powerfull enough to kill all Russians, but enough to irradiate 2-300 square kilometers, with enough power to sterilize all sperm producing species in the zone.
    Think "Long Term"

    3 - Any person having to deal with the military and their budget (300 BILLIONS US$ this year ?^something like that I think) will tell those guys have military sats, some of them equipped with dense lasers. Not a Nuke, but enough to fry a ballistic missile.

    4 - Take something the size of MIR (ISS anyone ?)
    Drop it anywhere on a city.
    And then sept 11th will look like a childs party.
    (Yes I know it is VERY difficult to aim something like MIR, we've seen it already. Nevertheless...)

    5 - If James Bond had to face it in the 70s, you can be sure somebody did it in the 90s. Maybe not the sat that eats other sats, but lasers on a sat are not that hard to put.
    Just imagine Hubble with a Laser. You already have the high precision lens... But then I'm much too far ahead. 8)

    6 - and last.
    Even if we are on Slashdot, "but no one thinks anyone has nukes up there now" doesn't count as an argument.
    Do you know how many military sats the US has launched ? or USSR ? just think for 5 sec, and remember that we are not told everything (I know, lame comment, but true, nonetheless).
    So many weapons have been experimented. If they went to the Electronic Spy Cat (I don't find the link, but search Slashdot & Cryptome), sending a nuke in space in secrecy is really a fast done job.

    Hoping to read from you

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  81. Rube... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Channeling Rube... Rube, you there?

  82. Why Not Fission? by Brown+Line · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me that instead of a Buck Rogers-style solution to cracking H2O into H2, why not use fission power to do the same thing? Fission power is a well-known source of energy - no R&D involved - and the plants used to crack H2O into H2 can be located far from any populated area, to minimize risk in case of an accident. A question for the chemists in the /. audience: would it be feasible to use fission power to combine atmospheric CO2 with H2O to make methane? If so, it would be possible to port the methane via the nation's natural-gas pipelines to power home fuel-cell units to generate electricity. In effect, you could transmit nuclear-generated energy thousands of miles with minimal transmission loss. Just a thought. In any event, I was delighted to read about the fuel-cell initiative. I'll be buying one of those home units as soon I can afford one.

    --
    [this .sig for rent]
    1. Re:Why Not Fission? by J'raxis · · Score: 2, Informative

      What are you talking about? Fission is a process on the atomic scale (breaking an atom into smaller atoms, e.g., Uranium-235 down into Barium-144 and Krypton-90), not breaking chemical molecules into their constituent atoms. You cannot break a water molecule into anything via fission, however the individual oxygen atoms within could be theoretically broken down into something else, even though oxygen is not typically considered fissionable (that is, most atoms do not have an affinity to split apart like Uranium or Plutonium do).

    2. Re:Why Not Fission? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me that instead of a Buck Rogers-style solution to cracking H2O into H2, why not use fission power to do the same thing?

      Because you get less useful energy (work) out of the H2 you produce than it takes to produce the H2, better to simply use the electricity directly.

      In effect, you could transmit nuclear-generated energy thousands of miles with minimal transmission loss.

      All you are doing is exchanging transmission loss for generation inefficiencies. The net result is a net loss in energy.

  83. Re:I want to fuck your mom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...with a chainsaw

  84. And it shall be called... by slow_flight · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... the Alan Parsons project.

    --

    Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
    1. Re:And it shall be called... by jelle · · Score: 1

      The eye in the sky, looking at youuuuu?

      (wow that was a long time ago).

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
  85. Hydrogen is mediocre as a fuel by ec_hack · · Score: 1
    The major problem with hydrogen as a fuel for non-industrial applications is that it is not nearly as dense as hydrocarbons. Despite lots of research, nobody has found a good way to store H2 for consumer use.


    In order to have a useable car with H2 fuel cells, you would need to have either a cryogenic system for liquid H2 or tanks of highly compressed H2 gas in your car. To me, given the frequency of auto crashes, this would result in accidents that are much more hazardous than they are now. Refueling your car would require handling materials much more hazardous than gasoline on a routine basis. Can Aunt Minnie handle cryo fluid transfers or deal with high pressure gas couplings? I didn't think so.


    As for using H2 in existing pipelines, the stoppers used to be the fact that H2 will seep out of cracks that natural gas won't (creating an explosion/fire hazard) and H2 tends to make metals more brittle over time as it invades cracks in the metals.

    It still seems that using microwave transmission from orbit is the best solution at the present time. It is efficient, has a way to use the existing electrical grid, and can't be directly used as a weapon. Now if we can just get the cost to orbit down to reasonable levels ......

    1. Re:Hydrogen is mediocre as a fuel by cat_jesus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually hydogren can be stored in metal hydrides. This is a convenient and safe way to store hydrogen and is what some fuel cells use today.

      Cat

    2. Re:Hydrogen is mediocre as a fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, you're right that hydrogen is not as dense as any hydrocarbon. Where you're wrong, is that the energy density of Hydrogen is VERY hard to beat. Why do they use cryogenic hydrogen on the space shuttle, instead of gasoline or diesel fuel? Bingo. Energy density.

      In hydrocarbons, you have all kinds of cruft hanging around (all those carbons don't do alot for the energy content -- especially when being burned, versus other extraction methods). They just make the fuel heavier. In the cases of fuels that have hydrogens carbons and oxygens, the oxidizer can have tremendous effect. Problem here is the combination is almost always very volatile, and explosive. (Daisy Cutter)

      Not to mention the fact that most of the H2 fuel systems proposed for cars do use cryogenic storage, and that it has undergone much testing. It's just not more dangerous than gasoline, in large ammounts of course.

    3. Re:Hydrogen is mediocre as a fuel by ec_hack · · Score: 1
      Why do they use cryogenic hydrogen on the space shuttle, instead of gasoline or diesel fuel? Bingo. Energy density.


      Um. No. Per unit mass H2 is near the top in energy density. Per unit volume, liquid H2 is a loser to most hydrocarbons. The Space Shuttle uses H2/O2 for high ISP, not energy density. Current NASA research and industry practice for new launchers is to use a hydrocarbon such as RP-1 jet fuel for the first stage - you get a smaller first stage with lower drag due to a smaller cross section. (And higher thrust, which gets you out of the dense air faster. Example - the Saturn V - Lox/RP-1 first stage, H2/Lox upper stage.)

  86. Re:Dave Thomas is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now THAT'S funny

  87. sure, sure... and SDI is dead? by jayfang · · Score: 1

    George W. Bush thinks he can get all sorts of weapons on earth or in space, and has rescinded agreements to achieve this.
    And doesn't even need a power generating (or energy redirecting - if the thermo-nerds prefer) excuse.
    look /. no tipo!

  88. Whatever happened to the algae? by bitty · · Score: 1

    All this discussion on ways to produce hydrogen makes me wonder. Did anything ever materialize in the research being done on the hydrogen producing algae?

  89. I've got a better idea by Tyrannosaurus · · Score: 5, Funny
    Why don't we just attach some laser beams to the heads of some sharks? The sharks are in the water, the lasers are in the water...BAM, we've got the Hydrogen!


    C'mon people! All I want is some frickin' sharks with lasers on their heads! Is that too much to ask?

    --

    ---
    Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
    1. Re:I've got a better idea by PaxTech · · Score: 1

      I've got some ill-tempered mutated sea bass if that will help...

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
  90. Re:Weapons in Space? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could have crashed the drone into him. Eye for an eye.

  91. Remember that game Asteroids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this whole hydrogen conversion idea doesn't work out... just flip that baby upside down and start firing. no more sending bruce willis up in space to blow up asteroids!

  92. Military Tie-in by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    It stands to reason that if Japan can make solar-pumped lasers and have a few nuclear reactors around, they could make nuke-pumped x-ray lasers.

  93. It'll never see light... by pjt48108 · · Score: 1

    ...so to speak.

    A much better idea would be to harness energy from the sea itself in order to crack hydrogen from sea water.

    I once read a very interesting book called the Millennial Project, which, in it's first section, describes the construction, through mineral accretion, of sea colonies which exploit the temperature difference between levels of sea water, thus generating the power needed to derive hydrogen from the sea water itself.

    Why go into space when the sea gives it up for [almost] free?

    http://www.luf.org/bin/view/TMP/ClassicAquarius

    --
    Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
    1. Re:It'll never see light... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leveling temperature differences (which is what you will do if you "exploit" them) in oceans will have effects on the oceanic streams as they are to present knowledge driven by temperature differences. For example Europeans wouldn't be very happy if you shut down the Gulf Stream, as it is the main reason for the mild weather there (compared to other locations of same latitude).

  94. Let's keep this simple by smammon · · Score: 1

    Ok no more troting out the law of thermodynamics and debating renewables. The fact is that at some point we must give up our beloved hydrocarbons and Hydrogen is the best bet.

    Shocking solution => Wind Mills! ooh aah.

    Centuries of farmers and most of the residents of Holland will tell you they pump water like nothing else. Hook up a turbine and they also generate shit loads of electricity - already as cheap as coal. (tried to find a reference on cost here - I'm sure pacificorp has the data somewhere on their site but my job is limiting my search time today).

    After they are setup and pumping/cracking who the F cares about the energy input. Keep it simple stupid - Lasers in orbit, come on, thats like boiling water with a nuke. Oh I forgot, we do that too. Stupid Humans!

    --
    "Smile, listen, agree, and then do whatever the fuck you wanted to do anyway." ~Robert Downey Jr.
    1. Re:Let's keep this simple by DaCool42 · · Score: 1

      The problem with windmills is they need wind. Fine for windy places, but not so good if you never get enough breeze to move the stupid thing.

      --

      ----
      All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
    2. Re:Let's keep this simple by seaward · · Score: 1

      After you see about 500 windmills, they are ugly. Every time you go over another hill, there they are, and they catch your eye because they are moving. They also are loud! Think of putting 10 loud moving cell phone towers on every ridge. yuck. but standing below one with the 150 foot long blades spinning at 60 rpm is exciting!

      In Iceland they are planing on creating H2 by geothermal power. This makes great sense as they have a huge surplus of heat to create steam,electric and then h2. This is the KISS method. low tech and they will be producing h2 cheaper and quicker than anybody.
      see http://www.lv.is/lv.nsf/pages/hydrogen_society-ens .html

      The US has one of the world hottest most accessible volcanic calderas in the world. Is is huge and hot and could power that whole country. It's called Yellowstone.

  95. Re:Weapons in Space? No. by BCoates · · Score: 1

    The problem is that they aren't that effective. The turnaround time from intel collection to a conventional bombing run is usally far too long. You need to have bombers in the area, bombs in the arsenal, and generally have a static target that won't move from the time of intel collection to bomb run; generally pointless for taking out personnel; much more effective for equipment.

    It appears that the millitary has shortened the turnaround time (article describing U.S. infantry using laser designators to hit enemy troops in realtime) for bombing runs.

    you could more or less pin-point any area under the satellite within a few momements of getting the intel. Throw enough of them above the earth in a geo-synchronous orbit and you could cover all the inhabited portions of the planet. Yes, yes, I'm completing ignoring the political ramifications of a space based assassination system

    It seems like aiming the laser that accurately (within the meter or so you'd have to hit to assasinate someone with it) would be pretty difficult... Besides, how often do you know someone's exact location without having someone present who could just shoot them? (ignoring the unmanned drone situation, which, like you said, was fixed)

    --
    Benjamin Coates

  96. And What About the Methane Producing Cattle? by trongey · · Score: 1

    They currently produce as much as 85 million tons per year.

    --
    You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  97. Yeah, just look at what happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they tried to use the SOL cannon on Tetsuo.

  98. Dangerous by TheWhiteOtaku · · Score: 2

    Am I the only one that thinks the very idea of "orbiting lasers" is a bit dangerous?

    --

    Given a reasonably level playing field, who would win a fight between a bear and a shark?

    1. Re:Dangerous by Lord+of+Caustic+Soda · · Score: 1

      Well, it's only dangerous to people not control of them, assuming 100% reliability!

      And comes in handy in an interstellar conflict! All we need is to deploy nukes in space, invent energy shields, hyperspace travel.......

      Damnit! We want some real aliens to fight and the technology to fight them with. And those aliens can be reptilian, insectoid, or just yucky slimy blobs... :)

      --
      Kill'em! Kill'em all!
  99. Thermodynamics by nanojath · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Precisely. Why is this so hard to understand? Every form of fuel or energy storage requires more power to create than it can produce. Otherwise you could simply hook the power production process up to the power storage/fuel creation process and - Viola! - perpetual motion, all our energy problems are solved.


    The main problem of all renewable energy schemes is that fossil fuels are formed by millions of years of solar energy accumulated by the biosphere and millions of years of geological pressure. It isn't that these fuels are more fundamentally efficient - in fact, they are relatively innefficient from many perspectives. It is that nature has done all the work for us - leaving us to liberate the value at our leisure. Convenient, and in the extremely narrow and short-sighted view we've taken of energy, cheap.


    The problems, of course, are that we are stuck with relatively dirty fuels like coal and oil, and that these fuels are not renewable in the short term. Hence, any renewable fuel will face us with a cost-benefits problem: it will cost more to produce than an equivalent unit of coal or oil. Until we start measuring the environmental, political and future stability/planning impacts as part of the cost of burning fossil fuels, it will always seem economically preferable to stick with our old standbys.


    The real issue of hydrogen or any alternative fuels (biomass derived, ethanol, etc.) is to find the most efficient way to use a renewable or sustainable energy source. Hydrogen has the convenience and benefit of being a fuel: useful from points of view of storage and self-containment.

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

  100. Oil vs. Seawater by Alkaiser · · Score: 1

    I don't see how there's even an argument about this being better...it's the SAME, isn't it?

    Am I just missing something here, or isn't this process going to be essentially harvesting the water in the ocean for hydrogen?

    And when we're all out of seawater AND oil, then what? Find a way to rip out Earth's molten core and use that to power our spaceships to get us off this planet?

    --
    Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
    1. Re:Oil vs. Seawater by Atticka · · Score: 0
      ummmm......what does burning Hydrogen make? water!

      --
      No sig here...
    2. Re:Oil vs. Seawater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We won't ever run out of water. Every two hygroden atoms sucked out of the ocean will liberate an oxygen atom that will, at some later time, be rejoined with the hydrogen when the fuel is burned. It won't be the same atom, but the balance sheet will still match up in the end.

      Of course, combusion of the hydrogen w/ air will give us a byproduct of NO if the temperature is too high, but time and UV light will eventually get rid of that.

      So don't worry, as long as you don't horde the hydrogen, we won't run out of water.

    3. Re:Oil vs. Seawater by 2names · · Score: 0

      when you burn hydrogen, the "waste" product is water, dipshit.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  101. Slow down Cowboy by Uttles · · Score: 2

    Before you dismiss me as some idiot, let me just say I do know about physics, thermodynamics, molecular chemistry, and history. What I was doing here was thinking openly. All of the laws and rules of science are not flawless, they're all written by men. I don't doubt that our laws of thermodynamics are accurate, I'm only saying that it's ignorant to discount a seemingly impossible idea just because research to this day has built up evidence against it, for example, "the world is round." We all know how that argument turned out.

    Think about this (and I'm talking basics here, extremely simplistic, I don't want to get into details): what exactly is gravity? Just because something is massive, why am I pulled towards it because I'm far less massive? Why can I force two positively charged magnets towards each other and they will force themselves apart for as long as I feel like doing it? Yeah, yeah, I know about magnetism and molecular attraction and all that stuff, but I'm trying to get at the fact that science doesn't fully understand all of the forces around us, and it may never, so don't go condemning new ideas just because they disagree with your high school physics teacher.

    --

    ~ now you know
    1. Re:Slow down Cowboy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the world is flat" was never an argument. If you are referring to Columbus, the reason no one wanted to fund his trip is that they thought it was too far. His critics were right, he would've never made it to the real Indies. Instead, he was a very lucky SOB. The story about the flat-world view is from a book written in the 1800's which mocked earlier people. How do you suppose all that steering by the stars (using spherical geometry) was explained?

    2. Re:Slow down Cowboy by krlynch · · Score: 2

      Before you dismiss me as some idiot

      I'm not doing that, and I am sorry if I gave you that impression.

      it's ignorant to discount a seemingly impossible idea just because research to this day has built up evidence against it

      That is PRECISELY why I dismiss it: when someone tells me that a "water powered car" is possible, and I ask the question "How do you intend to extract energy from the water?", and the answer violates well understood and well researched physics AND the person making the claim hasn't demonstrated either that it works or that they understand the scientific method, then I dismiss their claim. If they do demonstrate it, and it conflicts with modern theory, then we have something to talk about. I do the same thing when my colleagues make ridiculous claims about the structure and properties of subatomic particles, and they do it to me; the difference is that we don't go out and tell the world that we can do something that we haven't suitably demonstrated is possible and have been peer reviewed.

      Think about this...: what exactly is gravity?

      If you could answer that question, then you would be a Nobel Laureate. :-) I can explain to you in great detail qualitatively HOW gravity works, I can give you detailed quantitative predictions, I can show you how precisely the theory matches the experiments, but I can't tell you WHAT gravity is ... and that is true of a great many things, but it doesn't prevent me from telling you that you WILL fall to earth if you strap on feathers and jump off a building while claiming you can fly.... And I do realize that you were using gravity as an example, but I would have torn any other example to shreds too :-)

      don't go condemning new ideas just because they disagree with your high school physics teacher.

      I wouldn't condemn them on those grounds; my high school physics teachers knew so little physics :-) I condemn pseudoscience/bad science/crackpot ideas based on my doctoral level research and training in physics (truth in advertising: I haven't defended my dissertation yet ... give me three more months :-) And I don't have a tendency to condemn those ideas that I think are ridiculous but are outside my field, because I don't necessarily have the training to do so with authority; I only attack those things which violate known experimental facts within my field. And a water powered car is one of those things that is known from experiment (not just our crazy theory) to be impossible.

      My basic point is the following: while it may be ignorant to discount an idea based on a hunch that conflicts with my (experimentally based) understanding of the structure of physical reality, it is even more ignorant to promulgate ideas that explicitly conflict with well established and easily reproducible experimental facts.

  102. Low earth orbit? by LeBain · · Score: 1

    How are they going to keep a low earth orbit satellite over their little water tank? Or are they only going to zap their tank once in every 90-minute orbit? They'd have to be at geosynch for this to work. If they're not, I see them cutting (accidentally or on purpose) swaths of narrow burn-lines across the globe in nice big curves.

    --
    Give serendipity a chance.
  103. The most important question... by Johnzo · · Score: 1

    Will the Godzilla Prediction Network have their own control room for the laser-birds?

    "Sir, Godzilla is approaching Tokyo!"

    *zortch*

  104. A question... by Analog+Squirrel · · Score: 1
    I'm not all that familiar with the TiO2 catalyst the article mentions. Does this work? It seems to me that simply focusing a laser on a body of water - no matter how many megawatts are involved - would have one result: liquid water boiled into steam. Am I missing something here?

    I'm also curious about the wavelength of the orbital laser. I don't have a reference in front of me, but as I recall, the primary "window" through the atmosphere is in the visible and IR wavelengths... How much diffraction and reflection of the laser light will there be? I wouldn't want to be on the airliner that gets hit by part of the beam that gets reflected off an ice crystal: 1% of 10 megawatts is still 100 kilowatts - no small amount of power!

    If these difficulties can be adequately addressed, it sounds like a great idea to me!

    --
    I'd rather be flying
  105. Forget H, what about Orbital Mind Control Lasers? by meehawl · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    I want these. I already have the Gnomes of Zurich and the Shriners. Soon my hierachy will be complete, oh yes.

    --

    Da Blog
  106. Orbital Mind Control Lasers by FacePlant · · Score: 2

    Can they be far behind?

    Where are the Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow when you need them?

    Fnord.

    --
    My Heart Is A Flower
    1. Re:Orbital Mind Control Lasers by RocketRay · · Score: 1

      Oh great. Now I have to get *another* tinfoil hat!

  107. TechTV by cyberbob2010 · · Score: 1

    I saw something on TechTV about this.
    My question is will it really mean diaster if something like a sim city kinda miss happens?

    --
    We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
  108. global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what effect would "cracking" water to make hydrogen have on the water level of the oceans?

  109. Re:not fp by 2names · · Score: 0

    That is one of the top 5 funniest posts I've ever read. I think I sincerely injured myself from laughing so hard. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. Although...."I'm not being sarcastic" does stink of sarcasm. Oh fuck it.

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  110. Energy deficit by 311Stylee · · Score: 1

    Although this seems like a great idea, most solar panels on earth can only extract 3 to 5 percent of the sun's energy per meter squared. Furthermore, it takes a huge amount of electrical power to actually get the silicon to form in those nice crystals in the first place. Thus, most solar panels in use right now are "catching up" on repaying all that energy dumped to make them.

    Luckily for us, some people are working on making amorphous silicon crystals which don't have the big power requirement to make, instead they use really nasty chemicals (oh well, gotta try something) to produce the amorphous silicon.
    Also, I was wondering what would happen if the laser "missed" and took out, say, Redmond, Washington? Is putting a huge laser in orbit something we really want to do? Just think of the Alan Parson's Project ... (i mean dr. evil's laser...)

    1. Re:Energy deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is not about solar cells. the idea is to have a photo-induced (chemical) reaction of H2O using a TiO2 catalyst:

      Light + 2 H2O + catalyst -> 2 H2 + O2 + catalyst.

      There is no electricity involved. The light used for the photoreaction is converted from sunlight using a Laser: sunlight pumps Laser -> Laser emits light of certain wavelength suitable for photoreaction.

  111. Godzilla? by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

    Without a Giant orbiting lasers with this much power how will they stop the next Godzilla attack on Tokyo.

    could be helpful if other genetic experiments go awry (akira anyone)

    --
    I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  112. fa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmmmm... sounds like "Reaganesque" pie-in-the-sky Star Wars type stuff to me.

  113. A Better method...Doing it on Earth by lsd4all · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a more promising method for Hydrogen cracking without adding more junk into orbit around this planet.

    Go, Go, Gadget.

  114. Portability and infrastructure. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

    1.the issue with adoption of hydrogegn is the entrenched position that fossil-fuels have. it's not that hydrogen is harder to use, it's that there is billions invested in transport, wells, autos, etc, all which would have to change. not to mention the industry mogul's (and current usa administration's) vested interest. in additon, you don't need so many specialized resources to create hydrogen, eh - just some electricity and water - think of the threat that poses to the oil hegemony...

    2.there are always energy costs to creating portable forms of energy, but that's the issue, not that it's more energy-expensive to create hydrogen than to use it. add up the costs in shipping oil around the planet. not cheap. the real benefit is that oil is portable once extracted.


    Both of these problems are addressed if you burn CO2 in a hydrogen atmosphere to produce methanol. Methanol can be stored and transported like any other volatile liquid fuel, which means you can use the existing infrastructure, and can use it automobiles with minimal modification (though you'd want a ceramic engine block to avoid corrosion in the long term).

    The article directly mentioned methanol production as an application of a hydrogen plant.

    Transport and infrastructure aren't the problem.

    The real reason why this won't be done any time soon is that gasoline is cheaper to produce per litre (by taking it out of the ground) than methanol (which must be made from scratch, by direct synthesis or farming and fermenting).

    When/if oil and natural gas reserves are depleted, it will become cost-competitive. Before then, it won't be.

  115. Re:Weapons in Space? No. by Gravityboy · · Score: 0

    Indeed, maybe so, but the energy to power it is provided by solar cells. Free of charge. So all you have to do is have a few efficient solar cells and there you go.

  116. Why water doesn't quench thermite. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

    My understanding is it REQUIES VERY HIGH temperatures to Dissacociate water on the order of 3500 degreesf plus (PS Dont ever try to quelch a thermite reaction with water :)

    This has nothing to do with the temperature needed to dissociate water.

    It has to do with the fact that aluminum will happily strip oxygen out of water (3H2O + 2Al -> 3H2 + Al2O3 + 818 kJ).

    This doesn't happen at room temperature (due to the activation energy and the oxide skin on aluminum), but at thermite temperatures it will most certainly happen. Aluminum is a very reactive metal.

  117. How would they store it? by Gravityboy · · Score: 0

    I wonder how they would extract and store the hyrdrogen. Sounds like it would just be floating free in the chamber..not such a good idea. One spark and boom, quite the explosion.
    Hopefully they've thought the storage and extraction part of this out...

  118. Hey Anonymous Moron... by Uttles · · Score: 1

    And where did I mention Columbus? I simply inferred that at one point people said the world was flat, and later on it was proven to be "round."

    If you're going to flame somebody, don't do it anonymously, and at least make sure you're doing a good job, damn.

    --

    ~ now you know
  119. Re:not fp by slakdrgn · · Score: 1
    yea yea it was a lame attempt at being funny.. :(

    but didn't mean to be trollish.. *sigh*

  120. Re:Weapons in Space? No. by linzeal · · Score: 1

    I just can't figure out why they don't use a laser detecting system and than shoot the particular laser freq out a safe distance from the site. It would at least give a marginal higher chance of survival and would probably be cheap as the laser would not have to on all the time just the detector.

  121. I have a clue you can borrow. It's in my pocket. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is [this] the way to finally break the main dilemma of the hydrogen economy? (That it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you gain in using it.)

    It's impossible to create energy out of nothing. All we can do is change it from one form to another. It's impossible to get more energy out of a system than has been put into it. Anyone who paid attention in Freshman physics would know this.

  122. [OT] Nations by BrianRowe · · Score: 1

    Each nation will not have it's own energy source. The energy is global. It is global due to the way the world economy is. The economy is extremely global and inter-dependant. The idea of "nation" is going to be outdated before too long (20+ years).

    There will be a few companies that will be in controll of whatever new energy source(s) there is(are). These companies will become the OPEC of tomarrow, except instead of nations being the constituents it will be massive corporations. Each one with sub-companies that speciallize in dealing with the laws of specific countries or regions.

    1. Re:[OT] Nations by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 2

      Each nation will not have it's own energy source. The energy is global. It is global due to the way the world economy is. The economy is extremely global and inter-dependant. The idea of "nation" is going to be outdated before too long (20+ years).

      That's pretty optimistic.

      There will be a few companies that will be in controll of whatever new energy source(s) there is(are). These companies will become the OPEC of tomarrow, except instead of nations being the constituents it will be massive corporations. Each one with sub-companies that speciallize in dealing with the laws of specific countries or regions.

      That's pretty pessimistic.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    2. Re:[OT] Nations by Lord+of+Caustic+Soda · · Score: 1

      I'd think there is nothing inherently bad with massive corporations having that much controlling power - it's just when we get to that stage the whole "hands off, it's business activity, we want free enterprises!" approach will hopefully be reveal to be woefully inadequate, and large corporations will be subject to more and more scrutiny on their conducts and have to take those attention into account when running their businesses.

      --
      Kill'em! Kill'em all!
  123. Re:Requisite Dr. Evil reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "The details of my life are quite inconsequential.... very well, where do i begin?


    My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum... it's breathtaking- I highly suggest you try it."

  124. Dr Evil by crystalplague · · Score: 1

    me thinks Dr Evil is behind this "laser". Quick, we must get Austin Powers' mojo back!

  125. Still uncertain about weapon use by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

    From a space.com article:

    "And it's not clear that NASDA's idea conforms to other standards laid out for solar power satellites ? that they should be environmentally benign and unusable as a weapon."

  126. Check Cyclodyne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A theory they have put forward and are in cooperation with CERN and the folks in Chicago based on the graviton particle theory could technically break the more in than out quandry.

    Basically gravity would power magnetic bottling in fusion, at least partially, allowing even current donut/superconductor designs to pump out far more power than is taken to start fusion and keep it going.

    All way over my head, and it's based on a rather wild theory in physics, but interesting.

    Another one I like is quark shearing...

  127. Re:Weapons in Space? No. by GunFodder · · Score: 2

    Hmmm... You're asking an organization that builds 1000 foot long metal boats that carry jets to be serious? You think that people who paid $500 for toilet seats are concerned about the cost of an orbital laser? Is the outfit that just toppled another sovereign government worried about international opinion?

    For the US military an orbital laser system is not a question of how or why, but when.

  128. Sim City by DeltaStorm · · Score: 1

    This seems like the hydrogen version of the Microwave powerplant (Satelite in space sends microwaves to a recieving dish). Now, if my Sim City serves me correctly, this will ocasionally misfire, setting fires and causeing general disorder in the city.

    --
    .sdrawkcab si gis siht
  129. Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since right after World War II, when we found out that we had more manufacturing capacity than all but possibly one other nation (since deceased).

  130. Real Genius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like that movie "Real Genius" (circa 1986?). Notwithstanding the merits of the concept, I don't like the idea of a space-based laser beaming down anything to the planet.

    There's SO many things that could go wrong, so many things that WILL go wrong, and it's such an attractive target for attack that it ought never to be done.

    Let's think about this:

    1) F'd up control sequence causes beam to go out of whack by say 2 degrees - POOF, people's houses cooked... people cooked, Fluffy the wonderdog - well, she's gone...

    2) Errant asteroid or space junk bumps the satellite - either it's totally dead, or it gets moved and is ON - but now burning out a small city as the beam moves... God forbid the damn thing starts to spin... OR even if it gets whacked and then dies out - the beam doesn't die right away so there's potential for frying stuff you don't want fried...

    3) Terrorist cell discovers that there's a bit of fuel available on satellite for 'repositioning' purposes. So they get a job in the control center, or hack in or whatever, and use ALL of the fuel to position it one last time for where they want to burn something out... Would make the WTC look like spilled milk in the kitchen...

    4) Random cosmic ray burns out or modifies a circuit - satellite now decides to reposition itself and frys out something...

    5) Satellite moves because of a glitch and is no longer geo-synchronous... Rather it's now a true satellite, whippin around the planet - When the solar collectors are in the light side, they're pumpin' out a beam, burning the shit out of everything below...

    6) Anyone want to take bets on which government will commandere this sucker in a war? Or put some "secondary" features into it that the original designers don't know about?

    No - my response to this would be forget it... Nice concept, but nope - we'll pass for now...

  131. A thank you... by slackergod · · Score: 2

    Japan's purpose in the world could be argued to be
    One, bring about Japanese artists,
    who could then create Anime, with it's promise of orbital lasers.
    And two, bring about Japanese scientists,
    who could then figure out an actual reason why we should have them.

    Thank you, Squaresoft, for the world of FF7.
    And thank you, Masahiro Mori, for bringing us that much closer to that world.

    -Slackergod

  132. Re:Weapons in Space? No. by cnkeller · · Score: 1
    It seems like aiming the laser that accurately (within the meter or so you'd have to hit to assasinate someone with it) would be pretty difficult... Besides, how often do you know someone's exact location without having someone present who could just shoot them? (ignoring the unmanned drone situation, which, like you said, was fixed)

    Well, I'm not a physicist, so I could be comparing apples and oranges here. NASA bounces lasers off of small mirrors on the moon for things like distance, movement, etc. The mirrors were left by the Apollo astronauts for this purpose. How much more difficult is it to range a space based laser onto earth coordinates. I gotta believe that's solvable. Your point about getting those coordinates in realt-time is quite valid though, which is probably why it's not done. It's far cheaper and simpler to arm the predators. No where as cool though.... :-)

    --

    there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

  133. Polar Meltdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why mess around with that Hydrogen crap?
    Just point those Space Lasers at the Polar ice caps and send the melting runoff through a bunch of big water wheels to turn generators. You could also use some of the excess power to grind a few seals and polar bears into a delicious and renewable slurry.

  134. Re:Weapons in Space? No. by vrmlknight · · Score: 1

    any what you can change the orbital path of a laser sat. in a few min ??? and than put it right back where it was... suuuurrreeeee.....

    --
    This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
  135. basic thermo and chemistry by nguyenht · · Score: 1

    OK it goes like this:
    in order to get H2, you have to use energy to split water right?
    2 H2O ==> 2 H2 + O2
    add energy
    The left side is more stable so the right side has higher potential energy.

    In a hydrogren fuel cell, the equation is reversed:
    2 H2 + O2 ==> 2 H2O
    energy is released

    SO, if you are going to make hydrogen by splitting water and then use the H2 to get energy by combining it with O2, you can NOT get out more than what you put in.

  136. Re:Weapons in Space? No. by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

    All NASA had to do to hit a mirror on the moon with a laser was shoot it into a general area. Since they could stick a decent telescope on the ground the mirror wouldn't have to reflect ALL of the light produced by the laser on the ground. Therefore divergence wasn't a big problem seeing laser light reflected off the moon. It is mathematically solvable to stick a laser in orbit and shoot somebody on the ground but from an engineering standpoint it is unlikely to happen (at least from a geosynchronous orbit like he mentioned).

    First you need a gigantic lasing chamber to produce alot of photons. You need enough so the energy at the focal point of the laser is high enough to actually do some samage and not just make somebody feel unseasonally warm. Then you need the best optics ever created in the history of mankind to keep the beam from diverging so much that it becomes an ineffective weapon. As for a power source you'd need a really really big solar panel or at the very least a fission reactor to produce enough energy to feed the lasing device. From a much lower orbit the mechanics become alot more feasible (making up for divergence from a 100 mile altitude or 22,000 mile altitude, take your pick) but pretty impractical for a tactical assault weapon. Shooting a small target whilst moving at hundreds of miles per hour from 100 miles (possibly more if you're firing at an angle) is pretty damn hard. I would bet by the time you had to worry about being shot from space by a laser wielding satillite you could beam up to it in your person space suit and kick the optics out of alignment.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  137. Not quantitiy of energy, but cost of energy by trenton · · Score: 2
    Better said, the costs of making the hydrogen are greater than what you can get retailing the hydrogen. So, if you can make the hydrogen for much more cheaper than now, you can sell it and make it cheaper than coal so people will use it.

    Make it too good and cheap, you screw up every economy on the planet. But that's another post.

    --
    Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
  138. Hmm... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    Yes I comment on my own post. 8)

    Just a question to the moderator.
    How can I be overated when my score was 1 ?

    Was it SO BAD ?

    this post will cost me a -1 Offtopic, but then I would love to get an answer 8))

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  139. Ok with me by aquitaine5 · · Score: 1

    This sounds ok with me as long as it doesn't interfere with my orbital mind control lasers.

  140. Aids by The_Noid · · Score: 1

    For some city blocks the infection rate is upto 90%
    Aids in africa is not gonna have any effect on world population as Africa is simply too sparsly populated. The problem there is going to solve itself and the only way we can help it is with education.
    A Major aids epedemic in india or china could have an effect on the world population.

  141. Re:That's why this will be implemented by Viadd · · Score: 2

    A similar DOD funding of civilian plant, in exchange for the right to comandeer it during war, is already in place. Many jetliners are partially paid for by the DOD on the condition that they will be available for troop transport.

  142. ooo, solar electric to make h2 from water? by gorehog · · Score: 1

    This is no big deal. In fact, this idea is unfeasible as it would interfere with flight paths. Why not just set up arrays of solar panels and use that electricity to make h2 from water?

  143. Life is a risk. by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

    Fiddling with this is just stupid.

    It never fails to amaze me how a person bright enough to figure out such subtle environmental effects could come to such a stupid conclusion.

    All technology is cause and effect. For each positive effect, there are negative effects. The question is whether the negative effects outweight the potential good.

    • What is the impact of fried birds dropping onto this pool?

    • Ocean scavengers have a free lunch. KFC has a potential entree it can sell to consumers. Birds are dying at airports, electrical lines, skyscraper windows, etc. every day due to modern day technology. I'm not going to give up my lifestyle to save one flying rat. (What New Yorkers affectionately call their pidgeon population)

    • What are they going to do with all the Oxygenium? Since the air we breathe consists to more than 70 percent of Nitrogen, not Oxygene, simply freeing large volumes could be problematic. (And can be quite a risk for the installation itself. Think of "no smoking".)

    • They'll compare it to the pollutants generated by the combustion engine. Also, I don't give a rat's ass about smokers, they can get a job flipping burgers... (no make that collecting garbage). The explosion caused by the plant a hundred miles away from a population center concerns me less than a nuclear plant's meltdown in a residential neighborhood by a major population center (Shoreham, Long Island).

      On a more serious note, its always a potential concern, but I doubt that much oxygen would be released by the laser energy transiting to the collection center. If it were a significant amount, it would indicate that the laser would lose too much of its energy to be economical. Finally, its possible to convert the solar energy to microwaves before being sent down.

    • What if a mislead plane happens to fly into the beam? A weather balloon?

    • The same thing if they fly into a skyscraper, a microshear, or a airforce combat zone exercise. Sorry Osama bin Antity, I'm not going to give up my lifestyle to save an incompetant pilot and his passengers.

    • Impact on clouds? Hitting them (and the H2O within them) will also split the H2O, and then Ozone will react from the Oxygenium radicals. And: Ozone is only good in exactly the right height over ground. Every Ozone lower than that is poisonous and, in the volumes we're talking about, could lead to quite interesting weather effects within these clouds.

    • Are you suggesting its preferable for us to have hundreds of million (soon to be billion) internal combustion engines releasing that ozone at sea level?

    • Don't talk about what happens if this cloud of ozone happens to drift over some city. In cities, we usually call this "smog" and try to avoid it.

    • Its still hundreds of feet higher than where the cars make the ozone.

    • Sulfur dioxide, raising up in clouds from big cities or other things that burn fuel (oil plants?) is known to react to Sulfur Acid in the athmospere, with the help of the power of sunlight. A while after, we call this "sour rain" or "acid rain". What amount of acid could react if a cloud like this is hit by this _very_ strong artificial sun?

    Hydrogen technology means hydrogen-powered cars. No SO2 to make unpleasant acid compounds.

    The only argument that really warrants concern is the ozone layer. But howabout not being such a Luddite, and let the scientists and engineers at least demonstrate that it can work before trying to shut it down without convincing evidence? That way, you stick it to The Man; the capitalist swine has to outlay all those cash before discovering he can't recoup his investment. This way (research before cruxifiction), progress is allowed to happen, and technology can improve peoples' and other living things' lives.

    Why are you using a computer when you should be hugging a tree, hippie-lover? Don't you realize the toxic chemicals and metallic pollution caused by these metal boxes???

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  144. Life is a risk. (corrected) by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

    (Damn, why stick the Preview button next to the Submit button...)

    Fiddling with this is just stupid.

    It never fails to amaze me how a person bright enough to figure out such subtle environmental effects could come to such a stupid conclusion.

    All technology is cause and effect. For each positive effect, there are negative effects. The question is whether the negative effects outweight the potential good.

    • What is the impact of fried birds dropping onto this pool?

    • Ocean scavengers have a free lunch. KFC has a potential entree it can sell to consumers. Birds are dying at airports, electrical lines, skyscraper windows, etc. every day due to modern day technology. I'm not going to give up my lifestyle to save one flying rat. (What New Yorkers affectionately call their pidgeon population.)

    • What are they going to do with all the Oxygenium? Since the air we breathe consists to more than 70 percent of Nitrogen, not Oxygene, simply freeing large volumes could be problematic. (And can be quite a risk for the installation itself. Think of "no smoking".)

    • They'll compare it to the pollutants generated by the combustion engine. Also, I don't give a rat's ass about smokers, they can get a job flipping burgers... (no, make that collecting garbage). The explosion caused by the plant a hundred miles away from a population center concerns me less than a nuclear plant's meltdown in a residential neighborhood by a major population center (Shoreham, Long Island).

      On a more serious note, its always a potential concern, but I doubt that much oxygen would be released by the laser energy transiting to the collection center. If it were a significant amount, it would indicate that the laser would lose too much of its energy to be economical. Finally, its possible to convert the solar energy to microwaves before being sent down.

    • What if a mislead plane happens to fly into the beam? A weather balloon?

    • The same thing if they fly into a skyscraper, a microshear, or a airforce combat zone exercise. Sorry Osama bin Antity, I'm not going to give up my lifestyle to save an incompetant pilot and his passengers.

    • Impact on clouds? Hitting them (and the H2O within them) will also split the H2O, and then Ozone will react from the Oxygenium radicals. And: Ozone is only good in exactly the right height over ground. Every Ozone lower than that is poisonous and, in the volumes we're talking about, could lead to quite interesting weather effects within these clouds.

    • Are you suggesting its preferable for us to have hundreds of million (soon to be billion) internal combustion engines releasing that ozone at sea level?

    • Don't talk about what happens if this cloud of ozone happens to drift over some city. In cities, we usually call this "smog" and try to avoid it.

    • Its still hundreds of feet higher than where the cars make the ozone.

    • Sulfur dioxide, raising up in clouds from big cities or other things that burn fuel (oil plants?) is known to react to Sulfur Acid in the athmospere, with the help of the power of sunlight. A while after, we call this "sour rain" or "acid rain". What amount of acid could react if a cloud like this is hit by this _very_ strong artificial sun?

    • Hydrogen technology means hydrogen-powered cars. No SO2 to make unpleasant acid compounds.

    The only argument that really warrants concern is the ozone layer. But howabout not being such a Luddite, and let the scientists and engineers at least demonstrate that it can work before trying to shut it down without convincing evidence? That way, you stick it to The Man; the capitalist swine has to outlay all that cash before discovering he can't recoup his investment. This way (research before cruxifiction), progress is allowed to happen, and technology can improve peoples' and other living things' lives.

    And why are you using a computer when you should be hugging a tree, hippie-lover? Don't you realize the toxic chemicals and metallic pollution caused by these metal boxes???

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  145. Linux is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like Linux. It is the best. I think that everyone should use Linux.

  146. RTFA- Read the F*cking Article by benjamindees · · Score: 1
    The first paragraph states that these people


    have developed a photocatalyst that uses optical radiation - which makes up 43% of solar energy


    Your expertise in "known" solid state laser gain substances doesn't mean jack if you can't realize that this is a heretofore UNKNOWN substance.


    Read the article. It precludes EVERY ONE of your points.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"