Honeywell & Airbus To Turn Algae Into Jet Fuel

mystermarque alerts us to an announcement by Honeywell, JetBlue Airways, International Aero Engines, and Airbus about a program to develop jet fuel from algae and other biomass. They hope to supply nearly 1/3 of the demand for jet fuel from these sources by 2030. A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace.

Comments

A blogger says it's bad...

[pete_norm]

A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace.

I guess we better do nothing then and abandon this project...

Re:A blogger says it's bad...

[PingPongBoy]

jet kerosene released into the atmosphere

But is jet kerosene actually released? I suppose a bit might be, but isn't the fuel burned? The chemtrails ahem contrails that we see are supposed to be carbon dioxide and water, for the most part aren't they? Then again, if you sit in a plane while it's idling, something sure smells funky.

Some theories define peak oil as the moment of the highest rate of oil production, but I've always defined peak oil as the time when alternative energy sources to oil become less expensive. We're definitely getting to this point.

Transporting one's butt from place to place is very energy inefficient for a lot of people, but the silver lining may be increased availability of local services, and the use of technology to do a lot of lightweight work over the Internet. The Internet shopping dream could not compete with the touchy-feely presentation of threatened retailers but if people can't afford gas, retail owners will just have to either wait for alternative energy to become affordable or go online.

BTW, on another note, I had 15 mod points today to play with. I used to have just 5 ata time, and didn't get those too often. Now I have to actually sift through all these posts, and maybe actually learn something from the Internet.

Re:A blogger says it's bad...

[ckaminski]

Cheap fuel has allowed local retailers to die at the hands of megacorps like WalMart, Target, Kohls, etc. Not that I think this is altogether bad, Walmart, et al. have brought certain excellent efficiencies to the free market which the rest of the world can adopt, but cheap fuel has allowed the economy to build huge mega shopping centers at the expense of local retail.

Expensive fuel makes having retailers closer to home, fewer trucks eating fuel delivering product. Hmm...

Re:A blogger says it's bad...

[LandDolphin]

Cheap fuel allows us to get cheap goods from other places (like China).

IF you had to get all of your goods from local factories/farms, you'd pay much more for the goods themselves, and have a far smaller selection, driving the price up even more due to lack of competition.

The inability of local retailers to provide the same goods as the "megacorps" killed them.

to continue, local retailers means that you have to pay more for your goods which means that your standard of living will drop as the prices rise and you are not able to afford as much as you once did.

Re:A blogger says it's bad...

[shenanigans]

I don't know, this just reeks of desperation. I personally think it's utopic to think that air travel as we know it will survive until 2030, with oil prices at the current and rising levels. By 2030 (by 2010, really) we will have much bigger fuel shortage problems to worry about than jet fuel.

Re:A blogger says it's bad...

[gemada]

Cheap fuel allows us to get cheap goods from other places (like China). IF you had to get all of your goods from local factories/farms, you'd pay much more for the goods themselves, and have a far smaller selection, driving the price up even more due to lack of competition. The inability of local retailers to provide the same goods as the "megacorps" killed them. to continue, local retailers means that you have to pay more for your goods which means that your standard of living will drop as the prices rise and you are not able to afford as much as you once did. this is so wrong on so many levels i don't even know where to start. Before the "Chinese invasion", we had an excellent selection of goods produced on our own continent. the inability of local producers/retailers to work for a dollar a week, produce low quality shit, use prison labour, ignore environmental standards and labour laws, etc is what led them to be killed by the "megacorp' Chinese imports. To continue, local retailers/producers means that you buy from your neighbour, who in turn can then buy from you, thus elevating both of your standards of living and creating meaningful employment (and i don't consider the "services" economy that is currently folding like a cheap deck chair, to be meaningful employment)in North America.

So what?

[Uncle Focker]

A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace. Maybe, maybe not. Why should that stop people from trying to make at least some sort of positive gain on this front? I'm getting rather sick of these naysayers who have to crap on every attempt at some new technology because it's not going to be the be all, end all solution to the problem at this exact moment in time.

Re:So what?

[icebike]

A wall street Journal BLOG? This is now a source?

As for the Rapid Growth in the Aviation sector, precisely where is that growth? There are fewer flights today than there were 5 years ago.

And as older planes are replaced the newer ones are more efficient.

Re:So what?

[wizbit]

There are fewer flights today than there were 5 years ago. [citation needed]

If anything, there are an order of magnitude *more* takeoffs and landings than 5 years ago thanks to the explosion in regional airline flights - the puddlejumpers that hold 50 passengers and fly from Detroit to St. Louis instead of NYC to LA.

This has actually contributed to delayed/canceled flights, which have also skyrocketed, but that's more an infrastructure and logistics problem.

Fewer people are flying on those planes, but this also lets the airline offer more flights, which passengers have requested again and again - more travel options.

Re:So what?

[samkass]

This graph is a good one but only goes up to 2004. Going to the data source and creating your own table shows that you're correct (RPM=revenue passenger mile=one paying passenger flying one mile). However, the graph does look bumpy lately, and I'm not sure how valuable extrapolation really is here.

Re:So what?

[tristian_was_here]

Well I think they should use Hemp I know I can fly pretty high with that stuff.

Re:So what?

[Your Pal Dave]

As for the Rapid Growth in the Aviation sector, precisely where is that growth? Asia, China and India specifically.

Re:So what?

[fifedrum]

yes, and they should plant it in the green spaces in and around airports to add to the local bio-fuel depot, and we should move down-wind so when the jets sit on the tarmac and run up the engines, and the hemp burns we can get the benefit.

Re:So what?

[Talderas]

That is the problem. Any proposed solutions are decades out before mass implementation, which means we're still reliant upon oil until they are, which means our economy is held captive by the oil producing countries gouging us with their prices.

Demand for oil is only going to go up over the next 10 years, especially thanks to China's development. None of the energy-solutions being proposed are going to do anything to reduce our dependence on oil in the short-term, or anything to reduce the price of oil, which in turn lower the financial burden of lower income families.

Sure all of these biomass or alternative fuels will be great,if implemented properly, but they're all solutions that will become affordable for lower income families 20 or more years down the line.

We're prevented from drilling for oil off our coasts, we can't use oil shale to produce oil, we can't drill in Alaska or the Bakken formation in North Dakota. We're being prevented from converting coal into jet fuel.

Our reliance on foreign energy is legislatively created. Prices are going to go up on oil, and our consumption of it isn't going to decrease. I really doubt that if we open up drilling in the US there will be any appreciable increase in the amount of CO2 that will be released, but there will be an appreciable drop in the price of oil.

So which is more important to you?

Re:So what?

[Uncle Focker]

So which is more important to you? A long term solution.

Re:So what?

[Talderas]

Ah, yes, that's right, a combination of long-term and short-term solutions is a terrible idea. How could I miss that.

Re:So what?

[Uncle Focker]

Ah, yes, that's right, a combination of long-term and short-term solutions is a terrible idea. Except that's not what I said. You asked what was most important not list everything that's important.

How could I miss that. Miss what? I made no such proclamation in my post. The better question is: from which orifice did you pull that from?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are fewer flights today than there were 5 years ago.

I would have believed this if it were 2006. Between 9/12/01 and 9/11/06, the "five years ago" comparison spanned a one time event that dramatically reduced air traffic. The trend, before and after, has been a continuous rise with sharp (summer) seasonality.

Re:So what?

[mr_matticus]

We're prevented from drilling for oil off our coasts, we can't use oil shale to produce oil, we can't drill in Alaska or the Bakken formation in North Dakota. We're being prevented from converting coal into jet fuel. Yes, thank goodness. The amount of oil contained there is a temporary stopgap at best, and it's ridiculous to tear up vast stretches of new land, with all the environmental impacts of new wells, rigs, refineries, and transport mechanisms for a self-serving, short-term "solution" that does more harm than good. Likewise, investing serious capital and R&D into squeezing oil out of shale fields is money that should be spent on oil's replacement.

It's one of the more sensible sets of restrictions our legislature has passed on businesses. Now if only we could actually impose REAL penalties for the offensive and tragic oil spills that happen all too often because of bottom-line Bob at Oil Company X.

anything to reduce the price of oil, which in turn lower the financial burden of lower income families. Anything that reduces the price of oil delays and impedes the development of a real solution. The disproportionate impact on lower income families of rising prices is unfortunate, but frankly gas prices are TOO LOW in this country--other countries make do with substantially higher prices on fuel. What we really need is something like a $5/gallon gas tax that funds alternative energy R&D with four of those dollars, and puts $1 toward a tax credit/relief fund for lower-income consumers.

No one wants to pay $9/gallon, myself included, but we will be eventually if there's nothing ready to replace it before we run out of new sources.

Our reliance on foreign energy is legislatively created. Perhaps so, but finding fault with that reliance is also nutter-inflamed. We're depending on foreign products in all kinds of sectors. It happens.

Re:So what?

[falconwolf]

As for the Rapid Growth in the Aviation sector, precisely where is that growth? There are fewer flights today than there were 5 years ago.

It's true flying in the US is down but it's increasing in China and India.

Falcon

Re:So what?

[falconwolf]

I really doubt that if we open up drilling in the US there will be any appreciable increase in the amount of CO2 that will be released, but there will be an appreciable drop in the price of oil.

Citation please.

Falcon

assuming that the *rapid growth* in the aviation

[woodchip]

sector continues apace. It is stupid to assume any rapid growth in any sector will last that long. On the other hand, it is stupid to assume it will not.

Some assumption.

[jesdynf]

Rapid growth in aviation continuing?

You think so?

I suppose I don't know a lot about the topic, but domestic aviation's more important to the US than to just about anybody else, innit? And the US airlines are busy melting down.

The question was "aviation", and not "domestic aviation", but I think domestic flights are where most miles are racked up yearly.

Re:Some assumption.

[homer_ca]

You're talking about economists here, and economists have no problem extrapolating exponential growth indefinitely to the future, never mind the physical limits of the planet. You're right about US aviation collapsing. Anybody who can afford it, meaning corporate VPs and up, are abandoning commercial flights in droves. You'd be a fool not to.

Re:Some assumption.

[garyrich]

Just because the airlines can't make money doesn't mean that people won't fly and won't fly more and more. Airlines have never made a long term profit since the Wright brothers. Despite that people fly more and more and the presence of the airlines are a big stimulus to the economy.

Does anyone remember when all the US flights were grounded after the twin tower bombings? The US economy came to a complete halt.

This is also obviously global, not just US. China is the big grower in flight miles in the next 30 years.

Re:Some assumption.

[OlivierB]

At the risk of sounding like an idiot. How do these guys get around? Are they doing their meetings via video conference?

Re:Some assumption.

[homer_ca]

If you can't afford a private jet there's Day Jet and Net Jet. They're like buying a time share in a private jet. Either way, you don't deal with the crowds and hassles of commercial airports.

Re:Some assumption.

[Anonymous Coward]

let me get this straight you think that the economy was brought to a halt because the flights were grounded...?

You don't think the us economy came to a complete halt because we lost a MAJOR entity in the global and national economy? not put on hold, not dissipated, literally there at 8 am and not at 10 am.

I think you need to reevaluate your theory

Re:Some assumption.

[homer_ca]

Part of that was that check clearing was still done by paper through US mail that was flown around the country. That was a big motivation for finally getting electronic clearing checks.

Re:Some assumption.

[PyroMosh]

Just nitpicking here:

You make great points. But there was far more than 48 hours of grounded flights contributing to the economic trouble in the wake of 9/11.

The nation panicked. The groundings certainly didn't help, but I'd hardly place the bulk of the blame on that.

Re:Some assumption.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's that old saying? Something like "what we lack in profitability can be made in volume!"

I don't know much about aviation either but it seems that they have a pretty popular product that they can't figure out how to sell in a viable way.

Re:Some assumption.

[Moofie]

"but domestic aviation's more important to the US than to just about anybody else, innit? "

Ever heard of Asia? They've got a lot of islands over there, and lotsa people to move around.

Re:Some assumption.

[Suzuran]

Don't worry, the new FAA user fees are going to put those sort of companies firmly out of business and force their customers back to the airlines.

Re:Some assumption.

[garyrich]

"But there was far more than 48 hours of grounded flights contributing to the economic trouble in the wake of 9/11"

Of course, but I'm not sure anyone realized just how much impact the "stuff" economy would get hit if we had not gotten the planes back in the air. We depend on air freight more than we think we do. Not too many people would starve if they were down for a week, but your supermarket (as an example) would look very different very quickly.

Industries like cut flowers would implode fast. I wouldn't miss them all that much, but it adds up to a lot of people out of work. A lot of core infrastructure assumes that a critical spare part can be fedexed overnight - no spares are kept on hand. Your power grid goes down for lack of a $100 part and it snowballs from there.

At the time the news talked about people stranded various places. That's a bummer. I was working in manufacturing then and was starting to hear a lot of panic. "Just in time" manufacturing and management pressure to increase inventory turns means nobody keeps supplies on hand. Somewhere in teh critical chain there is frequently something that you can't get soon enough by truck or train.

Re:Some assumption.

[Eccles]

You're right about US aviation collapsing. Anybody who can afford it, meaning corporate VPs and up, are abandoning commercial flights in droves.

But that just means even more planes, and those planes burn much more jet fuel per passenger-mile. So commercial aviation may be losing the VP+ level passengers, they're still flying.

The only things that may impact aviation are skyrocketing fuel costs or the development of an alternative like high-speed rail.

Re:Some assumption.

[homer_ca]

In the short term, yes, but remember that commercial airlines will ride the downward spiral to Greyhound levels of service and worse before finally collapsing probably due to fuel prices. There are few enough wealthy people that the total impact of private jets may be small, but the takeaway lesson is that the elites have no stake in the survival of commercial aviation. They'll just let it collapse.

Re:Some assumption.

[Black-Man]

A lot of these private jets fly into alternative airports - can the FAA target those too?

Re:Some assumption.

[falconwolf]

Rapid growth in aviation continuing?

You think so?

Yes.

I suppose I don't know a lot about the topic, but domestic aviation's more important to the US than to just about anybody else, innit? And the US airlines are busy melting down.

And aviation is taking off in China and India.

Falcon

Re:Some assumption.

[falconwolf]

Anybody who can afford it, meaning corporate VPs and up, are abandoning commercial flights in droves. You'd be a fool not to.

Tell that to the Chinese. And Indians.

Falcon

Re:Some assumption.

[falconwolf]

There are few enough wealthy people that the total impact of private jets may be small, but the takeaway lesson is that the elites have no stake in the survival of commercial aviation. They'll just let it collapse.

A lot of the wealthy have only paper wealth and own stocks and businesses rely on aviation. Sure some business can be done over the net but nothing beats a face to face meeting when it matters. Heck, even net companies use planes. One lady I knew who ran her own web design business had to fly to London, she lives in the Midwest of the US, to meet clients.

Falcon

Re:Some assumption.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the intent. The FAA has become more and more hostile to general aviation (you know, you're right to fly).

I've got a secret for them

[blhack]

Algae is made out of carbon!

Don't anybody tell the hippies!

Look, if they're doing this to save money, then great, good for them. If they're doing it to help our economy by keeping everything in house (and not installing a pipeline of cash from here to Saudi Arabia) then awesome! But if they're doing this to somehow trick themselves into believing that they are "helping the cause" then they need to pull their head out of their ass.

We NEED hydrogen power. Not fuel cells, not batteries, combustion of hydrogen and oxygen into water. Electrolysis is not difficult.

Step 1: Build nuclear power plant
Step 2: Split salt water into hydrogen and oxygen
Step 3: Profit
Step 4: Goto 1

This crap that we're doing right now is hurting the problem. Driving a Prius isn't helping, buying a hybrid Chevy Suburban isn't helping. Elect officials that build mass transit systems. Our cities our built with the assumption that people can very cheaply get from one end of it to the other, but they can't anymore.

Priuses and other hybrids are not addressing the root of the problem, which is our assumption of cheap transportation. THAT is what we need to cure. The neo-hippies with their lattes and they horn rimmed glasses are not helping the cause, they're hurting it by buying into a false reality and encouraging others to do so.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[rubycodez]

where does algae get its carbon?

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you dense? Where does the electricity come from for electrolysis? How are you going to transport said hydrogen? Mass transit in America? Fat chance. Americans are too ingrained with their love of cars as if their cars were more precious than family members.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Starteck81]

where does algae get its carbon?
Ducks?

Re:I've got a secret for them

[rubycodez]

haha. anyway, the grandparent poster was talking about people with their head up their ass when that's where he stores his. taking carbon from the air to release it back again is better than what we're doing now.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[strider200142]

You make a very good point! Mass transit was killed by a lack of interest by the masses (we all want our OWN car) and the greedy interest of various companies. Just look at LA! That city had the best train system at the time, and now its completely gone... Whether or not a hydrogen economy is the answer is best left to some SERIOUS research. Releasing that much water vapor could have significant weather effects. Creating a higher demand for water may have disastrous effects on society. I'd say the best bet is mass transit first and foremost. Such systems greatly improve the efficiency of moving large numbers of people around, and efficiency truly is the goal. Next society should consider how to diversify its energy consumption so that we aren't invested 100% in any given tech.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Starteck81]

Sorry for the bad Monty Python reference. :-)

I completely agree with you. At least when you pull the carbon from the air and put it back you are maintaining an equilibrium instead of bringing carbon stored in the ground an releasing it into the air.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[WalksOnDirt]

Hydrogen might eventually work out fine for airline fuel (where liquid seems a feasible option), but so far I haven't seen any storage scheme that looks good for automobiles. Hydrogen barely gets you better range than a modern battery would, and yet it may require a whole new infrastructure to distribute it.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[strider200142]

From the air!! You are trying to be clever and say that thus it will help our global warming problem, however it could have disastrous effects upon ecology. We might really mess up our planet with this new bio-fuel concept. Personally algae seems like a better source than corn so I'm glad this tech is coming about. How might we mess up our planet? The simplest answer is we might turn the planet into a dustbowl through too much agriculture. If everyone switched to biofuels food prices would rise (as they are now) but eventually way more land would have to be used for agriculture. The top-soil would get depleted very quickly, and the amount forest that we would lose (Amazon anyone?) because of farmers seeing a chance for higher profit would skyrocket. We can't blindly stumble along as a society anymore, we have to put some serious thought into our plans and not just be swayed by the popular catchphrase of the day!

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and what does algae produce as a byproduct of that process?

So as well as chopping down all the trees, let's harvest the algae too.

No possible problem with this plan right?

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Richard_at_work]

Hydrogen requires a fourfold volume increase to supply the same energy as its vastly lower density. Thats a four fold increase in something you have to store within the aircraft.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[WinPimp2K]

I used to think like that but:

A few major problems with your solution

1> Salt water is only mostly water. Where are you going to dump all the waste (something like 25Kg of salt per 1000 liters)
2> Hydrogen by itself is fairy hard to handle - it escapes most containers, and it makes metals brittle so pipelines (and engines - think about the pressures inside an engine cylinder and what happens when your engine block and cylinders become very britle)will have some severe problems.
3> although #2 touches on it, hydrogen will need an entirely new support infrastructure - I did not see that mentioned before you start profiting.
4> Along with that new infrastructure, you will have an entirely new level of security issues. I invite you to consider the explosive potential of a hydrogen tanker being used by "youths" as an improvised FAE.

But I am in agreement that we should be building nuclear power plants - I would try to find more ways to replace fossil fuels with electricity as well as finding more non-fossil alternatives.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[PPH]

One good place for algae to get carbon is from the CO2 emissions of coal and other combustion plants. Burn more coal to make more electricity. Use that excess electricity to electrolize H2O for hydrogen fuel. Capture the plant emmissions to grow pond scum for fuel.

Some people power their vehicles with hydrogen, some with pond scum.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Cedric Tsui]

Sorry man. You really don't understand the carbon cycle.

You should know that the majority of organic material (like leaves or algae) and the carbon they contain does not get trapped away from the atmosphere. For the most part, dead organic material slowly decays releasing that carbon back into CO2.

Using algae as a source of fuel can decrease the amount of carbon we are pulling out of deep sequestered sources. It would decrease global CO2 concentration as the source of carbon is part of a closed loop. We'll be pulling carbon out of the air when we grow more algae.

On another note. Electrolysis is not easy. Right now, electrolysis terribly inefficient and needs platinum electrodes. There's a reason that hydrogen today is produced by cracking oil and not extracted from water.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Weaselmancer]

From CO2. That's why they're using algae as smokestack scrubbers.

It pulls greenhouse gasses out of the air for photosynthesis, same way larger plants do.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[garyrich]

In the most promising tests it gets it from scrubbing the CO2 output of coal fired power plants.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[wezeldog]

Gravy?

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Layer 3 Ninja]

It seems the interest for the companies involved is not reducing their carbon footprint, but reducing their fuel cost. If they can make their own biodiesel, they wont be buying as much oil @ $100+ per barrel. Its a nice point you make, but I think this really comes down to crude oil being, and continuing to be, crazy-expensive.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[denis-The-menace]

-Hydrogen also makes metal brittle.

-cooling/insulation could not be perfect so 1.7% per day of the hydrogen would leak!

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Andrew Kismet]

Create algae farms. Harvest in sustainable %. Maintain good oxygen output while enabling harvestable fuel.

To repeat the strip-mining, unsustainable forestry attitudes of the 19th and 20th centuries would be foolish, damning and unconscionable.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[NotBornYesterday]

But if they're doing this to somehow trick themselves into believing that they are "helping the cause" then they need to pull their head out of their ass. We can't transition to your nuke/hydrogen world overnight. In the meantime, we need to do something to lower net CO2 output. Algae gets is carbon from the world around us. Turning algae into fuel only recycles it. Pumping crude out of the ground and burning it is a net increase in CO2. If we can find a way to burn less crude out of the ground, we are better off. Problem solved? No, not yet. But in the meantime, we're doing less harm.

We NEED hydrogen power. Not fuel cells, Huh? Hydrogen fuel cells exist. Of course, right now you can't power a jetliner with hydrogen fuel cells, so for the purposes of this article that's pretty much moot anyway.

Step 1: Build nuclear power plant
Step 2: Split salt water into hydrogen and oxygen
Step 3: Profit
Step 4: Goto 1 Expanding our nuclear infrastructure is important, but it's also important that we do it intelligently. CO2 may be bad, but 100,000 years worth of toxic, radioactive actinides is pretty nasty too. We need to invest in nuclear technologies that don't leave such unwelcome stuff behind. Newer reactor technologies are being explored that a) can burn through stuff that is now part of the waste problem, b) leave waste behind with a much shorter half-life, c) are less risky to operate than a lot of the older technology in use today.

Driving a Prius isn't helping, buying a hybrid Chevy Suburban isn't helping. If hybrids can cut your CO2 output by anything (and yes, they do), that helps.

Priuses and other hybrids are not addressing the root of the problem, which is our assumption of cheap transportation. THAT is what we need to cure. Gas prices are already doing that.

The neo-hippies with their lattes and they horn rimmed glasses are not helping the cause, they're hurting it by buying into a false reality and encouraging others to do so. Giving in to sterotypes is another form of false reality.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Anonymous Coward]

CHURCHES!!! CHURCHES!!!

Re:I've got a secret for them

[WalksOnDirt]

-cooling/insulation could not be perfect so 1.7% per day of the hydrogen would leak! Which wouldn't much matter to an airline, but that's one reason that liquid hydrogen looks terrible for cars.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[strider200142]

Oooh, terrible idea. We don't have another planet currently, and living in artificial structures is just SLIGHTLY risky :P Not to mention that we would need fusion and anti-gravity to really make leaving the planet feasible in the long term. I suspect you are just trying to annoy me since you think I'm a tree hugging hippy. This is not the case, and you should probably mind your own quote from Mark Twain!

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I know you're trying to think ahead, but your examples leave much to be desired.

Algae can be grown anywhere and it doesn't take soil to do so, so non-tillable land can be used if it's over land. If you can harvest natural algae blooms in the oceans, then that's a double-plus as algae blooms can happen so fast that when they die, they can kill off anything else in the area.

The food vs. fuel problem won't be much of a problem, because future ethanol production should be running from cellulose, which is not a food but actually a waste product from harvesting.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Twanfox]

That's lovely, except that it doesn't address the net carbon change to the ecosystem. What is being burned that is releasing CO2? Coal? So what you're doing is still taking carbon out of the ground (outside the ecosystem) and instead of dumping it into the air, they're siphoning off a portion (whatever the algae can use before the air is released) of the CO2 into biomass. What do they do with the algae once they're done? Unless your answer is "Remove it from the ecosystem", there is a net carbon addition to the ecosystem.

When algae take the carbon from the air, and it goes back into the air, there is a balance. Carbon out, carbon in at the same volume. If any stage is 'outside -> in' without an equal removal back out, you fail.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Conspicuous Coward]

In terms of the contribution to anthropogenic global warming, biofuels would actually be preferable to hydrogen. For air travel at least.

Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas when it's released high up in the stratosphere. So hydrogen powered aircraft at high altitudes could potentially increase the contribution of air travel to global warming by as much as an order of magnitude.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[billcopc]

So your strategy is to consume all resources until the planet is dead, then move to the next lush star ?

You're successfully compared the human race to a common parasite. Congratulations! You've confirmed what I already thought.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[smooth wombat]

We NEED hydrogen power.

You should do some homework regarding using H for power. First, being the lightest element, it does not like to be constrained and so seeps easily out of containers which are not properly sealed or, and this is key, thick enough.

Yes, thick enough. Do a Google for how thick tanks have to be to contain hydrogen and you will see that you are adding substantial amounts of weight to any vehicle which uses hydrogen as a power source. Why thick? Because you need a lot of H to do the same amount of work that gas does and the only way to get a lot of H into any area is to compress it. To keep it under pressure you need a strong containment vessel (or wessel as Chekov would say).

Second, you can't just have Joe Six Pack walk up to an H filling station, pull out the hose and start pumping. To use the compressed H (see above) it has to be liquified which means extremely cold temperatures. Usually, tranferring H to containers involves an automated process, not some guy with a cigarette hanging out his mouth, a cell phone in one hand and the other hand holding the valve open.

In the end, using H as a power source, while a nice idea, is not feasible. You're missing at least one, if not more, steps in your example above. The liquification stage. That takes large amounts of energy to do so by using your example, you'd have to build the liquification plant next to the nuclear plant which is doing the electrolysis. That's what we need, a large source of explosive material next to a nuclear plant.

This is not to say that we shouldn't use H where it can be easily applied but as a source to fuel cars, buses, planes, etc, it's simply a pipe dream.

For your reading pleasure: eSkeptic

Re:I've got a secret for them

[MightyYar]

I don't think that the density would be a problem for aircraft. I suspect that most aircraft are limited by weight more than volume, and hydrogen gives you a lot more energy per pound.

That said, you'd probably have to keep all of the hydrogen in the body of the aircraft, since the wings would absorb too much heat (and maybe ice over???). So now you are talking radical redesign of aircraft... maybe a lifting body?

Re:I've got a secret for them

[WalksOnDirt]

Thats a four fold increase in something you have to store within the aircraft. But it does weigh less, which is very useful in airplanes. Liquid hydrogen might not be the best alternative to oil based fuels for airlines, but I think it is a workable one. Current jet fuel is almost ideal for its purpose, so I think this is the last place we should be looking to change to alternatives. But, eventually, liquid hydrogen could be a replacement.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Falstius]

1. Carbon for plants comes from the air, but clearing land releases more carbon than will be consumed by the biofuel crops that will be grown.

2. Green house gases in the upper atmosphere (above the clouds) is more of a problem than those same gases close to the earth.

Solution? Flying algae green houses!

Re:I've got a secret for them

[mckinnsb]

This crap that we're doing right now is hurting the problem. Driving a Prius isn't helping, buying a hybrid Chevy Suburban isn't helping. Elect officials that build mass transit systems. Our cities our built with the assumption that people can very cheaply get from one end of it to the other, but they can't anymore. Priuses and other hybrids are not addressing the root of the problem, which is our assumption of cheap transportation. THAT is what we need to cure. The neo-hippies with their lattes and they horn rimmed glasses are not helping the cause, they're hurting it by buying into a false reality and encouraging others to do so.

First:

Driving a Prius is helping, by reducing the overall amount of gas consumed and gradually edging the energy concious mentality into the mind of the general consumer. You can't make gigantic leaps into the future overnight, as much as we would like to see it happen. Don't deride energy conscious consumer decisions just because they don't meet the future ideal completely.

Second:

There are some pretty legitimate reasons for not fueling an aircraft with Hydrogen fuel, and while they could be worked around, they are still hurdles to overcome. Hydrogen does combust into water, but there is a catch- it is extremely explosive. The Challenger has recently been fitted with Self-Destruct mechanisms because of its age, due to the fact that a space shuttle full of hydrogen fuel colliding with a civilian structure would cause a hell of a lot of damage. A plane full of hydrogen fuel colliding with a structure or the ground would cause a massive explosion, much larger than one created by conventional jet fuel. That is of course an extreme example, but just consider for a second the implications of shipping that much hydrogen fuel for daily use, handling it at the airport, etc. It is a lot more volatile than conventional jet fuel. Also, building a nuclear power plant next to a airport that generated hydrogen fuel may not be the best idea.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Bryansix]

The number one reason to ditch oil is to stop funding terrorists. The number two reason is to provide economic stability. The number three reason is that SOME alternatives reduce pollution. And lastly to reduce carbon footprint.

Look, global warming exists but tying the Greenhouse effect in with global warming is presumptuous. But if you do buy into all that AND think that CO2 is a major contributor to the percentage of Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (hint: it's not) THEN you look at this algae thing and weather it helps the carbon footprint.

The answer: It does if and only if it is a net producer of energy output. The reason is that even though burning it releases CO2 and other things into the environment; the act of growing the algae captures CO2 so the net carbon footprint of this technology is zero. ZERO zip zilch nada. Ya, some extra CO2 may be released to "prime the pump" so to speak but that's not much.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[homer_ca]

Algae definitely beats out crop plants especially if we could use salt water, but there are still problems logistically. You could grow it in open ponds, but then you'd have problems with contamination from other algae species with lower oil production. A bioreactor (enclosed clear tubes) is much more efficient, but try pricing out an acre of glass or plastic tubing.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Thelasko]

Our cities our built with the assumption that people can very cheaply get from one end of it to the other, but they can't anymore. You are correct, but do you consider why that's the case? Ever look at housing prices on a website like Zillow? Living near major centers of employment is extremely expensive. The only way people afford those homes is because they are rich, and/or gave up their vehicle. But what happens if they have to buy a lot of groceries or need to travel farther than their feet/public transportation will allow? Traditionally it's been cheaper to live far from work and own a car. High energy prices are not going to change that, it will only increase the demand for homes close to jobs. The only thing I see changing the status quo are companies like Zipcar, who rent out vehicles cheaply, to people who only need them occasionally. Yes, better urban development would solve alot of our energy problems, but economics wont let that happen.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[homer_ca]

Density is definitely a problem for aircraft because aerodynamic drag is proportional to frontal area. Wider bodies have more drag. Stretching the fuselage doesn't increase drag, but does increase weight. Also, forget about storing hydrogen in wing tanks because you can't insulate a thin tank like that for liquid H2.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[eth1]

Almost... Powering electrolysis seems like an ideal application for solar power. Especially if you could use space-based mirrors to focus it. If your facility is offshore, a "miss" will only boil a little water.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[redxxx]

1> Salt water is only mostly water. Where are you going to dump all the waste (something like 25Kg of salt per 1000 liters) I'd assume unless the was an economically viable alternative(a massive increase in demand for sea salt) it would just get dumped back into the ocean.

Isn't this what is done with desalinization plants? I haven't heard ecological horror stories about the ravages of increased local salinity, and there are some pretty large operations out there.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Gat0r30y]

Why precisely would you need to clear land to grow algae? Ok, corn, switchgrass - yea you gotta clear land to grow those things - but algae doesn't quite work the same way.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Weaselmancer]

Well these are pilot projects with a very specific function - clean up factory emissions. Other setups will have different net carbon emissions, of course.

Here's an interesting study.

In that, they study open ponds full of salt water to get their numbers. The CO2 comes from the air directly, same way a field of grass works. Different project, different goals - different carbon footprint.

As for the pressed biomass left over, it makes fantastic fertilizer.

Really, the entire algae/biodiesel thing is just organic solar. Same way the rest of nature works, pretty much.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Huggs11]

There's a reason that hydrogen today is produced by cracking oil and not extracted from water. Most hydrogen is made from steam methane reforming (SMR). Hydrogen is used in hydrocracking - a process which removes contaminants and upgrades the octane level of the product.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Mostly from the upper layers of the ocean. You know that "huge store of CO2".

The truth is that CO2 in the athmosphere isn't a problem at all.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Richard_at_work]

Actually, density is more of a problem than you would think - most cargo aircraft bulk out before they reach their MTOW (Maximum Takeoff Weight), and the same for passenger aircraft (as baggage is relatively bulky but light compared to cargo).

Cargo is also much more lucrative than passengers (check out Singapore Airlines operating late night passenger flights routinely with a dozen or so passengers on - they make the money running cargo in the aircraft belly).

So you cannot simply add tanks to the cargo compartments as that is lost revenue. There is little place else you can add tankage to, especially when you take into account weight and balance issues (the aircraft has to be balanced within certain parameters before it can safely take off).

A lower weight fuel also presents other problems, as most modern passenger aircraft use trim tanks in the tail, where quantities of fuel are pumped to during flight in order to balance the aircraft during cruise. Lower the weight of fuel much and you lose that ability, which means costly amendments to aircraft.

Yes, I am closely linked to the aviation business...

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Huggs11]

I was at an event called the Green Grand Prix a few weeks ago. Chevy and Honda had H2 fuel cell vehicles there which ran compressed hydrogen as opposed to liquefied. The company representatives were unable to tell me what the difference in the energy density was, but it's something to consider. You are correct to say that liquefying H2 is an energy intensive process and that liquid H2 poses significant storage and transportation challenges.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[TechyImmigrant]

Are you dense? Where does the electricity come from for electrolysis? How are you going to transport said hydrogen? Mass transit in America? Fat chance. Americans are too ingrained with their love of cars as if their cars were more precious than family members. Put an American in almost any European city and they will start using public transport, because it is easier than dealing with a car.

American's don't 'love' their cars. The zoning, design and construction of their homes and cities make them reliant on cars.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

I completely agree with you. At least when you pull the carbon from the air and put it back you are maintaining an equilibrium instead of bringing carbon stored in the ground an releasing it into the air.

Except you don't. You pull it from the oceans. Both from upper & lower layers.

But the oceans contain MUCH more carbon than the oil fields, and that *will* be brought up, because algae NEED co2 (like every single plant does), and for plants more co2=better (plant growth climbs until they have about 60% co2 in the athmosphere, realistically you can get maybe 1% to them). So algae farms are going to want to pump up co2 from the lower layers of the ocean (much, much easier and faster than getting it from the athmosphere).

So I do believe the poster was right. Nobody tell the green nuts, okay ?

However, in reality, adding co2 to the athmosphere makes it a LOT easier to increase crop yields world wide. And it doesn't "heat up the earth" (unfortunately, because that too would increase the number of people that the earth can support, and we all know that number needs to go up fast, unless you want WWIII in a few years).

Re:I've got a secret for them

[timeOday]

"it may require a whole new infrastructure to distribute it."

So? Seriously. There is PLENTY of cash in energy to build new infrastructure. Go to Dubai and see where your hard-earned gas money is going right now - it's building lots of new infrastructure, just not here. And at some point, even if expensive, building infrastructure is cheaper than repeatedly destroying and rebuilding other nations in the hopes of keeping their oil flowing. Switch over to nuclear and relocate Israel to the depopulated US rustbelt and we could achieve world peace :)

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Andy Dodd]

Clearing what land?

Most of the studies on algae as fuel have focused on the fact that since it needs to be grown in a special structure and is effectively going to be hydroponically grown, it can be grown anywhere.

Where is the cheapest land? Sunny deserts where almost nothing can grow (hence no farming) and hence not much is growing. I know the UNH algal biodiesel studies have said that something like only 1/4 of the Sonora Desert would be enough to fuel the entire country's transportation needs.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[WinPimp2K]

Google might find you a few such stories. More seriously, the majority of desalination plants are found in areas that are not known for their ecological sensitivities. (They are more known for totalitarian governments that supreess dissidents rather harshly).

Actualy desalination plants do not convert 100% of their intake into dealainated water - they just pump the somewhat saltier water back out along with the various chemicals they use to purify and treat their product. I suppose the same approach could be taken with a massive electrolysis plant and there would be no need to add clorine for example.

The desalination plants do have some negative effects, but where it is a choice between providing drinking water and not, drinking water trumps damage to shellfish beds etc. (And given the nature of the local and national governments near most desalination plants and you will not have much luck conducting an impact survey.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[ckaminski]

Goodness. Everyone who talks of the hydrogen economy fails to recognize that if you have CHEAP hydrogen, and I mean ungodly cheap, tons per $, then any number of hydrocarbon fuels are equally as cheap, methane, propane, gasoline, all can be created from a decent source of hydrogen.

But until a ton of hydrogen is almost as cheap as free air, talking about transporting or storing it is pointless. It's not meant to be transported or stored - it's meant to be made, and then turned into stable fuels.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Falstius]

Hydroponics, in the desert ... There seems to be a disconnect here. I'm currently listening to NPR Science Friday where they're talking about the Great Lakes Compact, which basically says to desert dwellers, "Keep your hands off our water."

Those deserts are much better off being used for solar power generation (which does use water, but in a closed loop).

Re:I've got a secret for them

[NotBornYesterday]

Err ... didn't someone already try a hydrogen-filled aircraft? ;)

Re:I've got a secret for them

[NotBornYesterday]

-Ahem- the Challenger has no further need for a self-destruct button.

AFAIK, all space launch vehicles have a self-destruct mechanism on board, just in case.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[dloseke]

This just isn't a feasible solution....it's using a Goto command...

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL...You don't have to use platinum electrodes...all you need is something that conducts. Platinum might be a better conductor but it's not required.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Colonel Korn]

I'm glad you've proven in your post that CO2 doesn't cause global warming. From the 8th grade science project I did that showed the greenhouse effect in an adiabatic calorimeter all the way to the consensus among the vast majority of geologists, I was getting pretty worried. Thanks!

Furthermore, and not sarcastically, is increasing the number of people Earth can support really all that good? If we doubled Earth's capacity to support human life, then that would push back our reaching that by by maybe 30 years, and then we'd have the same catastrophe we're headed toward now but affecting twice as many people. And what if it scales faster than linearly?

Re:I've got a secret for them

[smoker2]

Step 1: Build nuclear power plant Step 2: Split salt water into hydrogen and oxygen Step 3: Profit Step 4: Goto 1 Step 3a: Deal with the massive local desalination of the ocean due to abuse of this abundant supply.
Step 3b: Take the clean water produced, pollute it thoroughly then return it to the [sea/lake].
Step 3c: Whine about the state of the ocean and the lack of any marine life.
Step 3d: Suffocate ...
Step 3e: Break;

Re:I've got a secret for them

[redxxx]

More seriously, the majority of desalination plants are found in areas that are not known for their ecological sensitivities. (They are more known for totalitarian governments that supreess dissidents rather harshly) The aussies have been getting into it pretty heavily, haven't they? They tend to care about ecology and such. Methods may be somewhat different than those used in the middle east, but should be good for some numbers about how/if it can be done responsibly.

I'm not so much thinking about mass electrolysis as great idea, as noting that Spain is currently importing shipments of drinking water, and water shortages(many of which could be mitigated by conservation) and droughts are starting to look like a common problem.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Rhinobird]

According to this site, a gallon of liquid hydrogen has about as much energy as a pint of gas.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Colonel Korn]

I recently spent a day with someone at the supplier of 90+% of the world's hydrogen gas, and as you say, they produce it from methane. He pointed out that the amount of CO2 released while producing the hydrogen equivalent of a gallon of gasoline for automobile use is about twice the CO2 released from directly burning the gasoline. He said that the switch to an environmentally friendly production method would be monumental but likely to occur in the next few decades, but that the even bigger problem in his opinion was developing a distribution network for this hydrogen.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[fifedrum]

nonesense, you can grow algae under controlled conditions in desert factories, no currently tillable land needs to be converted at all.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Rhinobird]

Also, here's a site that has 15 points against using hydrogren as fuel. Number 7 is really interesting.

7. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[fifedrum]

the deserts of this nation are quite close to the Pacific Ocean, compared to the Great Lakes or Mississippi and her tributaries.

A pipeline from the Pacific wouldn't be _that_ expensive.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Prof.Phreak]

One crazy scheme for hydrogen power would involve a HUGE (10 miles square?) loosely connected mesh of floating solar panels (maybe half a foot thick; weighted such that they auto-correct themselves if submerged or flipped), via electrolysis get hydrogen (and oxygen), run an electric motor driving a hydraulic compressor, use the large heat-sink (mesh of wires) sunk a few meters deep to dissipate the heat involved. Have someone pickup produced hydrogen/oxygen every month and switch out empty containers (and do routine maintenance), otherwise have it float out in the ocean.

With a few of these hydrogen farms, hydrogen just may become a cheap alternative---assuming such a setup is feasible cost wise (solar panels are expensive; the rest of the setup seems reasonably cheap).

Re:I've got a secret for them

[fifedrum]

AC you have no idea what's going on. Put three vehicles in front of an American, one that gets 30 MPG of biofuel grown domestically from desert algae farms, one that runs on electricity alone (and at the same cost/mile) and one that runs on $6/gallon arab oil and see which one they choose. I'll bet it's close to 100% first two.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Arcane_Rhino]

That is what my investment research indicates... I am just waiting for some of the start-ups to go public.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Anonymous Coward]

The ocean tries to maintain a CO2 equilibrium with the atmosphere. If CO2 is taken out of the ocean, the ocean will absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere.

Besides, algae for fuel is grown in farms, in which case it's usually not even in the ocean. Although they could theoretically do something similar to what they are working on with off shore fish farms. In that case, we should be more worried about the effects on the the ocean ecology than about staying carbon neutral. Algae blooms are well known for destroying fish populations.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[nSight]

I actually a special on this technology on the History Channel's modern marvels. They pump the CO2 out of big producers of it (anyhting with combustion from facotires to power plants) into these huge fields of tubes of algae. The algae grow at phenomenal rates with all this CO2 being pumped into their little tubes and they harvest it. So basically they get their Carbon from CO2 via PHOTOSYNTHESIS.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[homer_ca]

Sounds pretty complex to me. That huge an area of photovoltaic cells is hugely expensive. Plus, electricity isn't getting any cheaper, so it may be more valuable to just sell that power to the grid. If it's PV, there's no reason to centralize it in a solar farm either. You're better off distributing it out to rooftops closer to the consumers, even after the expense of inverters and smart meters.

It does make sense to centralize solar if you're doing concentrating thermal power. You can even store the heat from solar thermal to generate after dark.
http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3882

Re:I've got a secret for them

[PitaBred]

Very small rocks?

Re:I've got a secret for them

[PitaBred]

What makes you think that the algae isn't also in a closed loop? They just aerate the water (injecting the needed CO2) and pump it through, then skim off the algae. There's very little water exposed to evaporation in many algal "bioreactor" designs.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[MightyYar]

I wasn't aware that aircraft were currently "bulking out". I think that a hydrogen aircraft would need to have a completely different shape than a kerosene aircraft. I think you would have to go to a lifting body or the economics would not work out. Also, remember that you wouldn't actually need 4x more volume, since hydrogen is more efficient per unit mass.

There are lots of other problems with hydrogen, too, and I didn't mean to imply that it was really very economical to use in aircraft... I only meant to address the point that density would keep hydrogen from being a viable fuel. You would have to redesign the entire aircraft industry to use it, from airplane design to fuel systems and engines, and the entire fueling infrastructure.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[MightyYar]

I read a study about this very topic not so long ago, and their claim was that analysis showed that the increased aerodynamic drag can be offset by the higher energy content per pound.

The wing tank problem is why I mentioned lifting bodies.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Falstius]

I'm pretty sure those hydrocarbons are getting their hydrogen from somewhere, and it isn't from CO2. Carbon without hydrogen is just a pretty rock.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[LWATCDR]

Okay buddy. I am not a big fan of ecco nuts but...
Algae gets it's carbon from the air. It is carbon neutral. Hydrogen as a fuel is a mess. It is hard to store. Even liquid hydrogen has a lot less energy per cubic foot than jet fuel or gasoline. Tank size is an issue in just about all forms of transport. Also hydrogen really does some nasty stuff to many metals, It is really hard to keep from leaking, and as you pointed out it isn't an energy source.
I don't think cheap transport is going to go away anytime soon. We will just have to find new ways to make it cheap.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[LWATCDR]

Lifting bodies suck at subsonic speeds. You need a high aspect ratio wing to get a good lift to drag ratio. Now a blended body might work but then you have the problems with windows, and pressurizing the structure. A blended body shape makes a really bad pressure vessel. The lower density I still see as an issue. Now CH4 has some possibility. Sort of a best of both worlds.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Cedric Tsui]

Right. I misspoke.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Furthermore, and not sarcastically, is increasing the number of people Earth can support really all that good? If we doubled Earth's capacity to support human life, then that would push back our reaching that by by maybe 30 years, and then we'd have the same catastrophe we're headed toward now but affecting twice as many people. And what if it scales faster than linearly?

So who do we kill first ?

It may seem like a cruel question but obviously an attitude like yours makes it a necessary one to answer. And answer it soon.

I assume you're a volunteer to get killed ? How about your family ? You're taking up resources that could have been used by dolphins ! or pigs ! or bisons !

That's like ... so not cool man.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[raddan]

Put an American in almost any European city and they will start using public transport, because it is easier than dealing with a car. Which is an interesting point. I think that the reason why cars became the dominant mode of transport in the U.S. is simply because we didn't face the same kind of resource constraints that our European friends did. Not to mention, Europe had an "opportunity" to rebuild itself intelligently after being pretty much obliterated in the first half of the 20th century.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[MightyYar]

Sorry, I meant flying wing/blended body. My mistake. By problems with windows, you mean the issue with passengers not liking the fact that the middle of the plane would have no windows, right? Couldn't that be mitigated by putting cargo and fuel down the middle and only using the edges for passengers? You wouldn't have to go 100% flying wing.

Also, I would expect the newer carbon fiber construction methods to help with the tricky structure. You'll never get over the fact that the more cylindrical shapes are better pressure vessels, though. Still, if you are talking carbon fiber, then fatigue is not nearly as much of an issue (though how do you inspect it???).

But yes, I agree that this would all be quite ambitious... much better if someone could inexpensively synthesize kerosene :)

As for methane... well, the same study that I had been looking at before said that methane would be more energy-efficient than kerosene for long-haul flights, but short and medium hops would suffer. And you'd still need to make the stuff somehow - though you can certainly harvest it from sources like landfills. I mean, we should do this anyway since escaping methane is terrible for both air quality and from a greenhouse perspective.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[LWATCDR]

"Couldn't that be mitigated by putting cargo and fuel down the middle and only using the edges for passengers? You wouldn't have to go 100% flying wing."
I don't think that is a great idea. That would put your windows on the leading edge of the wing. The leading edge is the must critical part of the wing. Getting a clean leading edge with windows would be tricky. Then you would have to worry about the stresses of a window on the leading edge that is pressurized as well. The problems keep going from there. I love the blended body idea but I see some real problems as well. TO me the solution to the widow problem would be virtual windows. Offer screens to all the passengers and mount cameras all over the plane.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[MightyYar]

Sorry, again I wasn't thinking. Even a cursory look at the shape of a blended body would have shown me why windows are not practical.

I Googled for tests of passengers using TVs and cameras to account for the missing windows, but didn't see anything... I would think with OLEDS you could probably do some pretty neat things with the interior.

It seems like evacuation is a problem, too, if you go above 450 passengers.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[falconwolf]

Except you don't. You pull it from the oceans. Both from upper & lower layers.

So the oceans aren't a carbon sink? According this article the oceans adsorb 25% carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere. And because of all the CO2 the oceans are aborbing they are turning acidic.

But the oceans contain MUCH more carbon than the oil fields, and that *will* be brought up, because algae NEED co2 (like every single plant does)

And like every other plant algae takes CO2 from the atmosphere and give off oxygen.

and for plants more co2=better

While this is true for some plants, such as poison ivy "Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals".

So I do believe the poster was right. Nobody tell the green nuts, okay ?

Have you read what science says?

Falcon

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Cedric Tsui]

You need an inert conductor or your electrode will be eroded away when it reacts with the hydrogen or oxygen ions.

I haven't seen the experiment done with anything but platinum.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[falconwolf]

We might really mess up our planet with this new bio-fuel concept. Personally algae seems like a better source than corn so I'm glad this tech is coming about. How might we mess up our planet?

Guess what? Algae makes biofuels as well.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, we need to be careful about what we do.

Falcon

Re:I've got a secret for them

[falconwolf]

Those deserts are much better off being used for solar power generation (which does use water, but in a closed loop).

Algae can use water in a closed loop for algae as well. And those deserts? Imperial Valley, CA is a desert. Yet because water from the Colorado River is diverted there it has created America's Winter Salad Bowl. During winter 90% of the US's produce come from there.

As for whether desert should be used for algae or solar, I see no reason why it can't be used for both.

Falcon

Re:I've got a secret for them

[falconwolf]

One good place for algae to get carbon is from the CO2 emissions of coal and other combustion plants. Burn more coal to make more electricity. Use that excess electricity to electrolize H2O for hydrogen fuel. Capture the plant emmissions to grow pond scum for fuel.

Why take all the extra steps when you can have the algae produce the hydrogen for you? No dirty, polluting steps needed.

Falcon

Re:I've got a secret for them

[falconwolf]

What do they do with the algae once they're done? Unless your answer is "Remove it from the ecosystem", there is a net carbon addition to the ecosystem.

Actually the algae can be composted and used as a fertilizer.

Falcon

Re:I've got a secret for them

[falconwolf]

I recently spent a day with someone at the supplier of 90+% of the world's hydrogen gas, and as you say, they produce it from methane. He pointed out that the amount of CO2 released while producing the hydrogen equivalent of a gallon of gasoline for automobile use is about twice the CO2 released from directly burning the gasoline.

Depending on where the methane comes from, it's probably better to release the CO2, methane is about 20 tymes more potent as a greenhouse gas as CO2.

Falcon

Re:I've got a secret for them

[falconwolf]

Powering electrolysis seems like an ideal application for solar power.

Why not use the solar power itself instead of electrolyzing water to make hydrogen? Entropy says you loose energy when converting it.

Falcon

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Hubbell]

And here I thought all the people I know with hydroponic setups were running CO2 blowers on their Cash Crop (TM) plants to make them grow bigger faster and increase their yield but large amounts. I was such a dummy, thank you.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[oliderid]

Not sure,

I'm European, i live in a busy european capital (Brussels). I've got a car, I love it and I rarely take public transport.

There are plenty of people around the planet thinking the same way. I will keep it as long as I can and vote for people who will protect this right. But if they provide a car using green energy and if I can afford it, I will certainly take it.

Public transport are usually overcrowded and difficult to get along with once you have meetings outside the office all the day.

And I won't even talk about strikes...Public transport gives you the immense pleasure to be totally dependant of Unions good will (they are used to take you as hostages to get pay rises and they see nothing wrong doing this)

Sometimes (like High speed trains) public transport are better...But for daily use, I'm far from being convinced.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Have you read what science says?

What does "science" say ? Where exactly do you see the unity that this sentence screams ?

According to the current state of the art in our understanding of the workings of photosynthesis (it's the process that removed most of the co2 from the athmosphere in the first place, you should know about it) : more co2 = better working.

The most important limitation in the plants' rate of photosynthesis is the LOW carbon content of the athmosphere (low, relative to what it was when plants evolved the ability to photosynthesize, back then we weren't talking about parts per million, but about tens of percents)

Making the athmosphere revert to, oh say 12% co2 (which is a few million times the current level) would be a good thing for plants.

If you want to know what happens if you really increase the amount of oxygen in the athmosphere : what is the connection between Valentin Bondarenko and Gus Grissom ?

Re:I've got a secret for them

[falconwolf]

And here I thought all the people I know with hydroponic setups were running CO2 blowers on their Cash Crop (TM) plants to make them grow bigger faster and increase their yield but large amounts. I was such a dummy, thank you.

Yes, added CO2 can make some plants grow faster but it also retards the growth of others. One of those plants it boosts the growth of is poison ivy.

Falcon

Re:I've got a secret for them

[dodobh]

Good public transit deals with the "farther than feet will allow" bit. You can always hire a cab for the occasional time when you need to go far away from public transit.

And wrt the groceries, just ask the shop to home deliver (Walmart won't, but smaller shops servicing a mixed use neighbourhood will). That's the way it works in big cities.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Andy Dodd]

The Sonora Desert is close to a lot of populated areas.

The problem is not that there is no water available, it is that it is all runoff/waste from those areas.

The theory is that algae can grow in this "grey water" that has already been used.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Twanfox]

Composed, used as fertilizer, and used as a base for other growing plants still leaves it in the ecosystem, basically. It's not airborn, yet, but might be depending on what happens afterwards.

Abandon this project?

[WinPimp2K]

Nah, this is no place for half measures. We must obviously elimiminate all jet kerosene releases by 2030.

All hands: Abandon Planet! Abandon Planet!

Then we can nuke the site from orbit. It is the only way to make sure.

Re:Abandon this project?

[Bryansix]

No, environmental terrorists are willing to nuke the planet before anyone else besides themselves get off of it.

Re:Abandon this project?

[getto man d]

We will find this jet kerosene and bring it to justice.

Re:Abandon this project?

[PopeRatzo]

If we could only learn to convert greed, stupidity and bigotry to fuel, we'd never have to worry about energy again.

Heck, 23% of the country could supply the energy needs of the entire nation.

Re:Abandon this project?

[WhiplashII]

If we could only learn to convert greed, stupidity and bigotry to fuel... We have such a system - it's called a free market.

And yes, it works quite well.

Re:Abandon this project?

[getto man d]

Are you saying politicians could actually be useful?

My head just exploded.

Re:Abandon this project?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

They're hoping Iran will do it for them. I don't think they even want to get off first.

"Hey, it's a really big bang man"

Re:Abandon this project?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Are you saying politicians could actually be useful?

Yes, they're easier to convert into jet fuel than algae. The devil has perfected that specific process already : I hear a steady supply of politicians (and lawyers obviously) is what keeps hell warm.

Re:Abandon this project?

[wealthychef]

Seriously, as green as "bio jet fuel" sounds, I don't see how it helps the environment one bit compared to fossil fuel. I guess it's renewable, so it helps us get off the need to drill, but it has the same emissions, same carbon footprint...

Re:Abandon this project?

[_ivy_ivy_]

...but it has the same emissions, same carbon footprint... Umm, not quite. Fuel generated from biomass does not create an increase in carbon, as the biomass took the carbon from the environment to begin with.

Re:Abandon this project?

[fifedrum]

not the same carbon footprint, you're not taking carbon from long-term sequestered sources and releasing it into the atmoshphere, you're taking carbon from the atmosphere and recycling it with sunlight as the catalyst.

Re:Abandon this project?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell. This post alone could fuel it.

Trolling moron.

Re:Abandon this project?

[ElizabethGreene]

To me, this has the same problem as the biomass -> ethanol projects.

Q: Who is going to grow the biomass?
A: Farmers.

Q: Will they grow it on new farms?
A: No. They will convert existing farms.

Q: So who will grow food then?
A:?

Re:Abandon this project?

[PitaBred]

Humans are the bad part, right? Those environmental terrorists are going about it all wrong. They need to kill themselves to be an example for the rest us uncaring individuals... :P

Re:Abandon this project?

[PitaBred]

Algae farm != traditional farm. Hell, algae grows GREAT in the desert or plains, in greenhouses. Land that gets a ton of sun, but the soil is basically unusable for any kind of farming.

See this link for more details on an algae farm

Re:Abandon this project?

[Anonymous Coward]

environmental terrorists Is this Limbaugh's or O'Reilly's latest buzzword? It's hard to keep up sometimes.

Re:Abandon this project?

[Bryansix]

No, they really exist. The MSM uses the term. Like when they lit a bunch of H2 Hummers on fire (although I actually enjoyed that prank, hehe).

Re:Abandon this project?

[Ex-MislTech]

If they are waiting for Iran to do it, they may have a
bit of a wait as they just recently fired up the next gen
centrifuges.

Once Iran has one bomb I doubt they will use it because
they want it for leverage, as only countries with the
bomb like Pakistan get shown any respect.

North Korea is an exception because that war never really
ended it is just a cease fire, and the rhetoric out of
that country is about as bad as out of Iran, sometimes worse.

If I was gonna fret I'd be more worried about who made
the assassination attempt on Putin, and that the bear bombers
are back on their flights just like they were during the
Cold War.

The change to all that is they don't carry bombs anymore,
they carry Stealth Nuclear Cruise Missiles with stealth tech
taken from the F117 shot down over Serbian.

The KH-55/555 is the name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55

The missile has the TERCOM guidance system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercom

Meaning it can be giving terrain paths to take that make
it very hard to even see on its approach, let alone track
with RADAR.

I cannot find a link for it, but the missile also has a
hostile avoidance system meaning essentially it can duck.

With China angling the oil in Darfur and elsewhere, and
the US angling most of the rest Russia is feeling left out.

Add that and the assassination attempt on Putin, and you got
an angry man with 5,000km range stealth nuclear cruise missile.

Worry about him, not the monkey in charge in Iran.

Re:Abandon this project?

[Toonol]

Here in Oregon, they go where they know loggers will be falling trees, and hide metal spikes in the trees. Those will snap chain saws chains, which you can imagine is not fun for the person holding the saw. Overusing the terrorism buzzword is a problem, but these freaks may deserve the label. They plot and act in order to inflict pain and death on civilians in order to further extremist political views.

Re:Abandon this project?

[falconwolf]

To me, this has the same problem as the biomass -> ethanol projects.

Q: Who is going to grow the biomass?
A: Farmers.

Q: Will they grow it on new farms?
A: No. They will convert existing farms.

Q: So who will grow food then?
A:?

Farmers will grow it, as food prices rise farmers will want to cash in. As for the farms themselves, a lot of land that was used for growing food as gone fallow, such as in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of southern Africa, farms there produced plenty of food for people there to eat but was able to export a lot of food. Food used to be the country's main export. However after Robert Mugabe came to power he forced a lot of farmers, many were white, off of their farms. He then gave farms to his cronies, who didn't know how to farm. So now Zimbabwe is a basketcase. In Mexico farmers have been driven off their farms. Because US agribusinesses receive billions of dollars in subsidies and NAFTA they can export and sale corn cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow corn. With rising corn prices Mexican farmers may be encouraged to stay on the farms. With CAFTA this will spread to Central America.

Falcon

Re:Abandon this project?

[MidnightBrewer]

Actually, yes, it does. The carbon was previously locked in the biomass, hence not in the atmosphere; burning the biomass releases the carbon back into the atmosphere. It's exactly the same as traditional petroleum-based fuels, which all originally derived from biomass.

Re:Abandon this project?

[walshy007]

difference being the biomass in question from fossil fuels has been locked away for quite some time, from a given starting point a few hundred years ago or so it would increase net carbon emissions.

it's only neutral if you count from when what became the fossil fuels grew, which I don't think is a realistic or smart way of counting emissions, considering we're used to our relative time-frame, not a few million years ago.

Re:Abandon this project?

[MidnightBrewer]

You have a good point. If algae are a way of recycling currently circulating carbon dioxide, then it could be considered at least a balanced method; after all, they literally can't release any more carbon than they take in.

Re:Abandon this project?

[wealthychef]

Good to know, thanks! I didn't think of that. In essence, it sounds like a system to convert solar energy into diesel fuel. Wonder what the efficiency from "well to wheel" is compared to other methods. At any rate, me likey now.

Soylent Green?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they'll tell us jet fuel is made of algae, but then we'll find out that jet fuel "is people."

It works best with a Charlton Heston voice.

Re:Soylent Green?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as well, I can think of some humans who would make better fuel than people.

Re:Soylent Green?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh was Edward G all shriveled up in that, or what?

(Waiting for "Get your damn hands offfa me you ape!!")

Re:Soylent Green?

[Waffle Iron]

Actually, that brings up a potential advantage of using algae to produce a significant fraction of worldwide energy needs. The amount of biofuel required would dwarf current global food production, so in the case of major crop failures caused by natural disasters or disease, we would have a large potential source of emergency backup food.

I recently saw an item on TV covering an algae energy startup company. As a stunt they were sharing shotglasses full of green algae water with the host, so maybe Soylent Green *not* made from people would be a possibility.

Other alternative propulsion methods...

[Starteck81]

They just need to lash some CEOs to the wings of their jets. I don't have any exact figures but I strongly suspect that they put out the same amount of hot air as a jet engine.

Re:Other alternative propulsion methods...

[morgan_greywolf]

I hear politicians and political talk show hosts work well, too.

Will air travel return to its 1950s elite status?

[swb]

Air travel has become quite commonplace, I wonder if the rising fuel costs will make it economically non-viable to fly the number of routes and schedules that the airlines fly now if they end up having to raise the price to accommodate the ever-rising costs of fuel, turning air travel into one of those exclusive things it used to be 50 years ago.

I also wonder if we'll see a renaissance in train travel in the US as air travel gets more expensive.

Finally!

[wattrlz]

Yay biodiesel!

next step

[MagicM]

next step: soylent fuel

Re:next step

[anexkahn]

Soylent fuel....thats a good way to go green :)

Two questions

[Overzeetop]

1. Why not use solar?

2. How are you going to store gaseous H2 efficiently?

A WSJ blog...

[Dog-Cow]

A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace. IOW, idiots are still allowed to post on the internet.

If 30% of the demand is met from biomass, that's *still* 30% less kerosene used and released into the atmosphere. What an idiot.

Re:A WSJ blog...

[mh1997]

If 30% of the demand is met from biomass, that's *still* 30% less kerosene used and released into the atmosphere. What an idiot.

No, the amount of kerosene in the atmosphere will potentially be twice as much as currently is in the atmosphere, but we will have AVOIDED placing the referenced 30% into the atmosphere.

If you went to the store and used a $1 coupon on your purchase, your purchase is $1 less than what it would have been, and therefore you saved 1$. However, if you are going to the store tomorrow and assume that you will have a $1 coupon, you aren't saving that 1$ you are potentially avoiding a futre expenses in the amount of 1$.

Re:A WSJ blog...

[PitaBred]

Maybe the same amount of kerosene, but we'd still be reducing the carbon added to the atmosphere by about 30%. The algae gets it's carbon from the atmosphere, so that's a closed loop there, and we'll go from 100% ground->air with the carbon to 70% ground->air. Not a trivial reduction.

Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[Weaselmancer]

Someone must not be reading the news much lately.

Seems like every time you turn on the news you can't help but see some airline going broke.

Personally I don't mind much. I'm hoping we see a resurgence of train travel. Easier, cheaper, and somehow a more romantic way to travel.

Take an airplane when you're in a hurry. Take a train when you want to have a nice easy experience traveling. Looking out the windows at the cows, sleeping with the click-clack of the rails passing under your car - that kind of a thing. I know that's not the current situation today but I'd like the future to look like that.

I'd happily tack on an extra day or two to my vacation if it meant I could enjoy dinner in a nice dining car. And not get frisked and scanned and have my orange juice confiscated by airport security when I go to board.

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[kernowyon]

Whilst I have no doubt you are correct, it seems British Airways are bucking the trend. Apparently they made a profit of £833 million in the last year - and that is despite rising fuel costs and the debacle that was the opening of Terminal 5 at heathrow (although that only opened a day or two before the end of the fiscal year). Obligatory BBC linky to the details - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7404085.stm

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[bsDaemon]

Personally, I'm all about solar-powered zeppelins.

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[analog_line]

Personally I don't mind much. I'm hoping we see a resurgence of train travel. Easier, cheaper, and somehow a more romantic way to travel.

Well, I don't know where you're getting your numbers. Perhaps for short distances and certain areas (ie, up and down the Eastern Seaboard), but for cross country travel, trains aren't price competitive at all. I travel to Seattle once or twice a year from Boston, and I can still get ~$300 round trip tickets. I also get there in a few hours. I've priced out train travel, and it comes out to almost $600, and 6 solid days of travel time for the round trip. Even more if I want a guaranteed electrical socket so I can plug anything in and do work/other stuff during the 3 day journey each way (you've got to buy a room for the long distance trains, the special seats with plugs only seem to be on the trains that run along the Eastern Seaboard, that's something like $300 per CONNECTION).

Now, I don't imagine that the cost of air travel is going to stay that low, so in the near future train travel may very well become the only reasonable option left to me, but even with the nightmare that is air travel today, it's still a better option than the train.

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[Thelasko]

Easier, cheaper, and somehow a more romantic way to travel. I don't know about the cheaper part, every time I thought about taking a train someplace the airlines turned out to be way cheaper.

I'd happily tack on an extra day or two to my vacation if it meant I could enjoy dinner in a nice dining car. And not get frisked and scanned and have my orange juice confiscated by airport security when I go to board. If rail travel makes a resurgence those luxuries will all go away. In order to make it economical the railroads will cram you in like sardines (or an airplane). If they are used heavily they will become a target for terrorists. They did it in Madrid, and they will do it elsewhere.

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[Solandri]

Seems like every time you turn on the news you can't help but see some airline going broke.

Meh, 577,000 returns when googling for airlines bankrupt vs. 501,000 returns when googling for airlines expansion. I'd say it's pretty much a wash. The news just reports the big-name airlines going broke more prominently. Southwest has quietly been building and expanding and last year became the largest airline by passengers carried.

I'd happily tack on an extra day or two to my vacation if it meant I could enjoy dinner in a nice dining car. And not get frisked and scanned and have my orange juice confiscated by airport security when I go to board.

That's the rub. Most people can't just tack on an extra day or two to their vacations. They have a fixed number of vacation days and want to spend as many of them as they can actually at their vacation destination, not in transit. If getting frisked and scanned for a few hours means a couple more days at the vacation spot, it's a price they're gladly willing to pay. And losing a $2 bottle of orange juice has no bearing on their decisions about a vacation costing $thousands.

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[Your Pal Dave]

Someone must not be reading the news much lately.

Someone's not reading the news, indeed.

Just because the our economy is in the crapper doesn't mean that the rest of the world has ground to a halt.

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[p0tat03]

IMHO we'll see a resurgence of trains in the near future. Airline prices are shooting through the roof (it just cost me $700 round trip to fly my gf from the east coast to the west), and eventually trains will become competitive in the short to mid haul routes. Coast-to-coast will always be in airline territory, but I can totally see a revitalized railroad industry gutting the short-to-mid haul travel.

Here's the deal. With airplanes I have to put up with annoying security, crappy service, high prices, noisy interiors, cramped seats... the only real advantage I get over trains is that I get there faster.

But, as we know, almost all of the eastern seaboard airports are stuffed beyond comprehension. Delays are rampant, and increased security only adds to travel time. Compare with a train where I can walk on, sit down, and go. As the airport congestion and security problem gets worse, we'll get to a point where taking the train for mid-haul routes is time-competitive with flying. Add the recent advances in high-speed rail, and we can make the "effective distance" of trains pretty far indeed.

And I bet you burn a HECK of a lot more fuel (dollar per passenger) between Boston and NY by flying, than by train.

The trick here is governmental assistance. We don't have the rail capacity in the country anymore to handle mass passenger rail like the old days. This is not a problem that rail companies themselves can resolve - there needs to be a concerted national effort to modernize and expand our rail infrastructure.

I've posted this before: when I worked in Ottawa, Canada, I used to travel back to Toronto fairly regularly. It costs about $150 round-trip, for about 500km of travel. That's already cheaper than flying, and rolling in check-in, security, and the requisite delays, the train only arrived about an hour later than the plane, which is fine by me. In exchange? I get a big seat, much legroom, WiFi on-board, a plug, and a soft click-clack instead of the roar of a jet engine.

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually looked into this for a recent 2k mile trip. It would have taken 4 days by train. Theprice was competitive with a flight booked 30 days in advance, but I just couldn't see spending 4 days on a train there and 4 days back when I could fly there in 4-6 hours.

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[analog_line]

And I bet you burn a HECK of a lot more fuel (dollar per passenger) between Boston and NY by flying, than by train.

Yeah, and as I said, those routes on the East Coast are much more affordable, get where they're going at a reasonable time, and are packed daily from DC to Boston. If I was travelling anywhere around there (even as far as Chicago probably) I would most likely be going by train, but crossing the Continental divide jacks the price and the time up way higher than air travel. When the air travel costs get too high, I'll gladly take the excuse, but they've got quite a ways to go before they get higher than trains at this point in time.

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[BiggerIsBetter]

Okay, but what if that same trip was onboard a cross-country 200 mph TGV, like they do in France or Italy, etc? Sure, it's slower than a plane, but factor in the airport drama at each end and you're actually not too far behind. They're smooth, fast, quiet, more energy efficient than aircraft, and generally unstressful for passengers. In fact, there is already the Acela Express high-speed train in the US, so it just may happen one day... once they upgrade the rail to support them.

Cars were better for the environment

[tjstork]

Trains used to be everywhere in the city because it was the only mode of transportation available. You have to remember that at the time diesel was becoming available and the internal combustion engine was being to overwhelm the steam engine. You should see some pictures of the railroad yards in downtown Philadelphia back when the PRR was at its peak. Everything was covered in black coal soot and people living in the cities just hated the steam engine but tolerated it as a necessary evil. Railroads, now viewed nostalgically today, were back then viewed with the same sort of hatred as Microsoft is by slashdot fans.

Yes, its true, back in the day, the greedy corporation was in fact the steam train operators that ran the steam railroads. To some extent, people viewed the likes of GM as a form of liberation from a railroad monopoly, just as much as people cheered Microsoft when they supplanted IBM and cheer now tiny Linux service companies as they threaten to supplant Microsoft. Basically, what we are doing is evolution through corporate service. Once we've realized in our minds whatever good can be ascribed to a company, we get rid of it.

To get back to point, its all too easy to see that, as soon as GM and Ford salespeople walked into cities talking up the virtues of buses over trains, they weren't exactly walking into a hostile environment. A bunch of cities even helped things along by passing ordinances effectively banning steam engines and then later on, even regular trains, for various health and safety reasons. The car, of all things, were not just a symbol of freedom from the evil railroad corporation, not just a symbol of private ownership, but they were actually -better for the environment too-!

That just cracks me up. That and, the likes of Ivy League Univ of PA.

Re:Cars were better for the environment

[spitzak]

The trains in the city were electric, not steam/coal powered.

What cars did do is replace the horse, which is really a far worse polluter. Probably much more dangerous pollution as well. Though I guess they were carbon neutral.

Re:Cars were better for the environment

[g8oz]

The cars of yesteryear were far more polluting as well, so whats your point?

Emissions from both trains and cars have been improved. Trains still win the energy per transport mile efficiency contest though due to their nature. Moving X amount of people in 1 vehicle is always more efficient than moving X amount of people in X amount of vehicles.

Re:Cars were better for the environment

[tjstork]

The trains in the city were electric, not steam/coal powered

No, it was a mix. You still needed to have steam trains to haul both freight and commuter traffic between city. Electric trains didn't have the power to make steep grades and so steamers would be still be used, for example, to K4s.

I had a bunch of pictures in a longer post explaining this in more detail, but slashdot's new stupid interface got the best of me and now its gone.

Anyway, the picture I'm trying to paint is this. Commuters circa the 1920s would probably take some sort of a electric train, be it subway or trolly to a central station. There, they would transfer to a steamer for travel between those cities that did not have electrified routes. So, to get somewhere, you would have walk a bit, take one form of transit, then get off, wait on a platform, then get another, and then from there go to another city, and repeat the same process. You had a big mix of ugly electric wires or dangerous third rails everywhere, and choking smoke from steam engines to do it. What's even worse is that, in that whole system, pressure from cars and worn infrastructure abused by the nationalizations of two wars basically meant that railroad service was pretty unreliable. Imagine how pissed you would be, for example, if your commuter train was late and you missed your intracity train.

So, when the car came out, its advantages were obvious to anyone who travelled. You only had to get into and exit your vehicle once. You stayed warm and dry the whole trip. You didn't have to walk to and from any stations and the only cost you needed to have to make a trip was gasoline (which was dirt cheap). By the time you get to the 1950s, Eisenhower was launching the interstates, New Jersey and other states were building their turnpikes, and everyone who had any brain was buying a car.

The great irony is that, as much as we say the coal fired locomotive was evil and polluting, to this day, a steam engine pulling 100 passengers built even with 1920s designs would emit about the same CO2 as not much more than 4 or 5 modern cars. A K4s (the most common steam passenger engine on the PRR circa the golden era) only had about a two thousand horespower, if that, and even today a modern locomotive diesel is about 4000 hp. Trains a pretty good deal, environmentally.

If we had a "clean coal" steamer service, we'd be way ahead of the curve...

Re:Cars were better for the environment

[tjstork]

Trains still win the energy per transport mile efficiency contest though due to their nature

It's not just that, its that the rails have a much lower coefficient of friction than the paved road does. It does not take much at all to get a train rolling, hence, you can see a guy pulling a heavy train with his teeth as they do every now and then.

Just by way of comparison, the most popular steam engine, probably ever, in the USA, was the PRR K4s. This thing I think would pull 5 to 10 cars consisting of up to a few hundred people and with about not even 2000 horsepower. Yeah the thing burned coal and left smoke everywhere, but, in terms of CO2, it was pretty friendly compared to even a car of today. You figure, 2000 horsepower is about 5-10 of today's cars....

Re:Cars were better for the environment

[smellsofbikes]

>If we had a "clean coal" steamer service, we'd be way ahead of the curve...

A hydrogen-powered locomotive would have a number of advantages over hydrogen-powered cars: it's pulling tens of thousands of tons already and won't mind the weight of thick-wall stainless steel tubing that doesn't leak or embrittle badly, and one big fuel depot can handle the cryogenic storage requirements, with a small number of people who have had training in doing cryo fuel transfers, rather than having to build thousands of hydrogen storage tanks at gas stations and make something that's sufficiently idiot-proof that the morons who think it's a good idea to drive down the highway while talking on the phone and trimming their nose hairs don't explode themselves.

(that isn't the longest sentence I've ever written, but it's probably the longest I've written on slashdot...)

BTW, I'm not saying that a hydrogen economy is a good idea. I am saying that if we were to try it, locomotives would be a better beneficiary than automobiles.

Re:Cars were better for the environment

[LWATCDR]

I have to admit that I find it strange that Wal-Mart isn't using trains more. They built a Wal-Mart Distribution center not too far from where I live a few years ago. It is actually very near the tracks but it isn't on them. Seems like hauling trainloads of containers to the distro center and then sending trucks out from there would save a lot of fuel.

Re:Cars were better for the environment

[falconwolf]

BTW, I'm not saying that a hydrogen economy is a good idea. I am saying that if we were to try it, locomotives would be a better beneficiary than automobiles.

How about both? You drive your car to the train station, then drive and park it on a train car. On the trip between cities you ride in the passenger section then when you reach the destination you drive your car off the train. Amtrak's Auto Train does that but it only runs between Florida and Virginia.

Falcon

Re:Cars were better for the environment

[tjstork]

BTW, I'm not saying that a hydrogen economy is a good idea. I am saying that if we were to try it, locomotives would be a better beneficiary than automobiles.

I've thought that myself. I mean, we talk about hybrid cars as if they are something new, but diesel trains have been hybrids now for quite a long time. The diesel serves to run a generator which drives traction motors. So, within that stack, we could replace the diesel engine with a fuel cell, and it ought to work like a champ.

Re:Cars were better for the environment

[smellsofbikes]

I would *love* a service like that.

Re:Cars were better for the environment

[smellsofbikes]

Yep. 50 years of engineering on diesel/electric locomotives. The other big plus is that a diesel engine can burn just about anything, even hydrogen, and a fuel cell could be integrated in beside the diesel so you could run on one or both if you had specific needs.

Journalists and Bloggers Template!

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to be a Blogger or Journalist? It's Easy!

Simply use the template below to create incisive, award winning posts.
---

Despite advances in _______________, by the year ______________, experts believe that we will still be worse of in terms of ________________, requiring drastic measures to reduce ______________.

It doesn't matter what you put in, it's all true!

Re:Journalists and Bloggers Template!

[morgan_greywolf]

Despite advances in ___posting technology on Slashdot_____, by the year __2010____________, experts believe that we will still be worse of in terms of ___trolls, shills, fanbois and stupid posts______, requiring drastic measures to reduce ____Anonymous Cowards and Karma Whores__________.

Re:Journalists and Bloggers Template!

[anexkahn]

Despite advances in [Water Purification], by the year [2075], experts believe that we will still be worse of in terms of [fried chicken], requiring drastic measures to reduce [Cow Emissions].

Re:Journalists and Bloggers Template!

[CartoonFan]

Despite advances in [multimedia], by the year [2050], experts believe that we will still be worse of in terms of [copyright legislation], requiring drastic measures to reduce [unauthorized copying].

Re:Journalists and Bloggers Template!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoo hoo! Internet Mad libs! My turn:

Despite advances in _____porn________, by the year _____2025_________, experts believe that we will still be worse of in terms of ___Linux__________, requiring drastic measures to reduce __CowboyNeal________.

Re:Journalists and Bloggers Template!

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite advances in Puppy Fart Containment, by the year Tomorrow, experts believe that we will still be worse of in terms of Puppy Fart Contamination, requiring drastic measures to reduce number of puppies.

Re:Journalists and Bloggers Template!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey morgan? See this:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=553940&cid=23432278

It's regards to your statement yesterday that Borland Delphi (which granted, you stated is good stuff) might "only show SOME speed gains" over Microsoft Visual Basic &/or Microsoft Visual C++...

Well - how about entire ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GAINS, instead?

"Hmmmm....maybe some." - by morgan_greywolf (835522) * on Thursday May 15, @03:16PM (#23422750) Homepage

Visual Basic Programmer's Journal (of all places) Oct. 1997 Issue benchmarks test results in string processing, & math processing (which CIPHERS processing depends largely on no less, per that thread's topic):

Math Processing:

1.523 ms for Delphi
2.890 ms for MSVC++
7.871 ms for VB

String processing:

0.275 ms for Delphi
0.600 ms for MSVC++
4.091 ms for VB

APK

P.S.=> I cannot understand HOW you were "modded up" there to 2, when you were "off" on that account... oh well, this IS "/.", after all, so that probably explains THAT much... apk

Re:Journalists and Bloggers Template!

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Oooooooo! I love this game....

[walrus-protectors]
['s end]
[genetically engineered megaphone-ferrets]
[production of cherry flavoured pumice stones]

Kind of magic

[Atdtstdn]

From the article:

"they plan to produce fuel from vegetation and algae-based oils that do not compete with existing food production or land and water resources."

It's magic, then.

But in the nick of time....

[afc_wimbledon]

Biggles will save him!

dude

[circletimessquare]

putting carbon in the air that you took out of the air is better than putting carbon in the air that was buried in the ground

indeed, it's not ideal. but the best course is to gradually do better, not assume we can immediately jump to utopian society

furthermore, hydrogen power is very much of a "i'm a hipster in horned rimmed glasses who doesn't understand thermodynamics" kind of thing

when you convert from one energy form to another, you waste energy. its impossible not to. such that converting to difficult to store, dangerous, and difficult to transport hydrogen, and converting that to motion, with all of the wasted heat involved, is not ideal thermodynamically

batteries are better. again, still not ideal, as heavy and low density (energy wise) as they are, but they are still better than hydrogen

its just kind of funny your post, because to me hydrogen is very much and always has been the poster child cause of airheaded hipsters who know nothing about chemistry and physics

Yes, it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like every time you turn on the news you can't help but see some airline going broke.

Private jet sales are going through the roof. CEOs and other VIPs have their own jets or will have them.

Getting frisked, waiting in lines, and getting piddly pretzels is for us members of the great unwashed.

Re:Yes, it is.

[TechyImmigrant]

>Getting frisked, waiting in lines, and getting piddly pretzels is for us members of the great unwashed.

Some of us great unwashed who work for corporations with their own jets get to use them and avoid the airport hell.

It may be economy seating, but it is at the local airport, you park in front of the terminal, walk in, wave your badge and get on the plane. 10 Minutes from getting out of the car to being airborne.

That is about 3 hours saved at each end compared to the 'real' airport across town.

So I can fly to my destination, have a full day and fly back with no stupid 4.00am wakeup, no stupid 11.00pm return and no stupid overnight stay in a hotel where the staff steal stuff from your room.

You know even if it won't

[greymond]

You know, even if it won't cut down the emissions of the jets I still think it's a step in the right direction. We just need a government leader that will actually make ecosmart research a priority.

Re:Will air travel return to its 1950s elite statu

[couchslug]

"I also wonder if we'll see a renaissance in train travel in the US as air travel gets more expensive."

Lack of rail coverage will knife that baby in the crib. Light rail can work in urban areas, but funding it is a battle. Hybrid bus travel could work, but the problem of public transit in the US is that no one wants to ride with the CHUDs it attracts.

My Uncle Algae isn't too happy about this

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I don't think he was even consulted.

There's approximately a zero percent chance...

[sean.peters]

... that "rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace". For one thing, the cost of jet fuel is going to continue to rise, which is going to make continued growth in air travel cost prohibitive. For another, there's simply no more room at airports to add flights, even if cost wasn't a consideration. I think that air travel is going to remain flat at most, and more likely, will decline at least somewhat.

Re:There's approximately a zero percent chance...

[GregPK]

Something about biofuel like this. The cost to make it should generally go down with the advances in technology. Right now, its cheaper than regular jet fuel. So its a no brainer on buying it. That lower price will spur demand which will spur more growth in the biofuel sector.

Re:There's approximately a zero percent chance...

[tehdaemon]

You are thinking 'in the US' (& possibly Europe). Think China, India... That is where most of the growth is anyway.

T

Re:There's approximately a zero percent chance...

[falconwolf]

I think that air travel is going to remain flat at most, and more likely, will decline at least somewhat.

China and India have plenty of capability to grow, and they are the most populous nations in the world.

Falcon

Welded tracks have no sound

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern rail road tracks are welded and feature no click-clack sounds.

But maybe the good old us has not invented this technology yet? I hear large parts of the US rail network is not even electrified. :)

Simple solution

[catmistake]

Nationalize the Oil companies and raid their accounts. Make fuel free the way roads and bridges are "free," made a part of the Department of Interior, subsidized by new taxes. Use the windfall amounts of money (from siezed oil money) to bail out the airlines and R&D new fuel sources, & use whats left to pay down national debt.

Re:Simple solution

[Koiu Lpoi]

Why do we need to bail out the airlines?

I'm serious here. What obligation does the government have to make sure a premium travel method is available? If airline travel is failing, perhaps it's not meant for the common citizen. I for one would NOT want my taxes raised just so that every shmuck who wanted a plane ticket for cheap could get one.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow.

Perhaps the least intelligent comment I've ever read.

In one paragraph, you've managed to combine the worst of socialism, communism and capitalism.

Ayn Rand is spinning in her grave.

Re:Simple solution

[catmistake]

Ayn Rand is a moron... an aweful philosopher and an even worse writer. Her philosophy was debunked almost as soon as she published. No one working in philosophy studies her other than for historical purposes.

What I propose is only slightly different from breaking up monopolies, in that once its acknowledged that Big Oil continues to conspire to artificially inflate consumer costs, their profits are considered ill gotten and should be forfeit. We are in an energy crises, and the market is not solving it... time for government to step in an protect its constituents.

Re:Simple solution

[catmistake]

Transportation is an important government gauruntee. The hope is that the market will do its part to sustain the airlines, but if it fails, having no air travel is not an option. Government must step in to protect our way of life. (yes, a weak argument, but all I got for now)

Re:Simple solution

[AgentPaper]

The best answer I've been able to come up with is the knock-on effects to the rest of the economy if the airlines fail. Airlines don't just move people, they move cargo - lots and lots and lots of cargo. When airlines go out of business, that significantly hampers other businesses' ability to obtain the goods they need to build their widgets and their ability to move their widgets to market.

Flying people is not and never has been a money-making proposition, and by itself, no, it probably doesn't deserve a bailout. The problem is, it comes bundled with flying cargo, which does make money, so by saving one, you're stuck with the other.

Hydrogen is a red herring

[Colin Smith]

Feel free to keep chasing it though. I'll get some popcorn and a comfy seat.

Re:Will air travel return to its 1950s elite statu

[dyslexicbunny]

I think it depends on a variety of factors: fuel prices, aviation system capacity, rail system capacity, etc. I just did a couple of ticketing comparisons (below) just to see the pros and cons. Clearly, air travel continues to win as I can fly pretty much whenever I want against the one or two rail offerings departing at late hours.

Why is that though? Has the rail system (with regards to people moving) simply died due to neglect? Noise/speed requirements as trains can't travel so fast in urban areas? Are there too many stops along the way to make it worth it?

I think a rail hub system combined with a bus spoke system could make a very effective travel scheme for short range transportation. Things I don't know are the developments and improvements to the rail industry and their operations.

For reference:
I looked on Amtrak - $556 for ATL to LAX for 70+ hours vs Delta's $436 for under 5 hours.
Shorter trip - ATL to DC. $156 for 14 hours vs $144 for under 2.

For what it's worth, I'd prefer the aerospace industry to continue to boom such that I can have a job when I graduate. But such was the same plight for the blacksmith and his industry.

Yet Another Use For...

[camperdave]

Yet another use for nuclear power. Just make the reactor out of the same material that they make the black boxes out of, and voila, clean air travel. Once every five years you swap out the reactor, and bury the old one in a subduction zone.

Re:Yet Another Use For...

[ivan256]

Perception is more important than reality.

It doesn't matter how safe you make nuclear power. You lose the argument against people who think it's dangerous.

Run it off a power station

[CdBee]

recent research shows it is beneficial to grow algae on the grounds of a power station as it offers *absolutely free* heat and carbon dioxide, both of which when used for algaculture go from being nuisance waste products to valuable ways of accelerating the procedure.

short review here

Algae?

[bendytendril]

Well that should help stem the red tide of rising fuel costs.

Grey Goo?

[chord.wav]

...program to develop jet fuel from algae and other biomass...

Yes, but can they use grey goo?

Re:Grey Goo?

[eean]

other biomass? Soylent fuel is made out of PEOPLE!!

Disco Stu says...

[Comboman]

Disco Stu: "Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continues... AAY!"

burn z oil

[Anonymous Coward]

god wouldn't've put oil in the ground if he didn't want us to burn it

Salt water works too

[Comboman]

Releasing that much water vapor could have significant weather effects. Creating a higher demand for water may have disastrous effects on society.

If you could only make hydrogen from cracking fresh water that might be true, but as far as I know, it's just as easy to crack salt water and the planet is 2/3 covered in the stuff (and apparently sea levels are rising so please use as much as you can). As for water vapor having significant weather effects, I'd rather live in a city covered in fog than covered in smog.

Re:Salt water works too

[falconwolf]

If you could only make hydrogen from cracking fresh water that might be true, but as far as I know, it's just as easy to crack salt water

But what would you do with the salt? If you put it back in the ocean you'd make it too salty where it's put in which the wildlife there may not be able to live with. Instead, use algae to produce the hydrogen for you.

Falcon

Slower planes

[phorm]

I remember reading recently that airlines have actually slowed their flights down. Slowing down apparently means being a few minutes later, but a noticeable savings in fuel (or so the article said)

Re:Will air travel return to its 1950s elite statu

[swb]

Why is that though? Has the rail system (with regards to people moving) simply died due to neglect? Noise/speed requirements as trains can't travel so fast in urban areas? Are there too many stops along the way to make it worth it?

The rail system has collapsed due to its own lack of economic viability, mismanagement and the time factor, which can't be discounted.

When I was a kid, we'd take a 3 week vacation in the winter and at least two weeks over the summer, and my dad had a crap job as a semi-trailer salesman. I have a "good" job as an IT consultant and my wife is a marketing executive, and I can barely get away for 2 weeks a year and she the same. We *have* to take fast vacations, and we almost always fly out early in the morning or ASAP after work to maximize our vacations.

But I think most famously Amtrak was run as a unionized government entity that nobody really cared about. Their rolling stock rotted, they lost money, service was awful, and Congress kept underfunding or threatening to cut funding. Every said "too bad" when lines got cut (eg, Minneapolis to Duluth -- an easy 2-3 hour drive, but scenic and relaxing on the train) but people who did try to take it often spent hours stopped due to mechanical problems -- a cow-orker of mine took it to Whitefish, Montana and spent 12 *hours* at a dead stop due to some problem. She rented a sleeper car for big bucks, but those that didn't suffered.

I think for rail to see a significant revival it will take a big investment in service (rolling stock, administration, in-train service, scheduling, express routes), a doubling or tripling of airfares and possible some innovations (eg, bringing your car with you on a car-carrier) and social/business acceptance of the 3 week vacation.

Heat expansion

[Weaselmancer]

Are you sure? IIRC, there is a gap between each rail to allow for thermal expansion so the rails don't buckle in the sunshine.

So which is the oil company?

[vuo]

Honeywell, JetBlue Airways, International Aero Engines, and Airbus. None of them is an oil company or in the energy business. The single most important problem (imho) with green fuel is that the right people are not working on it. It's a special, expensive, small-volume product; producers are startups or general chemical companies. They are not oil companies, which own the oil infrastructure and have expertise in energy and transport fuels, not speciality products.

When the renewable fuel is a speciality chemical, there's little or no focus on the actual scale-up. They may sell 0.01% of the market volume with a high price; this is just greenwashing, novelty, or "alternative energy" (I really hate that expression). As I understand, Honeywell is a speciality chemicals company. Such companies lack the expertise in oil refinery operations and energy infrastructure.

Commercial-scale fuel production will probably start with triterpene-producing algae, which have a high hydrocarbon yield. An oil refinery operation, hydrocracking, is used to convert triterpene into fuel. Expertise is also needed to process the massive volumes of organic waste; will they go to replace coal or to gasification and then Fischer-Tropsch diesel synthesis? All this should be done in an oil-company scale, not on the backyard scale or even on the plastics/specialities scale.

Re:So which is the oil company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never underestimate Honeywell, especially thier aerospace division. If we are going to see a green fuel come about and if anyone can do it, Honeywell can. IAE and Airbus on thier side give them a significant advantage if it turns out that thier production fuel is in somehow not compatable with current aircraft engines. I would expect to see a GE project along similar lines anounced in the next few months - they need to keep up with the joneses.

ST

[rarel]

"It's fuel Jim, just not as we know it."

biofuels

[falconwolf]

Seriously, as green as "bio jet fuel" sounds, I don't see how it helps the environment one bit compared to fossil fuel. I guess it's renewable, so it helps us get off the need to drill, but it has the same emissions, same carbon footprint...

Yes some biofuels emit CO2 but they take in CO2 while growing, more than when burned. But forget about corn, which the US uses, the sugar cane that Brazil uses is better. Then there's switchgrass which is even better, for producing ethanol.

Falcon

This is really old news... from New Zealand

[NimbleSquirrel]

Last year Air New Zealand, Boeing and a company called Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation announced they were going to do the exact same thing: fly commercial jet aircraft with fuel derived from algae.

http://stuff.co.nz/4218411a10.html

Since then Virgin Airlines have flown aircraft with biofuels too, although theirs use biofuel derived from coconuts (not a viable source). Since then Air New Zealand are testing the biofuels, although currently limited to only one out of four engines. Noone has jet aircraft running only on biofuel, and that is a long way off.

Algae derived biofuels are definately the future, and not just for making jet fuel. The US department of Energy estimated that if 1/7th of the fields devoted to corn production were converted, the entire petroleum fuel consumption of the US could be replaced by algae biofuels. Algae derived biofuels have up to 20 times the yeild (gallons per acre) than any land based crop, and these yeilds will only improve as the technology is researched. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

Honeywell is fairly new to the biofuel scene, although I'm sure they have no problems aquiring smaller and more established companies, and throwing money at them.

Algae is made out of carbon!

[falconwolf]

We NEED hydrogen power.

And algae produces hydrogen.

Elect officials that build mass transit systems.

And have those who can't afford it will be stuck paying for it? While I support mass transit, I like many others will not give up our cars. And I don't drive much, in 2000 I bought a brand new car. When I drove out of the dealership it had 6 miles on it, now almost 9 years later I still haven't driven it 45,000 miles. I drive it less than 5000 miles a year.

Our cities our built with the assumption that people can very cheaply get from one end of it to the other, but they can't anymore.

Those elected officials can help, they can enact mixed use zoning regulations. They can allow people to operate a business from their homes easily. They can also make room, and use it, for designated bike lanes on the roads.

The neo-hippies with their lattes and they horn rimmed glasses are not helping the cause, they're hurting it by buying into a false reality and encouraging others to do so.

Hay, though I drink espresso and don't wear glasses, I'm a hippy. Actually I want hemp, marijuana, made legal again. It's a good source for vegetable oil, and Rudolph Diesel designed his diesel engine to run on vegetable oil. Henry Ford designed and built an auto on his Iron Mountain estate that used hemp in it's construction as well as was fueled by hemp. Hemp can also be used for making Bioplastic. And hemp seeds are nutritious.

Falcon

algae and hydrogen

[falconwolf]

I'm pretty sure those hydrocarbons are getting their hydrogen from somewhere, and it isn't from CO2.

Sure they do, algae takes CO2 from the atmosphere and to make hydrogen, and oxygen.

Falcon

Re:algae and hydrogen

[Falstius]

There seem to be some words missing from your reply, so I'm not sure if you completely missed the point or just had some trouble typing. So I'll be explicit.
The chemical reaction for photosynthesis:
    6 CO_2(g) + 12 H_2O(l) + photons => C_6H_12O_6(aq) + 6 O_2(g) + 6 H_2O(l)
Making biofuels has to consume water (6 water molecules are consumed to create 1 sugar). Burning any hydrocarbon fuel releases water. Unless you're going to collect the exhaust of your car and ship it back to the plant, the system is not a closed loop (except in the sense that all water on the planet is in a closed loop).

Re:algae and hydrogen

[falconwolf]

There seem to be some words missing from your reply

In a sense yes, it should read "algae takes CO2 from the atmosphere and and makes hydrogen, and oxygen."

Making biofuels has to consume water (6 water molecules are consumed to create 1 sugar). Burning any hydrocarbon fuel releases water. Unless you're going to collect the exhaust of your car and ship it back to the plant, the system is not a closed loop (except in the sense that all water on the planet is in a closed loop).

I don't see why a closed loop is needed, unless you're in a desert or put too much pressure on the water source.

Falcon

American's don't 'love' their cars

[falconwolf]

I do.

The zoning, design and construction of their homes and cities make them reliant on cars.

Now this I agree with, but I still love having a car.

Falcon

Re:Will air travel return to its 1950s elite statu

[AgentPaper]

I did the same analysis in my undergrad days (ca 2001) for a round-trip from Boston to Detroit. Northwest could have me home in two hours (hour-thirty in the air plus thirty minutes from the airport), while Amtrak took 28 hours, involved three train changes and a bus transfer, and was a bit more expensive ($259 for NWA vs. $365 for Amtrak, IIRC).

Rail only works well when you have several large cities within a relatively short distance of each other (let's put an arbitrary cap on it and say 200 mi) and few major terrain features in the way. Coincidentally, most of Europe and the Japanese home islands share those features, which is why rail is such a huge deal there. Here, where major cities can be anywhere from 300 to 3,500 mi apart and you have two major mountain chains, several major rivers and a handful of Great Lakes (pun intentional) to dodge, rail fails, as even the best of the high-speed trains can't hope to compete with air on either a time or a cost basis.

Biocide

[jshackney]

Do I still need to use prist?

hydrogen

[falconwolf]

4> Along with that new infrastructure, you will have an entirely new level of security issues. I invite you to consider the explosive potential of a hydrogen tanker being used by "youths" as an improvised FAE.

"If Hydrogen-Fueled Aircraft Were Used, the Collapse of World Trade Center would Not Have Happened".

But I am in agreement that we should be building nuclear power plants

And create more problems?

I would try to find more ways to replace fossil fuels with electricity as well as finding more non-fossil alternatives.

In "A Solar Grand Plan" Sciam lays out how solar power can provide the US with 69% of it's energy needs by 2050. And the US has enough potential wind power to supply a lot of energy to the US as well. Other sources of energy are biofuels including hydrogen produced by algae, geothermal, and tidal power.

Falcon

in the year 2015 hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

I will have a lawn of cotton to offset the cost of my whitney brand TP and tubes of scum on my roof to grow oil for my car and furnace and solar panels for some of my electric needs. Oh, and food plants for eating. yum.

hydrogen fueled plane

[falconwolf]

A plane full of hydrogen fuel colliding with a structure or the ground would cause a massive explosion, much larger than one created by conventional jet fuel.

"If Hydrogen-Fueled Aircraft Were Used, the Collapse of World Trade Center would Not Have Happened".

Falcon

How much CO2 does air travel create?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots and lots and lots. And I don't suppose it will change. See http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk. One flight can use more than a year's CO2 ration.

Why not join the http://www.nomileshighclub.org.uk?

science

[falconwolf]

more co2 = better working.

Better what?

The most important limitation in the plants' rate of photosynthesis is the LOW carbon content of the athmosphere

Did you read TFA about how high CO2 levels can retard some plants' growth? I included the link.

Making the athmosphere revert to, oh say 12% co2 (which is a few million times the current level) would be a good thing for plants.

Read the Sciencedaily article. And Google, which returned the Sciencedaily article, can provide more like it. If it's not acceptable maybe an article from "New Scientist", which Google also provided, is acceptable. If not maybe you're like Bush, anti-science.

Falcon

Re:science

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

I'm normally not a fan of wikipedia, but since this is so very basic stuff, I'm going to make an exception :

Carbon_dioxide_levels_and_photorespiration

Yes there are exceptions (that's only because plants have dropped the co2 content of the athmosphere so very much). One or two. Doesn't change a thing for food crops though, or for trees, or ...

You are being dishonest, sir. But why not go all the way in the conspiracy theory ? Perhaps I AM Bush (hey if you're a megalomaniac too, certainly this must indulge you). Let's have some more conspiracies. Bush was obviously not more "anti-science" (budget cutter) than Clinton was. Not that I care.

Scientists demands for funds are unreasonable. Nobody, not even themselves deny it. Therefore a lot of them aren't going to get granted. Doing all the research we want is a physical impossibility, and doing even 10% of it is an economical impossibility. Besides, I'm quite happy with the rate of scientific advancement under Bush. Certainly the war has done what wars always do : push the envelope. I'm not too impressed with the principles behind their new universal translator, but the fact that they made it work is a huge advancement. Also there are lots of new radar systems, and wireless advances.

Re:science

[falconwolf]

I'm normally not a fan of wikipedia, but since this is so very basic stuff, I'm going to make an exception :

Carbon_dioxide_levels_and_photorespiration

I noticed your link says "light-independent reactions" increase with increased CO2 levels however it says nothing about light dependent reactions. And I haven't seen a reduction in light. It also says nothing about plants who slow slower with an enriched CO2 environment yet I previously included links to scientific articles that said some plants do show a slower growth rate.

Yes there are exceptions (that's only because plants have dropped the co2 content of the athmosphere so very much). One or two. Doesn't change a thing for food crops though, or for trees, or ...

Once again you didn't read the articles I provided a link to, the "New Scientist" article specifically says "A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1C have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent (see Don't count on the trees)." Now this doesn't say an increase in CO2 slows growth it does say a raise in temperatures does, and Greenhouse Gases are called that because they raise temperatures. And if you look at the Google link you will see the search was for "co2 plants OR trees growth". Another article, from Harvard, goes over a science study that shows "Warming may not spark tree growth". Here's another Google, this one for co2 trees slowed growth food. As for food, what affects food crops like corn more than anything else is using the crops to feed cows and other animals as well as biofuels. In the US 90% of the corn grown is to feed livestock and not humans. Yet the amount of corn needed to raise 1 pound of meat can feed a bunch of people. And cows aren't corn eaters, they're ruminants and eat grass. Yahoo! has a webpage explaining why cattle are fed corn instead of grass.

You are being dishonest, sir.

Whereas I've provided plenty of links to scientific research and articles you haven't provided anything and I'm the one being dishonest? You're the dishonest one not me. You're dishonest and, like president Bush, ignore science. Unless you can have a rational conversation and provide evidence to back up your claims I see no reason to continue.

Falcon

driving cars on trains

[falconwolf]

I would *love* a service like that.

Yea, I bet a lot of others would too.

Falcon

Hybrid Technology 108 Years Old

[tjstork]

Yep. 50 years of engineering on diesel/electric locomotives

For locomotives, yes, but, if you throw in submarines, hybrids are positively ancient! Actually, you need to go back more than 100 years!

John Holland build a gasoline / electric submarine for the US Navy in 1900. In a sense, the USS Holland is considered to be the first practical submarine for military purposes largely because of its innovative hybrid drive train. Designers would quickly switch from gasoline to diesel motors largely because gasoline fumes underwater were not cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Holland_(SS-1)

APK

[morgan_greywolf]

Yeah, I knew that already. I'm not talking about lab conditions, I'm talking about the real world. In the real world, the skill of the coder makes as much of a difference as the tool picked for the work.

While there are many, many competent Delphi coders, there are also just as many incompetent coders.

Delphi is ultimately a compiler for a high-level language -- Object Pascal. But if it's fed garbage, it's gonna put out garbage. GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

As always, well-performing code is as much the responsiblity of the coder as it is the tool -- probably even more so. Your article is also from 1997. Got anything more recent? I'll wager that in the past 10+ years, those differences have gotten smaller.

Re:APK

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your article is also from 1997. Got anything more recent? I'll wager that in the past 10+ years, those differences have gotten smaller." The burden of proof is on you morgan... care to back up that statment of yours?

(That's the OLDEST trick in the book, by the way, & now, especially if you're going to try that one?? You have to back it up)

I did on my points via the proof that Delphi is faster than MSVB & MSVC++ from Visual Basic Programmer's Journal (of all places, Delphi beat MS own products "on their own ballcourt" in a publication for them no less), in issue Sept./Oct. 1997 entitled "Inside the VB5 Compiler"!

(& especially on MATH & STRINGS (orders of magnitude faster in fact, double if not more, overall) where you said "might only be SOME" as in some puny amount, & you were just blatantly shown as wrong via a respected publication in this field's own testing).

See, if you're going to state things, @ least back them up (& you put down "anonymous cowards"? Hey, I am one... @ least I can backup what I state, with valid tests from a known & respected publication for coders in this field)

Question is - NOW, Can you do the same, as a "registered slashdot user"?

APK

Re:APK

[morgan_greywolf]

Again, you're trying to peg me as saying that I think MSVB or MSVC++ are better/faster/whatever than Delphi. And again I'm saying that that is NOT what I'm saying. I don't particularly like MSVB or MSVC++. I write a lot of code using Python and GNU C. And I have written useful Delphi programs in the past. Hell, I cut my programming teeth on Turbo Pascal and used every version from 3.02a to 7.0, aside from Delphi. Trust me, I have nothing against Delphi and I'm no fan of Microsoft's tools or compilers.

What I'm saying (and why I was modded up for saying it) is that you are putting wayyyyy to much stock into the tool. The crappiest coder using the world's most efficient compiler is STILL gonna produce code that is slower and more unnecessarily bloated than the world's best coder using the world's least efficient compiler.

That's what I'm saying. Stop trying to hide behind the tool, becuase the tool isn't gonna make you a great programmer.

Re:APK

[Anonymous Coward]

"Again, you're trying to peg me as saying that I think MSVB or MSVC++ are better/faster/whatever than Delphi. And again I'm saying that that is NOT what I'm saying." - by morgan_greywolf (835522) * on Monday May 19, @11:33AM (#23463106) Homepage What I am saying is, that since you first stated the improvement of Delphi optimized code (by compiler, by hand, etc. via various methods) was proven in a publication that is respected, Visual Basic Programmer's Journal 1997 Sept./Oct. issue "Inside the VB5 Compiler", where Delphi beat both MSVB &/or MSVC++ in math & strings work (which is used in CIPHERS work) soundly - between both, a literal doubling in test results from said respected publication.

"The crappiest coder using the world's most efficient compiler is STILL gonna produce code that is slower and more unnecessarily bloated than the world's best coder using the world's least efficient compiler. That's what I'm saying. Stop trying to hide behind the tool, becuase the tool isn't gonna make you a great programmer." - by morgan_greywolf (835522) * on Monday May 19, @11:33AM (#23463106) Homepage I never said that you could not optimize better with a better engine/algorithm, either...

QUESTION: Can you show me where I did, & where I am "hiding behind a tool"?

Because I never once stated that, & certainly not verbatim.

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=553940&cid=23432278

(& in fact, in the original thread URL above, about CIPHERS work, I stated quite otherwise if you look & simply in reply to showing your statements that only small gains would result in Delphi code vs. VB or VC++ in math & strings work, which CIPHER work does do a lot of).

I clearly showed literal ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE IMPROVEMENTS in Delphi, vs. MSVC++ &/or MSVB (Java as well, but it was SO far behind in most things, I did not bother... & iirc, you did not mention Java either).

You additionally tried to diminish those results from VBPJ magazine, in saying they are "lab tests"!

They were done with real world practical things (rotating bitmaps for graphics methods, OCX/ActiveX form loads, String Processing, Math Processing (both of which every program out there does, but a lot of in the area in question, CIPHERS especially), Text Box/Data Entry Form Loads (tons of this goes on in any db work), & API Graphics work, etc.)...

All "real world" tasks no less, that happen everyday, in numerous types of programs!

Again, the burden of proof, is on you, to back up your statements is all... with proofs, especially those that show Delphi being less than it was in overall doubling MSVC++ & MSVB in MATH & STRINGS WORK (which again, EVERY PROGRAM DOES, but CIPHERS do a LOAD of especially).

This is all... do you have those current results you WAGER would show your statement to be correct? IF SO, I could use the information myself...

(Especially in finding results that show that "recently" as you put it, Delphi is shown either slower than MSVB or MSVC++, or the "gap has narrowed" on math & strings work)...

----

Now, you state also that I am "hiding behind a tool" - I am not. I only put out verifiable concrete evidences of results from a respected publication in this field with REAL WORLD PROBLEMS TESTED (per my list above).

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=553940&cid=23432278

Please/Also - DO show me where I state otherwise in the original URL above, especially in regards to algorithms work being less important than compiler, or hand/language, optimizations was stated by myself... I never did, & agree there completely.

Thanks, burden of proof IS on you for your statements is all.

APK

Re:APK

[morgan_greywolf]

Your exact question was:

was wondering - & on this very post @ /. ( slashdot ), IF the task + data being computed gain an advantage, via Delphi's strength in STRING & MATH Processing ( which Delphi has over BOTH MSVB & MSVC++ ) thus, quite possibly giving said computational task better/faster/more efficiencies, via being developed in DELPHI ( especially if the compiler you use shows strengths in strings & math processing work tasks, which Delphi has )?

After all, EVERY program does strings & math, but somehow I think this type of processing ( which this post is about ) do an especially LARGE amount of that kind of work, & on THAT KIND OF DATA!

And my answer is that just because something is developed in Delphi, that doesn't necessarily mean it is faster than something developed with some other tool.

That's what I'm saying.

Now if the same programmer wrote the same cipher application using the same on the same platform using two different tools, Visual C++ and Delphi, then yes, you're right, the one using Delphi will probably be a bit faster.

However, OTOH, if this same programmer wrote then decided to write the cipher app using straight ANSI C with the GNU C Compiler (gcc), then there is a good chance that the one written in C using gcc will be the faster one, especially when compiled and ran on a platform that gcc is particularly optimized for (Linux and glibc).

On the third hand, someone who writes primarily in Delphi is not likely to be writing advanced cipher algorithms in the first place.

Re:APK

[Anonymous Coward]

"And my answer is that just because something is developed in Delphi, that doesn't necessarily mean it is faster than something developed with some other tool." - by morgan_greywolf (835522) * on Monday May 19, @01:28PM (#23464494) Homepage That's funny because the results here:

From VISUAL BASIC PROGRAMMER'S JOURNAL ISSUE "INSIDE THE VB COMPILER" (a respected trade magazine for coders):

Math Processing:

1.523 ms for Delphi
2.890 ms for MSVC++
7.871 ms for VB

String processing:

0.275 ms for Delphi
0.600 ms for MSVC++
4.091 ms for VB

(smaller = better, less time taken)

---------------

Show quite otherwise...

(Fairly LARGE "orders of magnitude" in those scores, & IN FAVOR OF DELPHI! In fact, everytime? IT LITERALLY WAS ENTIRE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (@ least double))

I strongly wager also, & I asked this question in my earlier replies?? That this type of work, for Ciphers??? Has a TON of BOTH Math & Strings processing going on for it to happen!

-----

"Now if the same programmer wrote the same cipher application using the same on the same platform using two different tools, Visual C++ and Delphi, then yes, you're right, the one using Delphi will probably be a bit faster." - by morgan_greywolf (835522) * on Monday May 19, @01:28PM (#23464494) Homepage It appeared to be ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE FASTER, not just "a bit faster", above, from a respected trade magazine in thie field...

-----

"On the third hand, someone who writes primarily in Delphi is not likely to be writing advanced cipher algorithms in the first place." - by morgan_greywolf (835522) * on Monday May 19, @01:28PM (#23464494) Homepage What makes you say THAT?

APK

algae

[falconwolf]

Composed, used as fertilizer, and used as a base for other growing plants still leaves it in the ecosystem, basically. It's not airborn, yet, but might be depending on what happens afterwards.

That's the problem with petro, it was taken out of the atmosphere and ecosystem and buried a long tyme ago. Burning it reintroduces it to the ecosystem. Algae on the other hand is carbon neutral, while growing it takes CO2 out of the atmosphere then reintroduces it after it dies. Actually it can be pressurized to form charcoal blocks. I don't recall where it was but I recently read a science article that said dead plants, such as trees, might be able to be buried deep underground keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. Here's one from "New Scientist", "Burying biomass to fight climate change".

Falcon