Control over citizenry is one of the key issues with communist government models. East Germans tried the informer path. Every seventh person was an informer. It didn't work. Soviets tried the less invasive but much more random methodology after de-Stalinisation. It didn't work either.
China's benefit is in the modern computerisation and rise of AI deep learning systems, which actually give it an edge that both aforementioned examples were lacking. They often had the information, but had no ability to meaningfully collate it. They were literally drowning in too much data in East Germany, and they just didn't have enough data and still got drowned in it in Soviet Union.
Chinese demonstrate that they understand this problem, and are actively working on a solution. Computers will handle the data collection and data collation, with people merely designing the way inputs are processed into outputs. This model of controlling age of gamers is one of the applied methods of doing this.
Central government cared for it for at least two decades. It's literally one of their priorities in several five year plans now.
You're confusing central government with regional government and regional corruption. China has a problem similar to other large states in the region like Russia and India. Central government is generally working for the people and is far less corrupt (note: relative to, not in absolute terms) than regional governments. Problem is, bureaucracy is so hard to punch through from the top, that decisions made at the top often end up having a diametrically opposed effect at the regional level. It's how they had that central governmental plan to slow down roll out of new coal plant capacity in China, and then reality where regional authorities keep allowing for massive amounts of plants to be constructed, utterly ignoring the central government.
Wait what? You literally cannot sign away your legal warranty rights under the legislation that is compatible with the relevant EU directive, and Sweden must harmonise national law with this EU directive.
They are however well within their rights to demand you pay them for the check-up if they find that you're at fault (i.e. you dropped the damn thing into a pool and decided to pretend this is a warranty repair).
It simply doesn't have a stable atmosphere to heat up but merely an exosphere, because it gets literally pushed off on the sunny side by extremely concentrated solar wind before it gets a chance to heat up. Which is why Mercury has an almost comet-like trail of atmosphere on the dark side.
This is not a valid comparison by any reasonable line of thinking. One has a proper atmosphere, which provides the insulation effect against convection and radiation of energy outward from the surface. Other radiates its temperature straight out with minimal obstacles in the way. You're literally arguing "insulation helps retain temperature, and this is somehow novel". No, it's not. This is something humans knew since they first donned clothing and furs.
You won't be flying anywhere with a meaningful payload. Atlantic is not even close to the ranges being the problem. You can't even fly a couple of hundred kilometres with a meaningful payload, and no one is even thinking of thousands kilometres outside the hyper slow semi-gliders like Solar Impulse.
Which is why they're prototyping it right now to find all of those things out, instead of just doing what you did. "It's uncertain, so the answer is now".
Essentially "fire? uncertain. Let's just keep to not having fire". People who did that went extinct, and for a reason.
You merely need to explain where the chemistry messes up, and the reaction becomes something other than carbon dioxide plus hydrogen equals methane and water (? can't remember where oxygen molecules went). Remember that modern physics modelling combined with modern automation allows for remarkably precise reaction control, one of the main reasons why we no longer get acid rain from modern coal burners for example.
The news here appears to be that the process is workable on large scale in sustainable fashion. Note that sustainable is not the same thing as economical.
Into the layers around it, not into space. If your hypothesis was correct, we wouldn't have the problem with global warming we have today, because there the problem there is similar. Instead of going into space, bigger portion of thermal energy is reflected downward.
Purity is a function of input and process. It's hard to imagine where you could get impurities in the aforementioned process. Do suggest anything that comes to mind, my chemistry is quite a bit rusty, but I can't think of any major sources of impurities.
And yes, cost effectiveness is not just a big "if". It's a fucking elephant in the room kind of huge "if". But that's what prototyping process is for. To figure out if there is a way to make the process cost effective or not.
Problem being, ethanol in engines doesn't really work all that well. Engine wear and tear goes to hell, and energy density of ethanol is significantly lower than that of kerosene so flights become much shorter and fuel expenditure patterns go through the roof. The efforts you mention are basically initial preparatory movements for the "oil is several hundred USD a barrel" scenario, where ethanol blends basically will be "emergency replacement" for kerosene when it's so exorbitantly expensive, something has to be done for shorter flights where range is not of significant concern.
Consider that the major revolutionary factor that pushed the industry in recent decades is the proliferation of "point to point" long haul flying on twin engine aircraft. Fuel economy of modern twin engine models is absolutely critical for this model. Biofuels crash it.
No, I'm not involved in the project. This is the first time I hear about it.
As for the rest, I have no idea why you think that pure methane is not a wanted raw material in Europe. Availability of affordable natgas is one of the greatest geopolitical threats to European powers in next few decades, as many of European majors either have switched or are in process of switching their electricity generation to CCGTs. Guess what they overwhelmingly burn?
So yeah, if these things actually become cost effective, "who will buy the natgas" is going to be literally the last of the relevant questions on the list, because there will be a long queue of buyers, salivating at the potential of reliable source of methane sourced in Europe.
The "serious money going into researching electric battery" is pointless on aircraft. The only thing we theoretically know of that could potentially, maybe, perhaps, in ideal scenario meet the energy density needs of commercial aircraft is lithium air.
Lithium air batteries are like fusion power, except that where fusion power is perpetually "50 years away", lithium air batteries are perpetually "20 years away". This hasn't changed in last 30 years or so, and it's unlikely to change for foreseeable future, as just like with fusion power, every breakthrough brings understanding of significant additional problems. Modern electric aircraft prototyping is overwhelmingly done with various lithium ion battery variants, which cannot meet the requirements even in theory. Energy density is simply far too low.
The entire problem is that we cannot control it. Our CO2 emissions accelerated the exit, which makes species that rely on genetic adaptation go from "fast enough to adapt" to "not fast enough to adapt".
We as humans are likely still going to adapt to it with minimal discomfort at this point, as we have cultural adaptation as our primary adaptation technique at this point in history. It's still going to be costly, so it makes sense to try to slow down the change to minimize cost to ourselves as species.
Slashdot Mirror
Control over citizenry is one of the key issues with communist government models. East Germans tried the informer path. Every seventh person was an informer. It didn't work. Soviets tried the less invasive but much more random methodology after de-Stalinisation. It didn't work either.
China's benefit is in the modern computerisation and rise of AI deep learning systems, which actually give it an edge that both aforementioned examples were lacking. They often had the information, but had no ability to meaningfully collate it. They were literally drowning in too much data in East Germany, and they just didn't have enough data and still got drowned in it in Soviet Union.
Chinese demonstrate that they understand this problem, and are actively working on a solution. Computers will handle the data collection and data collation, with people merely designing the way inputs are processed into outputs. This model of controlling age of gamers is one of the applied methods of doing this.
Central government cared for it for at least two decades. It's literally one of their priorities in several five year plans now.
You're confusing central government with regional government and regional corruption. China has a problem similar to other large states in the region like Russia and India. Central government is generally working for the people and is far less corrupt (note: relative to, not in absolute terms) than regional governments. Problem is, bureaucracy is so hard to punch through from the top, that decisions made at the top often end up having a diametrically opposed effect at the regional level. It's how they had that central governmental plan to slow down roll out of new coal plant capacity in China, and then reality where regional authorities keep allowing for massive amounts of plants to be constructed, utterly ignoring the central government.
Wait what? You literally cannot sign away your legal warranty rights under the legislation that is compatible with the relevant EU directive, and Sweden must harmonise national law with this EU directive.
They are however well within their rights to demand you pay them for the check-up if they find that you're at fault (i.e. you dropped the damn thing into a pool and decided to pretend this is a warranty repair).
Not a fan of mirrors either, are you mr. obvious?
It simply doesn't have a stable atmosphere to heat up but merely an exosphere, because it gets literally pushed off on the sunny side by extremely concentrated solar wind before it gets a chance to heat up. Which is why Mercury has an almost comet-like trail of atmosphere on the dark side.
This is not a valid comparison by any reasonable line of thinking. One has a proper atmosphere, which provides the insulation effect against convection and radiation of energy outward from the surface. Other radiates its temperature straight out with minimal obstacles in the way. You're literally arguing "insulation helps retain temperature, and this is somehow novel". No, it's not. This is something humans knew since they first donned clothing and furs.
No really mr. obvious. Are you ok? Did you miss the previous post, or are you really this stupid?
So basically, you think that flying to your destination is ok, but drinking on that flight will kill you?
Interesting assumption. Why do you think it will not be filtered to some extent to match the reaction needs?
You won't be flying anywhere with a meaningful payload. Atlantic is not even close to the ranges being the problem. You can't even fly a couple of hundred kilometres with a meaningful payload, and no one is even thinking of thousands kilometres outside the hyper slow semi-gliders like Solar Impulse.
You can even make it out of sea water if you wanted to. Not just kerosene, you can make gold out of sea water.
Still doesn't make it viable.
Which is why they're prototyping it right now to find all of those things out, instead of just doing what you did. "It's uncertain, so the answer is now".
Essentially "fire? uncertain. Let's just keep to not having fire". People who did that went extinct, and for a reason.
Essentially "make jet fuel, or make golden jet fuel. That you burn".
I see you won't take my advice. Can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped.
When you don't even understand what the difference between "getting cut" and "flying to your destination" is.
You merely need to explain where the chemistry messes up, and the reaction becomes something other than carbon dioxide plus hydrogen equals methane and water (? can't remember where oxygen molecules went). Remember that modern physics modelling combined with modern automation allows for remarkably precise reaction control, one of the main reasons why we no longer get acid rain from modern coal burners for example.
The news here appears to be that the process is workable on large scale in sustainable fashion. Note that sustainable is not the same thing as economical.
Thank you mr. obvious. Now how about getting back to the topic?
I think you really need to pick up a high school level book and read up on how convection and radiation thermal energy transmission works.
Into the layers around it, not into space. If your hypothesis was correct, we wouldn't have the problem with global warming we have today, because there the problem there is similar. Instead of going into space, bigger portion of thermal energy is reflected downward.
This makes an incorrect assumption that lower layers of the atmosphere vent as much energy into space as upper layers.
And since this mechanism moves the energy out of upper layers of the atmosphere and into lower layers, it reduces the emission over time. Bingo.
Purity is a function of input and process. It's hard to imagine where you could get impurities in the aforementioned process. Do suggest anything that comes to mind, my chemistry is quite a bit rusty, but I can't think of any major sources of impurities.
And yes, cost effectiveness is not just a big "if". It's a fucking elephant in the room kind of huge "if". But that's what prototyping process is for. To figure out if there is a way to make the process cost effective or not.
Problem being, ethanol in engines doesn't really work all that well. Engine wear and tear goes to hell, and energy density of ethanol is significantly lower than that of kerosene so flights become much shorter and fuel expenditure patterns go through the roof. The efforts you mention are basically initial preparatory movements for the "oil is several hundred USD a barrel" scenario, where ethanol blends basically will be "emergency replacement" for kerosene when it's so exorbitantly expensive, something has to be done for shorter flights where range is not of significant concern.
Consider that the major revolutionary factor that pushed the industry in recent decades is the proliferation of "point to point" long haul flying on twin engine aircraft. Fuel economy of modern twin engine models is absolutely critical for this model. Biofuels crash it.
No, I'm not involved in the project. This is the first time I hear about it.
As for the rest, I have no idea why you think that pure methane is not a wanted raw material in Europe. Availability of affordable natgas is one of the greatest geopolitical threats to European powers in next few decades, as many of European majors either have switched or are in process of switching their electricity generation to CCGTs. Guess what they overwhelmingly burn?
So yeah, if these things actually become cost effective, "who will buy the natgas" is going to be literally the last of the relevant questions on the list, because there will be a long queue of buyers, salivating at the potential of reliable source of methane sourced in Europe.
The "serious money going into researching electric battery" is pointless on aircraft. The only thing we theoretically know of that could potentially, maybe, perhaps, in ideal scenario meet the energy density needs of commercial aircraft is lithium air.
Lithium air batteries are like fusion power, except that where fusion power is perpetually "50 years away", lithium air batteries are perpetually "20 years away". This hasn't changed in last 30 years or so, and it's unlikely to change for foreseeable future, as just like with fusion power, every breakthrough brings understanding of significant additional problems. Modern electric aircraft prototyping is overwhelmingly done with various lithium ion battery variants, which cannot meet the requirements even in theory. Energy density is simply far too low.
The entire problem is that we cannot control it. Our CO2 emissions accelerated the exit, which makes species that rely on genetic adaptation go from "fast enough to adapt" to "not fast enough to adapt".
We as humans are likely still going to adapt to it with minimal discomfort at this point, as we have cultural adaptation as our primary adaptation technique at this point in history. It's still going to be costly, so it makes sense to try to slow down the change to minimize cost to ourselves as species.