I recall reading some studies showing how we could not simply 'convert' north america to solar/wind power, because there is simply no way to generate the same amount of energy, regardless of cost.
absolutely not true. In fact, you could do it with just wind if you wanted. Go read this article for more information, the gist is : "To provide 20% of the nation's electricity, only about 0.6% of the land of the lower 48 states would have to be developed with wind turbines.
Okay, that's energy. Now, how much other stuff would you need to provide a certain level of power 24/7/365 for base load, plus predictable extra for daily and seasonal peaks?
Getting a certain amount of energy is easy. Getting it into the required form is harder. Delivering it as needed, when needed and where needed... that's a lot more costly, and is by far the larger amount of the cost and difficulty with intermittent sources of energy. --
Well, first you have the solar cells. Fancy new ones will probably cost $10 per watt...
No, new ones cost around $4-$5/watt. I have seen new Kyocera 120-watt panels for under $500 US. Smaller units cost more per watt.
Of course, you aren't just going to nail the solar cells to a tree, so also figure in the cost of a nice frame.
The panels don't need framing; they are usually laminated onto plate or tempered glass on the front and have a perimeter frame of aluminum U-channel. They do require mechanical support; for the next month or so you can find a description of the mechanical issues of panel mounting in this Home Power article. Cost? Given cheap labor, as little as $5 doesn't seem out of line.
The rich imperialist systems also include a charge controller, but our friends might prefer to save the $100 or so and flip a switch when the battery is fully charged.
That $50 battery won't last long if it is chronically over- or under-charged. Besides, a cheap shunt controller can be made from a 68HC08 microcontroller and a few bucks of analog components. Teach local people to build them and you can probably get the cost under $50, maybe under $30.
How long will all this last? My guess is that the cells may (may!) last 10 years, the battery as long as five, and the frame maybe a few years.
Try 20 years minimum for the panel (single-crystal cells will go more, amorphous will deteriorate to maybe 70% output over this time) barring physical damage; there are plenty of 20-year-old panels out there still cranking out the watts. Batteries can be killed within months by abuse or last a decade or more if used lightly. The mechanical supports will have a lifespan determined by construction and climate, but a sturdy set of wooden posts will probably go at least ten years unless termites get into them or moisture rots them out. --
he may have meant that its difficult to develop electronic tax filing software without electronically filing tax returns to test it.
That requires the assumption that there is no way to test the filing software other than by filing a real, live tax return. Aside from the fact that you'd have to find a new taxpayer for every test run, the idea that someone would develop an internet protocol and have dozens of companies producing software which must comply with it without having some kind of test suite and internet address for testing is ridiculous. --
Please try to tell me with a straight face that Killustrator is:
Not named after a generic word for the function it helps to perform,
Not named accurately for what it is intended to do, ie. not misleading in any way, and
Not intended to divert profits from Adobe to its authors.
In other words, there is no unfair competition involved in the use of the word "illustrator" as part of the name "Killustrator". Neither is there going to be any confusion between Adobe's product and this offering; the issue is bogus, and only raised by Adobe to keep the open-source world from advertising the availability of a line-drawing program in terms understood by the world at large. --
"Illustrator" means "one who illustrates". If someone else makes a program for creating and editting illustrations, why can't they also call it "illustrator"? It describes what it does. IMHO, Adobe should not be assumed to be on firm ground in their demand to take title to the word "illustrator", capitalized or un-. The only thing they should be assumed to have title to is the string Adobe Illustrator. --
1) It isn't anywhere near feasible for common use, nor cheap enough.
2) We already have "pretty good privacy". It's not the best, but it is sufficient and now we need to work on the next big step: securing both ends.
Quantum computers may make the factoring of large composite numbers a great deal easier. If that happens, the security of PGP vanishes. However, it's possible that quantum technology can replace one kind of security with another. (If your other means are no longer secure and quantum cryptography is the only thing left, it's "cheap enough" for your secure traffic by definition.)
The bottom line is that this technology hinges on the ownership of secure nodes at either end of the optical path. Unless the public network goes all-optical and can route single photons from one end to the other, I don't see how this can be of use to the public. --
The short answer: Eve can't intercept the stream and re-create it verbatim because Eve doesn't know what measurements to make, and the results of the measurements depends on how they are performed. Eve can measure and reproduce the results for one set of measurements, but if those aren't the same ones made by Alice then the photons Eve reproduces for Bob will look bogus. This all keys on the fact that the measurement of the polarization of a photon between the 0/90 axis and the -45/+45 axis is not correlated. --
I don't usually go out of my way to rip someone's posting apart, but, dammit, you are presuming to lecture me in my area of expertise (studied, degreed, and professionally experienced).
All wires have inductance. If current flows through them there is an associated magnetic field. Any change in the level of current causes a change in the magnetic field.
No shit, Sherlock. Impedance = jL, and you can do a Fourier or LaPlace transform on the input waveform to calculate exactly how the variation in impedance over frequency will affect the response.
Any change in the original EMF level causes an EMF that fights the change in the original.
Any time a wire is looped back on itself, whether as a turn in a transformer coil, or a knot in a power cord (remember, the "hot" and "neutral" lines are connected to each other through the load and through the source, and the same current that flows down one flows back up the other, they're part of the same series circuit), or as a twist in unshielded twisted pair (again, both conductors are part of the same circuit), the inductance is greatly increased over what it would be without any "looping", because the proximity of different parts of the same conductor to each other intensifies and reinforces the magnetic field.
Specifically, it obeys the formulas you can find here. For an overhand knot of 2 inches diameter (which we can consider to be a one-turn coil), the inductance will be about 0.11 microhenries. If we generously assume that the applied frequency is 1 MHz (unreasonably high, a lightning bolt flickers with characteristic frequencies of a few tens of Hz) the impedance will be less than 1. In other words, any idea of this protecting your equipment against the surge of a lightning strike is bunk.
But it's worse than that! The line cord consists of at least two and usually three conductors in parallel. Winding the cord into a circle only protects against common-mode transients; if you have a large surge which places the power-supply hot conductor at 900 volts WRT the neutral and ground (which are connected together at your main panel), your overhand knot will not protect you at all. The current surge will go through the coil one way through the hot conductor, fry your gear, then exit back through the other conductor(s); the net current through the coil is zero, so the protection against differential-mode surges is also zero.
The power surge that tends to burn out equipment isn't the original lighting bolt, it's EMF induced in the electrical lines by the lightning. This induced "spike" tends to have an almost instantaneous rise-time. Therefore it can be considered a very high frequency current.
And you know this how? (Exactly how do you get an "almost instantaneous rise time" in a current going through a path several miles long? There's this little thing known as speed of light delay, plus inductance in the plasma which carries the bolt itself...)
Just from simple V=IR calculations it's easy to show that a 50,000 amp lightning bolt striking near a transformer where the ground has a 0.01 resistance will displace the ground voltage from "earth" by 500 volts. This will displace both neutral and hot at the transformer if it is grounded. Neutral will be re-referenced to ground at your service panel, but hot won't be; this allows the voltage surge to come in over the hot lead. Voila, hundreds or thousands of volts at your power supply. This is what lightning arresters and surge suppressors are for: to clamp the voltage, dumping the current to ground and dissipating the excess in IR losses in the conductor upstream (the conductor is a lot heavier and able to take punishment than your equipment probably is). Ferroresonant transformers (Solas and such) do a pretty nice job of regulating voltage excursions and eating spikes, but they do this with large hunks of iron and variable-saturation tricks. One-turn knots in line cords? Don't make me laugh. It didn't take me very long looking on the web before I found specific recommendations against knotting electrical cords.
Now go away or I shall have to taunt you again. --
If you listen to the lightning on an AM radio, you'll hear that the lightning strokes endure for a goodly fraction of a second each. (Use all available information to cross-check your conclusion!) --
On the one hand, I am one of those people who has to read food labels carefully because there's a lot of stuff that upsets my stomach. (Nothing I'm puff-up-and-die allergic to, thank goodness, but it's bad enough.) When someone talks about introducing funny genes for odd proteins into foods, I wonder: will it turn it into something I can't eat?
On the other hand, pesticides are a real problem. Whether they are hormone mimics or neurotoxins or what, they are always worrisome. Worse, the pests typically evolve defenses and move right along, creating a need for more, newer and better pesticides.
Having the plant grow its own pesticide is another dilemma. You can be sure that the stuff isn't going into the water and poisoning the fish, but you can't wash something off if it's part of the plant. Whatcha gonna do?
I suppose there are things with little or no downside. Golden rice engineered to add carotene is one of them. Unless it makes the crop more nutritionally complete for pests too (another nightmare!) I can't see how it could possibly hurt. --
The poster referred to overhand knots (not coils) causing lightning to burn out the cord instead of transmitting the power of a hit to the connected equipment. You are talking about adding inductance, which is useful for choking RFI but has not been shown to be relevant to the issue of lightning.
Why don't you go back and study some more until you're able to explain exactly what an overhand knot does that is helpful, and how it works. --
Cable has nothing to do with this. If you read the article, it's obvious that the market is for intra-home communications between computers and other smart devices (no reference to the power company, which would have to be involved if they were trying to sell internet service). This is all about getting bits from one side of your house to the other without having to snake CAT5 to a jack on every wall.
I think that the first few h4x0ring attacks against carrier-current (that's what these things are called) home networks are going to make them a lot less popular than focus-group studies might make them appear. The first time some kid shows an animated disemboweling and decapitation of Barney to the obnoxious neighbor's 2-yr-old or flips pr0n images on the TV during the evening news, the stampede will be on for technologies which have some inherent security (like phone-wire). Sure, carrier-current and RF systems can be secured; we just know that security is going to have holes you could sail a supertanker through to make it "convenient" and "easy". --
Any spark with enough power to jump across several miles of air isn't going to be stopped by any insulators or suppresors. [sic]
For all intents and purposes, a Faraday cage stops most anything electromagnetic. A wire and a corona point may be able to stop lightning strikes directly, by creating a space charge around the corona point and eliminating the voltage difference across the crucial last piece of atmosphere. From what I've read, that's enough to direct most lightning strikes elsewhere.
You're absolutely right about surges on wires. (For the uninitiated, when lightning strikes the ground the current of the bolt is enough to raise "ground" potential by hundreds or thousands of volts (by Ohm's law, V=IR). This voltage can travel easily over low-resistance paths like power wires; if this region of elevated ground potential includes the ground rod for e.g. your electrical substation or your power meter, there can suddenly be hundreds or thousands of volts of difference between the power leads and the ground at your house.) If you don't have surge suppression to dump these transferred currents back to ground, equipment can get voltages far beyond what it's designed to handle.
Aside: Isn't it odd that there is no obvious attempt to market optical-cable connections for e.g. modems, to eliminate the surge issue? --
it suprised me (some, not much) that anyone would suppose just b/c a person/company/whatever starts running a program that is available under multiple platforms that it's assumed to be your platform...
This may be redundant, BUT: nobody's assuming anything. Rather, people are crowing that the era of one-vendor lock-in for desktop OS's has ended at the DoD, and the leading vendor is likely to have to compete on the basis of TCO rather than bullying customers because it's the only game in town. It gives Unix and Linux an opening, but only an opening. (When have we ever needed more?)
This is good because it may lead quickly to a situation where software is easier to deal with, has fewer bugs, is cheaper, and sucks less in general. --
Not if you want to be picky about it. CO2 sublimes at -78.5 C at 1 atmosphere, but that's not really melting. The triple point is -56.6 C, and you have to have at least enough pressure to get to the triple point before you truly have something melt as opposed to subliming. So no, CO2 does not melt (go from solid to liquid) at temperatures colder than -56.6 C. --
If you had just read the article, you wouldn't have been in the dark.
You are right by saying that pressure will play a much larger part in this artificial injection experiment since the gas will meet the water at a pressure presumably much greater than 1 atmosphere.
The article quotes depths of 780 meters (at which CO2 dissolves, forms a denser-than-water mixture, and sinks) and 930 meters (from which their calculated CO2 release is less than 0.5 percent over the next 70 years).
The water pressure at 780 meters is roughly 78 atmospheres, and at 930 meters it's roughly 93 atmospheres. So, duh! (pun intended)
1.) how much pressure will they have to exert on the gas to get it down to this level? (remember, you must displace ALL of the water for the entire length of the tube going down)
From the looks of it, quite a bit. This properties table lists the density of liquid CO2 at 70 F as 0.76, so the liquid would have to be pressurized to perhaps as much as 20-25 atmospheres just to guarantee flow down the pipe.
2.) will this pressure be greater than that needed to liquify or solidify CO2?
You can solidify CO2 at sea-level pressure. It looks like it would require more pressure to liquefy the CO2 at reasonable temperatures than it does to pump it down to the required depth. Two birds, one stone.
maybe transporting large quantities of dry ice to the bottom of the ocean is the answer! surely it won't melt or sublime at such low temp and high pressure;)
CO2 melts at -55 Celsius. (You didn't really study physical chemistry, did you?) Someone beat you to the "dropping dry ice on the sea floor" idea, check this paper.
--
The expense of getting to Pluto isn't going to change a whole lot; there is a Jupiter gravity assist opportunity about ever Jovian year.
More importantly, if we don't send a mission to Pluto very soon we won't be able to observe its atmosphere easily for another century or so (it will all be frozen out and inaccessible to instruments without a rendezvous and landing). --
Or do things at a pace Nature can deal with.
on
Carbonate The Ocean
·
· Score: 2
Why I remmber when water pollution was first recognized as a problem, how to solve it? "Dilution is the Solution"
And so it is if you are talking about small amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and the like. Dilute it enough and you won't see any untoward effects. Of course, we are long past the point where we have enough air and water to adequately dilute everything we make...
It is unbelieveable that we still fail to realize the folly of this mindset.
I think it's telling that you don't recognize that there are situations where it works, and works well. What's the point of this ocean-carbonation scheme? It's to slow the atmospheric release of the CO2 to a vastly lower rate. What's the deal with CO2 emissions? It's that we are dumping CO2 into the air faster than processes can take it out. If we slowed the progress of the CO2 into the atmosphere far enough the problem would go away. Capisce? --
You've got the physics and chemistry wrong
on
Carbonate The Ocean
·
· Score: 3
The only thing that is new here is the fact that they want to stimulate further absorption by injecting it. The only problem with this is that they will have to pump it *very* deep to get to water that is cold enough to make this process as efficient as possible.
It's not the cold, it's the pressure. At high pressure, water will hold many times more CO2 than it does at sea-level atmospheric (think about bottled soda for a second). With the combination of cold water and high pressure, the mixture of CO2 and H2O is more dense than the water and it will tend to sink and stay sunk. (It would be much easier to get rid of the stuff for the long term if CO2 formed a clathrate (a solid crystal) with water as methane does, but we can't always be lucky.)
Soda water on the bottom of bodies of water can present a danger, as the unfortunate people living near Lake Nyos in Cameroon can attest. However, the water in the deepest parts of the oceans probably cannot be churned easily enough to present a short-term threat.
Even carrying this out with stunning efficiency, it is doubtful they will *ever* be able to pump enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to make a tiny dent globally... and NO, this will also never be enough to disrupt the highly buffered pH of the ocean.
Want to place a small bet on that? I seem to recall recent articles about stresses on coral reefs which included the increase in global CO2 concentrations driving the buffer system away from CO3-- ions to HCO3- ions. As the coral animals require carbonate to build their skeletons, this deprives them of an essential nutrient (and the increased CO2 concentration tends to dissolve what they've already built, by converting CO3-- + CO2 + H2O -> 2HCO3-).
--
The things I would worry about most are life-forms like tube worms around hydrothermal vents. They may be the descendants and symbionts of some of the oldest forms of life on earth. What would we lose, if it turned out that they could not withstand an environment with greater acidity, more CO2 and less oxygen?
That said, I think there are other things to consider here.
Humans are selfish (as is every other life-form on the planet). If there is a choice between saving the environment and keeping life good for humans, they're going to choose the latter.
This probably means that we are going to see more use of fossil fuels no matter what we'd like to do (the only way to avoid it would be for non-fossil fuels to somehow become cheaper and easier to use, eliminating the conflict with consideration [1] above).
If fossil fuels are used, the CO2 has to go somewhere. Pumping it into the ground is probably the least-problematic option, but there is the question of feasibility. Pumping it into deep ocean water may be less damaging than releasing it into the air. Given the potential for climate shift to re-arrange ocean currents wholesale, and the effect this might have on near-surface sea life, dumping into deep ocean water may be one of the best options available.
FYI, Mars already has about as much CO2 as it can take. The excess freezes out on the south polar icecap during the winter until the atmospheric pressure is in equilibrium with the vapor pressure of dry ice. There may be quite a bit of CO2 adsorbed in the soil, too. Ironically, transporting our other greenhouse gases (like fluorocarbons) to Mars might help to terraform it. (Of course, it would make more sense just to manufacture them there.) --
The nice thing about carbon fiber is that it's as strong as steel and only about a third of the weight. If Raytheon wanted to, they could just over-build their first designs to make abso-freaking-lutely certain that it wasn't going to break, and they would still have a lighter and smoother product than the competition. Lighter = more of the total weight can be payload and fuel, giving longer range and/or more payback. Smoother = less drag, less power and fuel required to push it through the air, saving money. Every way you look at it, isn't it a win? --
Slashdot Mirror
Getting a certain amount of energy is easy. Getting it into the required form is harder. Delivering it as needed, when needed and where needed... that's a lot more costly, and is by far the larger amount of the cost and difficulty with intermittent sources of energy.
--
--
--
--
- Not named after a generic word for the function it helps to perform,
- Not named accurately for what it is intended to do, ie. not misleading in any way, and
- Not intended to divert profits from Adobe to its authors.
In other words, there is no unfair competition involved in the use of the word "illustrator" as part of the name "Killustrator". Neither is there going to be any confusion between Adobe's product and this offering; the issue is bogus, and only raised by Adobe to keep the open-source world from advertising the availability of a line-drawing program in terms understood by the world at large.--
"Illustrator" means "one who illustrates". If someone else makes a program for creating and editting illustrations, why can't they also call it "illustrator"? It describes what it does. IMHO, Adobe should not be assumed to be on firm ground in their demand to take title to the word "illustrator", capitalized or un-. The only thing they should be assumed to have title to is the string Adobe Illustrator.
--
The bottom line is that this technology hinges on the ownership of secure nodes at either end of the optical path. Unless the public network goes all-optical and can route single photons from one end to the other, I don't see how this can be of use to the public.
--
The short answer: Eve can't intercept the stream and re-create it verbatim because Eve doesn't know what measurements to make, and the results of the measurements depends on how they are performed. Eve can measure and reproduce the results for one set of measurements, but if those aren't the same ones made by Alice then the photons Eve reproduces for Bob will look bogus. This all keys on the fact that the measurement of the polarization of a photon between the 0/90 axis and the -45/+45 axis is not correlated.
--
But it's worse than that! The line cord consists of at least two and usually three conductors in parallel. Winding the cord into a circle only protects against common-mode transients; if you have a large surge which places the power-supply hot conductor at 900 volts WRT the neutral and ground (which are connected together at your main panel), your overhand knot will not protect you at all. The current surge will go through the coil one way through the hot conductor, fry your gear, then exit back through the other conductor(s); the net current through the coil is zero, so the protection against differential-mode surges is also zero.
And you know this how? (Exactly how do you get an "almost instantaneous rise time" in a current going through a path several miles long? There's this little thing known as speed of light delay, plus inductance in the plasma which carries the bolt itself...)Just from simple V=IR calculations it's easy to show that a 50,000 amp lightning bolt striking near a transformer where the ground has a 0.01 resistance will displace the ground voltage from "earth" by 500 volts. This will displace both neutral and hot at the transformer if it is grounded. Neutral will be re-referenced to ground at your service panel, but hot won't be; this allows the voltage surge to come in over the hot lead. Voila, hundreds or thousands of volts at your power supply. This is what lightning arresters and surge suppressors are for: to clamp the voltage, dumping the current to ground and dissipating the excess in IR losses in the conductor upstream (the conductor is a lot heavier and able to take punishment than your equipment probably is). Ferroresonant transformers (Solas and such) do a pretty nice job of regulating voltage excursions and eating spikes, but they do this with large hunks of iron and variable-saturation tricks. One-turn knots in line cords? Don't make me laugh. It didn't take me very long looking on the web before I found specific recommendations against knotting electrical cords.
Now go away or I shall have to taunt you again.
--
If you listen to the lightning on an AM radio, you'll hear that the lightning strokes endure for a goodly fraction of a second each. (Use all available information to cross-check your conclusion!)
--
On the other hand, pesticides are a real problem. Whether they are hormone mimics or neurotoxins or what, they are always worrisome. Worse, the pests typically evolve defenses and move right along, creating a need for more, newer and better pesticides.
Having the plant grow its own pesticide is another dilemma. You can be sure that the stuff isn't going into the water and poisoning the fish, but you can't wash something off if it's part of the plant. Whatcha gonna do?
I suppose there are things with little or no downside. Golden rice engineered to add carotene is one of them. Unless it makes the crop more nutritionally complete for pests too (another nightmare!) I can't see how it could possibly hurt.
--
Why don't you go back and study some more until you're able to explain exactly what an overhand knot does that is helpful, and how it works.
--
I think that the first few h4x0ring attacks against carrier-current (that's what these things are called) home networks are going to make them a lot less popular than focus-group studies might make them appear. The first time some kid shows an animated disemboweling and decapitation of Barney to the obnoxious neighbor's 2-yr-old or flips pr0n images on the TV during the evening news, the stampede will be on for technologies which have some inherent security (like phone-wire). Sure, carrier-current and RF systems can be secured; we just know that security is going to have holes you could sail a supertanker through to make it "convenient" and "easy".
--
You're absolutely right about surges on wires. (For the uninitiated, when lightning strikes the ground the current of the bolt is enough to raise "ground" potential by hundreds or thousands of volts (by Ohm's law, V=IR). This voltage can travel easily over low-resistance paths like power wires; if this region of elevated ground potential includes the ground rod for e.g. your electrical substation or your power meter, there can suddenly be hundreds or thousands of volts of difference between the power leads and the ground at your house.) If you don't have surge suppression to dump these transferred currents back to ground, equipment can get voltages far beyond what it's designed to handle.
Aside: Isn't it odd that there is no obvious attempt to market optical-cable connections for e.g. modems, to eliminate the surge issue?
--
It doesn't sound very plausible to me, and I've studied double-E (but not lightning).
--
This is good because it may lead quickly to a situation where software is easier to deal with, has fewer bugs, is cheaper, and sucks less in general.
--
Not if you want to be picky about it. CO2 sublimes at -78.5 C at 1 atmosphere, but that's not really melting. The triple point is -56.6 C, and you have to have at least enough pressure to get to the triple point before you truly have something melt as opposed to subliming. So no, CO2 does not melt (go from solid to liquid) at temperatures colder than -56.6 C.
--
It would be great for all the kids in elementary school, too. "I'm not fidgeting, I'm charging my Palm Pilot!"
--
You just described one part of "active suspension" technology, IIRC.
--
The water pressure at 780 meters is roughly 78 atmospheres, and at 930 meters it's roughly 93 atmospheres. So, duh! (pun intended)
From the looks of it, quite a bit. This properties table lists the density of liquid CO2 at 70 F as 0.76, so the liquid would have to be pressurized to perhaps as much as 20-25 atmospheres just to guarantee flow down the pipe. You can solidify CO2 at sea-level pressure. It looks like it would require more pressure to liquefy the CO2 at reasonable temperatures than it does to pump it down to the required depth. Two birds, one stone. CO2 melts at -55 Celsius. (You didn't really study physical chemistry, did you?) Someone beat you to the "dropping dry ice on the sea floor" idea, check this paper.--
More importantly, if we don't send a mission to Pluto very soon we won't be able to observe its atmosphere easily for another century or so (it will all be frozen out and inaccessible to instruments without a rendezvous and landing).
--
--
Soda water on the bottom of bodies of water can present a danger, as the unfortunate people living near Lake Nyos in Cameroon can attest. However, the water in the deepest parts of the oceans probably cannot be churned easily enough to present a short-term threat.
Want to place a small bet on that? I seem to recall recent articles about stresses on coral reefs which included the increase in global CO2 concentrations driving the buffer system away from CO3-- ions to HCO3- ions. As the coral animals require carbonate to build their skeletons, this deprives them of an essential nutrient (and the increased CO2 concentration tends to dissolve what they've already built, by converting CO3-- + CO2 + H2O -> 2HCO3-).--
That said, I think there are other things to consider here.
- Humans are selfish (as is every other life-form on the planet). If there is a choice between saving the environment and keeping life good for humans, they're going to choose the latter.
- This probably means that we are going to see more use of fossil fuels no matter what we'd like to do (the only way to avoid it would be for non-fossil fuels to somehow become cheaper and easier to use, eliminating the conflict with consideration [1] above).
- If fossil fuels are used, the CO2 has to go somewhere. Pumping it into the ground is probably the least-problematic option, but there is the question of feasibility. Pumping it into deep ocean water may be less damaging than releasing it into the air. Given the potential for climate shift to re-arrange ocean currents wholesale, and the effect this might have on near-surface sea life, dumping into deep ocean water may be one of the best options available.
FYI, Mars already has about as much CO2 as it can take. The excess freezes out on the south polar icecap during the winter until the atmospheric pressure is in equilibrium with the vapor pressure of dry ice. There may be quite a bit of CO2 adsorbed in the soil, too. Ironically, transporting our other greenhouse gases (like fluorocarbons) to Mars might help to terraform it. (Of course, it would make more sense just to manufacture them there.)--
The nice thing about carbon fiber is that it's as strong as steel and only about a third of the weight. If Raytheon wanted to, they could just over-build their first designs to make abso-freaking-lutely certain that it wasn't going to break, and they would still have a lighter and smoother product than the competition. Lighter = more of the total weight can be payload and fuel, giving longer range and/or more payback. Smoother = less drag, less power and fuel required to push it through the air, saving money. Every way you look at it, isn't it a win?
--