> The main problem with that is most people don't own diesel cars.
True, but how many people own hydrogen cars? Where would they refuel them, even if they did?
It'll be a _lot_ easier to get more people using biodiesel in new and existing diesel vehicles, than it will be to implement a hydrogen infrastructure AND get people to buy (currently impractical) hydrogen vehicles. The bio/diesel option is much, much easier, more efficient, and proven diesel technology exists now, obviously.
I'd see the steps in this order:
1) Encourage biodiesel production & ultra-low sulphur diesel availability (many existing diesel vehicles can't handle pure B100 (100%) biodiesel fuel, and need a mixture (B20 or lower), so you'd still want to blend it with low-sulphur diesel. Also, biodiesel isn't ideal in colder climates - it breaks down faster than regular diesel does, but additives are available, and can certainly be made better if biodiesel becomes a priority.
2) Hydrogen technology development. Standard fuelling equipment, transportation methods, economical production (a _big_ point still), fuel cell efficiencies, etc.
3) Battery (& electric motor & related) technologies to enable practical electric vehicles for the masses, and industrial applications. Large scale hydrogen-powered electric power plants can certainly be possible by this point, to benignly produce the electricity for the vehicles.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say no way will we reach point stage 3 in less than 20 years, probably longer, if not much longer. At least, not if we keep wanting SUV-size vehicles. A societal shift is as likely to take care of that as not. Here's hoping, anyway...
I agree it's not useless, not at all; I'm just saying we're not even remotely ready to actually DO it, not in production (unless you just want to extract it from fossil fuels), not in technology, and not in infrastructure.
You can't just "get" gasoline or diesel with no electrical expenditure to begin with, either, FYI.
Actually, most hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels at this point, and that's likely to be the main method in the future when the Bush Administration's proposed energy plan is put in place (which now seems assured). There are other hydrogen production methods on the horizon that may eventually replace both methods, but they likely won't be scalable for decades. (I'm referring to using nanotubes and/or bioengineering here.)
Either way, whether the fuel is hydrogen, or gas/diesel, a fuel for vehicles will always be less efficient than electricity coming from a modern power plant. The _point_ however, is to have a fuel _for vehicles_. Until battery technology becomes vastly better than what we have now, that's what we're left with.
Also, the advantage of hydrogen over gas/diesel that you're leaving out is that either way, with the less efficient fuel of hydrogen or gas/diesel, with hydrogen, at least, the exhaust of a hydrogen fuel cell (as opposed to burning hydrogen in an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) is _water vapour_. That changes the equation somewhat.
The big problem? Efficiency. Hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen ICEs aren't anywhere near as efficient as gas/diesel engines at this point. When you read articles on these things (I do, and I sometimes write about them for an energy industry publication), you'll often see things like "will eventually be up to x% more efficient than". Lots of phrases like "is hoped to be," and "could be" are generally used. _Noone_ has yet produced a hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE that produces both the same amount of power, or has the same range, as an equivalent gas or diesel engine. Mazda's hydrogen-burning (not fuel cell) version of their Renesis rotary engine produces about half the power of its gasoline version. Ugh. I've yet to get any real information on the exhaust of a hydrogen ICE; writers always seem to assume it's the same exhaust as a fuel cell (which is just water vapour), but I've gotten some vague information recently that leads me to believe otherwise. Noone's talking, though, even when I ask. It seems obvious to me that the Hydrogen Economy being pushed by Bush is a smokescreen to sell more fossil fuels, while trying to look good to the greens.
I see the "Hydrogen Economy" for vehicles as a stepping stone to an electric vehicle era. Unfortunately for us, hydrogen vehicles won't be practical for awhile yet (10 years, or more, due to both technology and _infrastructure_), so until then, I'm a big proponent of biodiesel, where appropriate. Combine that with the lower-sulfur diesel that's mandated by 2006 or 2007, and you'll be reducing emissions enormously. Now we just need some automaker other than VW to make decent diesel engines for passenger vehicles. Pretty rare, still, and many of VW's best engines aren't even available in the US, apparently due to the crappy qualify of diesel sold here. I'd love to have a Jetta with the Passat's 2.0L TDI engine. Too bad the Jetta is about to become boring with the new body style coming next year. *sigh*
...is a multithreaded UI, cuz right now, it's a total pig when opening and working with multiple tabs. Other than that, and managing extensions better (especially when they screw up), I think it's doing quite well. I'm not sure what else it needs that can't be handled by extensions.
Strangely, Firefox is noticeably slower on my machine than Mozilla is, though I've not yet tried the moox optimized builds yet.
I say we make a third, moderate party, and draft McCain and Biden to head it. Eliminate the extremes on both sides. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative, the way _most_ people are.
I just saw a CNN poll yesterday of nationwide voters, and a majority (~75% or so) are in favour of legal abortions of _some_ type (with the most restrictive being 'some legal' probably meaning in cases of rape or incest), and a majority of around 57 or 58% being in favour of either civil unions or marriage for gays.
The initial specs for 1394b, as I mentioned in my first post, said it was to scale to 1600 & 3200 (with 3200 being optical-only); I've just not seen anyone implement the higher speeds yet. These speeds have nothing to do with any 1394c or d (of which I've never heard any mention).
IEEE1394.b was supposedly capable of scaling to 3200mbps via optical connections, but I've not yet seen any such equipment (or even the 1600mbps variant) - anyone know what the poop is on >800mbps FW?
Wrong. The _BIIG_ thing in moving the Mac to 64 bits was massively increasing the size of the RDF; it's now big enough to encompass the entire galaxy. Global domination? Pfeh. Child's play.
You've got that backwards. You get used to the 'white noise' of the computer, and you should wake up when it goes missing - cuz somethin' bad's about ta happen.
_80_ columns?! Why, you young punks had it good! When I was a boy, we only had 40 columns, and we felt grateful, as our fathers had no video display at all. Grandfathers? They used their fingers or an abacus.
Slashdot Mirror
> The main problem with that is most people don't own diesel cars.
True, but how many people own hydrogen cars? Where would they refuel them, even if they did?
It'll be a _lot_ easier to get more people using biodiesel in new and existing diesel vehicles, than it will be to implement a hydrogen infrastructure AND get people to buy (currently impractical) hydrogen vehicles. The bio/diesel option is much, much easier, more efficient, and proven diesel technology exists now, obviously.
I'd see the steps in this order:
1) Encourage biodiesel production & ultra-low sulphur diesel availability (many existing diesel vehicles can't handle pure B100 (100%) biodiesel fuel, and need a mixture (B20 or lower), so you'd still want to blend it with low-sulphur diesel. Also, biodiesel isn't ideal in colder climates - it breaks down faster than regular diesel does, but additives are available, and can certainly be made better if biodiesel becomes a priority.
2) Hydrogen technology development. Standard fuelling equipment, transportation methods, economical production (a _big_ point still), fuel cell efficiencies, etc.
3) Battery (& electric motor & related) technologies to enable practical electric vehicles for the masses, and industrial applications. Large scale hydrogen-powered electric power plants can certainly be possible by this point, to benignly produce the electricity for the vehicles.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say no way will we reach point stage 3 in less than 20 years, probably longer, if not much longer. At least, not if we keep wanting SUV-size vehicles. A societal shift is as likely to take care of that as not. Here's hoping, anyway...
I agree it's not useless, not at all; I'm just saying we're not even remotely ready to actually DO it, not in production (unless you just want to extract it from fossil fuels), not in technology, and not in infrastructure.
You can't just "get" gasoline or diesel with no electrical expenditure to begin with, either, FYI.
Actually, most hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels at this point, and that's likely to be the main method in the future when the Bush Administration's proposed energy plan is put in place (which now seems assured). There are other hydrogen production methods on the horizon that may eventually replace both methods, but they likely won't be scalable for decades. (I'm referring to using nanotubes and/or bioengineering here.)
Either way, whether the fuel is hydrogen, or gas/diesel, a fuel for vehicles will always be less efficient than electricity coming from a modern power plant. The _point_ however, is to have a fuel _for vehicles_. Until battery technology becomes vastly better than what we have now, that's what we're left with.
Also, the advantage of hydrogen over gas/diesel that you're leaving out is that either way, with the less efficient fuel of hydrogen or gas/diesel, with hydrogen, at least, the exhaust of a hydrogen fuel cell (as opposed to burning hydrogen in an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) is _water vapour_. That changes the equation somewhat.
The big problem? Efficiency. Hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen ICEs aren't anywhere near as efficient as gas/diesel engines at this point. When you read articles on these things (I do, and I sometimes write about them for an energy industry publication), you'll often see things like "will eventually be up to x% more efficient than". Lots of phrases like "is hoped to be," and "could be" are generally used. _Noone_ has yet produced a hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE that produces both the same amount of power, or has the same range, as an equivalent gas or diesel engine. Mazda's hydrogen-burning (not fuel cell) version of their Renesis rotary engine produces about half the power of its gasoline version. Ugh. I've yet to get any real information on the exhaust of a hydrogen ICE; writers always seem to assume it's the same exhaust as a fuel cell (which is just water vapour), but I've gotten some vague information recently that leads me to believe otherwise. Noone's talking, though, even when I ask. It seems obvious to me that the Hydrogen Economy being pushed by Bush is a smokescreen to sell more fossil fuels, while trying to look good to the greens.
I see the "Hydrogen Economy" for vehicles as a stepping stone to an electric vehicle era. Unfortunately for us, hydrogen vehicles won't be practical for awhile yet (10 years, or more, due to both technology and _infrastructure_), so until then, I'm a big proponent of biodiesel, where appropriate. Combine that with the lower-sulfur diesel that's mandated by 2006 or 2007, and you'll be reducing emissions enormously. Now we just need some automaker other than VW to make decent diesel engines for passenger vehicles. Pretty rare, still, and many of VW's best engines aren't even available in the US, apparently due to the crappy qualify of diesel sold here. I'd love to have a Jetta with the Passat's 2.0L TDI engine. Too bad the Jetta is about to become boring with the new body style coming next year. *sigh*
Nah, most likely a Beowulf cluster of small Pringles(tm) cans.
...is a multithreaded UI, cuz right now, it's a total pig when opening and working with multiple tabs. Other than that, and managing extensions better (especially when they screw up), I think it's doing quite well. I'm not sure what else it needs that can't be handled by extensions.
Strangely, Firefox is noticeably slower on my machine than Mozilla is, though I've not yet tried the moox optimized builds yet.
Actually both parts are equally important. 'Fault-free' software means nothing if the machine doesn't make a paper copy for a physical trail.
I've actually got a design in mind for this problem, but it might be too expensive - I'm not sure how much those machines cost.
The Internet-enabled 'Remote BitchSlap.' Bad manners, a thing of the past!
I'm jus' sayin'...
Unfortunately, that would have to be a software AND hardware solution, to be anything remotely effective.
'OBVIOUS'
I understand the sentiment, but wouldn't moving to Ohio be slightly more effective?
I'd rather kill myself than move to Ohio.
I say we make a third, moderate party, and draft McCain and Biden to head it. Eliminate the extremes on both sides. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative, the way _most_ people are.
I just saw a CNN poll yesterday of nationwide voters, and a majority (~75% or so) are in favour of legal abortions of _some_ type (with the most restrictive being 'some legal' probably meaning in cases of rape or incest), and a majority of around 57 or 58% being in favour of either civil unions or marriage for gays.
That's _President_ T to you, sucka. I pity the foo. President T got no _time_ fo the jibba-jabba!
But what if they had it comin'?
It's edutainment; bitches gotta learn respect.
CKernelRun?
a) CKernelCrash
b) CKernelPatchNotGetAcceptedByLinus
One or the other, I'm sure.
Hmm...that reminds me of "Dark Angel." One Jessica Alba model, please.
3200mbps = 400 MB/s. I'm gonna get a nice high-end SCSI array could hit that, no? I could be wrong.
The other advantage to the optical FW spec was extended cable lengths over non-optical connections.
I was thinking it would make a pretty nifty network connection, especially for clusters.
The initial specs for 1394b, as I mentioned in my first post, said it was to scale to 1600 & 3200 (with 3200 being optical-only); I've just not seen anyone implement the higher speeds yet. These speeds have nothing to do with any 1394c or d (of which I've never heard any mention).
IEEE1394.b was supposedly capable of scaling to 3200mbps via optical connections, but I've not yet seen any such equipment (or even the 1600mbps variant) - anyone know what the poop is on >800mbps FW?
Wrong. The _BIIG_ thing in moving the Mac to 64 bits was massively increasing the size of the RDF; it's now big enough to encompass the entire galaxy. Global domination? Pfeh. Child's play.
You've got that backwards. You get used to the 'white noise' of the computer, and you should wake up when it goes missing - cuz somethin' bad's about ta happen.
the single-tasking 80 column display days
_80_ columns?! Why, you young punks had it good! When I was a boy, we only had 40 columns, and we felt grateful, as our fathers had no video display at all. Grandfathers? They used their fingers or an abacus.
You've come a long way, baby.
Ahh, the venerable Apple ][, inspiring people even today!
Your local junior high science fiction club would be a good place.
Only drunken sports fans and Canadians.
Hey, everybody needs a hobby!
Ooooh, thanks for the idea! I'll have to find a sports bar once my device arrives (I ordered one yesterday morning).