The media has always done this. It's often a pulpit used to push an agenda. Very few news sources report "just the news" without some form of embedded commentary or opinion.
Read up on RTG's. They (the nuclear generator used on current deep space probes) are designed to survive an explosion of the launch vehicle and impact with the ground, intact. The reactor core on this can be designed with similar safeguards in mind.
some concern over the nuclear fuel exploding on takeoff,
no concern... The reactor core can be designed to survive the explosion of the launch vehicle and impact with the ground. The current RTG's used on deep space probes are already designed this way.
It's not about hiding something... As someone who has three family members in law enforcement, I can tell you, without a shred of doubt, that she has put these peoples families in danger.
so, we tune the laser to a color that your reflective surface doesn't reflect; or, since no reflective surface is 100% reflective (some energy is always absorbed) we amp the laser up until the absorbed energy is enough to vaporize the reflective coating. Then, you're toast.
It comes down to this simple fact: In the 60's Congress gave NASA an unconstrained budget. all the money they asked for. Now, Congress isn't giving them enough money to complete the tasks they're already working on, like the ISS and building a replacement for the Shuttle -- going to the Moon is out of the question.
That only works if the EV batteries 1.) exist in large numbers and 2.) are allowed to be used that way. There's lots of talk about using consumer's EV batteries for energy storage on the grid; but, personally I'm not real wild about the electric utility running the expensive battery in my car through extra charge and discharge cycles.
There's no (zero) doubt that utilizing large scale wind power requires an energy storage system to balance out demand vs available wind. Current suggested plans use such methods as pumped water and pressurized air. These might be more efficient than hydrogen, if you have advantageous geology providing the natural resource for storage (a hill-top lake, a valley you can dam, a cave or cavern, etc). Without that, you have no choice but to build a hugely expensive storage system...
it's a game you play with the efficiency numbers. IF, it turns out that the fuel cell is sufficiently more efficient than the engine + generator, then you burn the methane to make hydrogen for the fuel cell. Of course to do this you have to have a reliable efficient fuel cell.
They're not trying to duplicate photosynthesis... they're ignoring the synthesis part. They just want to understand how the cell uses sunlight to split the hydrogen and oxygen in water. The quickest path to achieve this might be to simply determine what proteins are doing the work and what they require to function. Then, once you know this, replicate the appropriate proteins on an industrial scale. Replicating the proteins would be a job for the genetic engineers. Hence, my suggestion that genetic engineering might be required.
Wasting wind power to create hydrogen through electrolysis(only 60% efficient)
Actually, despite the lack of efficiency, that might be a good way to store any excess energy produced by the wind turbine. When the demand picks up then you can reconvert it to electricity using fuel cells.
None of those will work in a modern cargo or passenger jet, except perhaps hydrogen. Then only in liquid form would it have sufficient density, which means your handing super cold crygenic liquids. They're a looooong way from being able to use that in commercial jets. So, you need to consider what we can do now, today, which is carbon-based bio-fuels.
and I gave you the answer, minimum carbon and maximum hydrogen per molecule. Methane or methanol are very efficient ways to store hydrogen. As compared to oil or coal, burning methane (or methanol) produces less CO2 per unit of energy. Because of it's short half-life in the atmosphere (7 years), you might be better off in the long run handling methane and risking the small percent leakage than burning coal and dumping over twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere, given CO2's 10,000 year half-life.
Yes, but if you are looking to use a carbon based fuel, methane or methanol are the best you can hope for because the ratio of carbon to hydrogen is the lowest (1:4).
Slashdot Mirror
The media has always done this. It's often a pulpit used to push an agenda. Very few news sources report "just the news" without some form of embedded commentary or opinion.
You do know they used to use uranium as a colorant in the glazing of dishes, right? Look up Fiesta Ware and look for the orange glazed ones.
Read up on RTG's. They (the nuclear generator used on current deep space probes) are designed to survive an explosion of the launch vehicle and impact with the ground, intact. The reactor core on this can be designed with similar safeguards in mind.
some concern over the nuclear fuel exploding on takeoff,
no concern... The reactor core can be designed to survive the explosion of the launch vehicle and impact with the ground. The current RTG's used on deep space probes are already designed this way.
Ummm, the lunar night is 14 days long.... That's 14 days per lunar day without sunlight. --- that's the driver for using nuclear.
Not at all subtle. Cape Town District 6 was a real life model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_Six,_Cape_Town
It's not about hiding something... As someone who has three family members in law enforcement, I can tell you, without a shred of doubt, that she has put these peoples families in danger.
coat the missle in a layer of popcorn kernels, with a wrap of aluminum foil.
so, we tune the laser to a color that your reflective surface doesn't reflect; or, since no reflective surface is 100% reflective (some energy is always absorbed) we amp the laser up until the absorbed energy is enough to vaporize the reflective coating. Then, you're toast.
It comes down to this simple fact: In the 60's Congress gave NASA an unconstrained budget. all the money they asked for. Now, Congress isn't giving them enough money to complete the tasks they're already working on, like the ISS and building a replacement for the Shuttle -- going to the Moon is out of the question.
You're a bit late, the Chinese have already launched multiple rockets with people on them; and, are already working on getting to the Moon.
Because the high-end is the 8-core workstation sitting next to me at my desk.
Stop that. You're making my head hurt.
That only works if the EV batteries 1.) exist in large numbers and 2.) are allowed to be used that way. There's lots of talk about using consumer's EV batteries for energy storage on the grid; but, personally I'm not real wild about the electric utility running the expensive battery in my car through extra charge and discharge cycles.
There's no (zero) doubt that utilizing large scale wind power requires an energy storage system to balance out demand vs available wind. Current suggested plans use such methods as pumped water and pressurized air. These might be more efficient than hydrogen, if you have advantageous geology providing the natural resource for storage (a hill-top lake, a valley you can dam, a cave or cavern, etc). Without that, you have no choice but to build a hugely expensive storage system...
Thank-you, you've just prompted me to pull out my Firefly disks and make some popcorn... So much for being productive tonight.
it's a game you play with the efficiency numbers. IF, it turns out that the fuel cell is sufficiently more efficient than the engine + generator, then you burn the methane to make hydrogen for the fuel cell. Of course to do this you have to have a reliable efficient fuel cell.
They're not trying to duplicate photosynthesis... they're ignoring the synthesis part. They just want to understand how the cell uses sunlight to split the hydrogen and oxygen in water. The quickest path to achieve this might be to simply determine what proteins are doing the work and what they require to function. Then, once you know this, replicate the appropriate proteins on an industrial scale. Replicating the proteins would be a job for the genetic engineers. Hence, my suggestion that genetic engineering might be required.
Wasting wind power to create hydrogen through electrolysis(only 60% efficient)
Actually, despite the lack of efficiency, that might be a good way to store any excess energy produced by the wind turbine. When the demand picks up then you can reconvert it to electricity using fuel cells.
None of those will work in a modern cargo or passenger jet, except perhaps hydrogen. Then only in liquid form would it have sufficient density, which means your handing super cold crygenic liquids. They're a looooong way from being able to use that in commercial jets. So, you need to consider what we can do now, today, which is carbon-based bio-fuels.
You said:
Not sure why it's considered "clean".
and I gave you the answer, minimum carbon and maximum hydrogen per molecule. Methane or methanol are very efficient ways to store hydrogen. As compared to oil or coal, burning methane (or methanol) produces less CO2 per unit of energy. Because of it's short half-life in the atmosphere (7 years), you might be better off in the long run handling methane and risking the small percent leakage than burning coal and dumping over twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere, given CO2's 10,000 year half-life.
Genetic engineering tech is moving faster than fusion tech...
Best way to store hydrogen is using a carbon atom.
Yes, but if you are looking to use a carbon based fuel, methane or methanol are the best you can hope for because the ratio of carbon to hydrogen is the lowest (1:4).
Didn't say I agreed with him. But yes, I'm blond.
The author claims Golden Retrievers are intelligent, 4th highest fact.