Every fuel takes more energy to produce than you can get out of it. This will be true whether the fuel is ethanol or anti-matter. It's the second law of thermodynamics.
What makes a fuel non-polluting is the waste products. A fuel that, when used, gives off water is non-polluting compared to a fuel that gives off carbon monoxide. In this case, if the polymeric nitrogen could be converted to the more stable triple-bonded molecule, you would get common molecular nitrogen and a lot of energy. Thus, this has the potential to be a non-polluting fuel source.
Actually, it's even better than this. If it takes a typical solar panel three years for the energy savings to be equal to the cost of the panel, then that energy savings isn't just paying for the energy cost of the panel, but also the raw materials, labor, and research costs.
I see the "it takes more energy to produce a solar cell than it'll ever produce in its lifetime" argument every time a solar-cell story comes up on slashdot, and it's always absurd. The only way for it to be true would be if massive subsidies were being paid to the manufacturers of solar cells. All it takes to debunk the argument is to realize that the time it takes to pay off the solar panel is smaller than the lifetime of the panel.
"when it did in fact happen" is a statement of unequivocable faith.
The early universe would not support life as we know it. Today there is life. I think I'm justified in saying that abiogenesis happened, no faith required.
You are basing your argument on the unscientific position that your theory is fact rather than a theory.
When will creationists start learning some science before they arrogantly assume they know more than every biologist put together? A theory is not just some guess that scientists came up with while drunk one night. A theory is an explanatory network with predictive power. Successful theories, such as evolution, atomic theory, or relativity, become successful only when their predictions consistently pan out.
As you can see, it is not myself but you who musunderstood how science approaches this situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Every fuel takes more energy to produce than you can get out of it. This will be true whether the fuel is ethanol or anti-matter. It's the second law of thermodynamics.
What makes a fuel non-polluting is the waste products. A fuel that, when used, gives off water is non-polluting compared to a fuel that gives off carbon monoxide. In this case, if the polymeric nitrogen could be converted to the more stable triple-bonded molecule, you would get common molecular nitrogen and a lot of energy. Thus, this has the potential to be a non-polluting fuel source.
At least Trichomoniasis has the excuse of being non-sapient.
Or did I just inadvertantly set up the next anti-Bush joke? :-)
Actually, it's even better than this. If it takes a typical solar panel three years for the energy savings to be equal to the cost of the panel, then that energy savings isn't just paying for the energy cost of the panel, but also the raw materials, labor, and research costs.
I see the "it takes more energy to produce a solar cell than it'll ever produce in its lifetime" argument every time a solar-cell story comes up on slashdot, and it's always absurd. The only way for it to be true would be if massive subsidies were being paid to the manufacturers of solar cells. All it takes to debunk the argument is to realize that the time it takes to pay off the solar panel is smaller than the lifetime of the panel."when it did in fact happen" is a statement of unequivocable faith.
The early universe would not support life as we know it. Today there is life. I think I'm justified in saying that abiogenesis happened, no faith required.
You are basing your argument on the unscientific position that your theory is fact rather than a theory.
When will creationists start learning some science before they arrogantly assume they know more than every biologist put together? A theory is not just some guess that scientists came up with while drunk one night. A theory is an explanatory network with predictive power. Successful theories, such as evolution, atomic theory, or relativity, become successful only when their predictions consistently pan out.
As you can see, it is not myself but you who musunderstood how science approaches this situation.
Sure you do, Mr. "Evolution takes faith."