<!--quoteo(post=1661102:date=Nov 18 2007, 09:36 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aldaris @ Nov 18 2007, 09:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661102"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Congratulations, you're right, but sending a manned ship to Mars now is not working towards the inventions needed, using solar panels or electric motors now is the same thing. You've not countered my point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would say the exact opposite. Sending a manned mission to mars (if it were successful) would teach us many things about long-range space travel. Unless you want us to make the huge step from moon travel to interstellar travel without anything in-between.
And what do you mean it's the same with solar panels and electric engines? We have their technology right now it's just people seem to want to go other easier routes that will end up being replaced anyway instead of working straight towards the final goal(moar liek final solution m i rite?).
So the solution to the impact and radiation issues on space living quarters? Water.
Water absorption is a very effective method of reducing radiation. If you place the water tanks between the inner and outer hulls this would be very effective, an added bonus is that when you have a small breach, the water itself will leave and freeze if on the non-sun side of the ship (which most will be since this thing will be rotating), allowing more time for a solution.
Finally, The water will also be a great reservoir for hydrogen/oxygen energy storage. This way, power can be readily supplied even when not in sunlight.
As for returning something to the earth. Power. You could create massive solar plants and return the gained energy by a number of means.
Actually, water tends to <i>boil</i> in space before it freezes. The pressure is so low that the relative boiling temperature is incredible low.
Im definitely all for the space elevator though, we really do have all the technology for it right now. All we need to do is begin mass-producing carbon nano-tubes and we could have it up and running in a matter of years.
But nooo we'd rather build a high-tech weapon that will never see use since we will never go against an enemy that requires a high-tech response.
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
<!--quoteo(post=1661043:date=Nov 18 2007, 02:56 PM:name=Omegaman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Omegaman @ Nov 18 2007, 02:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661043"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see your point about supplies and such, but here's a thought: Wouldn't it be cool if the places we sent supplies, could like, you know, send supplies back? The ocean is FILLED with resources that we could use for food and energy. And space? Space is a bunch of nothing. Economically, we don't get anything out of people living in space and sending them supplies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But space is vast, never ending, it's the ultimate in exploration. Photos of nebulae, planets and stars are just breathtaking. Once space travel is practical new worlds open up.
The ocean is one of the scariest places ever I think. It's beautiful, but it's so foreboding for me. How gloomy would it be to wake up to just black outside your window and never see the sun? (Save for neon lights maybe...)
<!--quoteo(post=1661107:date=Nov 19 2007, 02:07 AM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Nov 19 2007, 02:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661107"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would say the exact opposite. Sending a manned mission to mars (if it were successful) would teach us many things about long-range space travel. Unless you want us to make the huge step from moon travel to interstellar travel without anything in-between.
And what do you mean it's the same with solar panels and electric engines? We have their technology right now it's just people seem to want to go other easier routes that will end up being replaced anyway instead of working straight towards the final goal(moar liek final solution m i rite?).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sending a manned mission to Mars right now will not teach anything about getting there and back in a decent timeframe, while keeping people confortable. It will not teach us any new methods of propulsion. The only thing it will teach us is the affects of long term space travel on humans, which we can pretty much already theorise right now anyway. And yes, we have those two technologies right now, apart from the fact they're both in crappy forms. Giant solar panels need constructing in space, and giant receiving stations need building on Earth, and I point out again that batteries suck huge amounts of ass, making electric motors pretty crappy. It would also require a replacement of every single motorised vehicle in the world. Bio based fuels don't, or not as much anyway. They're still running on the same basic principle. They're also renewable, so why you think they'd be replaced, I don't know.
<!--quoteo(post=1661188:date=Nov 19 2007, 01:48 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 19 2007, 01:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661188"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're all wrong. We need to send a manned mission to the center of the Earth first.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because that isn't horribly in danger of mole-men attacks. What are you, an idiot?
So, the human race is running out of resources on the surface of the Earth. We start colonizing the seas, building underwater cities and such and finding ways to harvest the vast amounts of resources of the ocean.
The human population continues to grow and the resources of the ocean cease to provide in quantities vast enough to sustain the colossal population.
However, all the while, humanity has also been developing space travel technology including space elevators to supply the various space stations. We begin to terraform Mars, a lengthy process, and small colonies are built independent of the atmosphere of Mars in domes and such.
Technology continues to evolve and the human population continues to grow. The solar system is dotted with mining colonies on planets and asteroids, and the raw materials are sent back to earth in gigantic space freighters. Those freighters dock with the elevators and the resources are processed on Earth.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited November 2007
Honestly, why did the explorers of the past go to the americas and etc..? Space has massive potentials for abundances of energy and resources. Once we master getting a decent initial infrastructure in space, the expansion after will be exponential. Then we can proceed to go bald where noone has gone before and analprobe venusians or something.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1661153:date=Nov 19 2007, 02:37 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aldaris @ Nov 19 2007, 02:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661153"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sending a manned mission to Mars right now will not teach anything about getting there and back in a decent timeframe, while keeping people confortable. It will not teach us any new methods of propulsion. The only thing it will teach us is the affects of long term space travel on humans, which we can pretty much already theorise right now anyway. And yes, we have those two technologies right now, apart from the fact they're both in crappy forms. Giant solar panels need constructing in space, and giant receiving stations need building on Earth, and I point out again that batteries suck huge amounts of ass, making electric motors pretty crappy. It would also require a replacement of every single motorised vehicle in the world. Bio based fuels don't, or not as much anyway. They're still running on the same basic principle. They're also renewable, so why you think they'd be replaced, I don't know.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one is suggest we get a shuttle and shoot people off to Mars. What people are suggesting is funding to develop the technologies to:
"Sending a manned mission to Mars right now will not teach anything about getting there and back in a decent timeframe, while keeping people confortable. It will not teach us any new methods of propulsion."
solve all of the problems you listed there. That is where aiming to get men to Mars will get us. Which is a far, far better use of money than space marines, cool though they may be.
<!--quoteo(post=1661138:date=Nov 19 2007, 03:02 AM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Nov 19 2007, 03:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661138"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, water tends to <i>boil</i> in space before it freezes. The pressure is so low that the relative boiling temperature is incredible low.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, water boils at first, but water can freeze when exiting a space vehicle. There was an incident with the space shuttle where they ejected their waste water on the wrong side of the craft and it made a big icicle... out of waste water.
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
edited November 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1661153:date=Nov 19 2007, 09:37 AM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aldaris @ Nov 19 2007, 09:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661153"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Giant solar panels need constructing in space, and giant receiving stations need building on Earth, and I point out again that batteries suck huge amounts of ass, making electric motors pretty crappy. It would also require a replacement of every single motorised vehicle in the world. Bio based fuels don't, or not as much anyway. They're still running on the same basic principle. They're also renewable, so why you think they'd be replaced, I don't know.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Crops that produce bio-fuels take a little long to grow, and require a portion of farming space. Filling all the agricultural zones with fuel producing farms to power all the cars in the world isn't possible and even if it were it would seriously hurt the food supplies, bringing the costs of food up. Regardless, it still requires power to create the fuel from biomass anyway and that power must come from somewhere, like a solar panel. I'm not sure why you are ruling out batteries altogether. They're not all that bad and with a bit more research they can probably be improved.
<!--quoteo(post=1661201:date=Nov 19 2007, 08:03 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Nov 19 2007, 08:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661201"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No one is suggest we get a shuttle and shoot people off to Mars. What people are suggesting is funding to develop the technologies to:
"Sending a manned mission to Mars right now will not teach anything about getting there and back in a decent timeframe, while keeping people confortable. It will not teach us any new methods of propulsion."
solve all of the problems you listed there. That is where aiming to get men to Mars will get us. Which is a far, far better use of money than space marines, cool though they may be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That seemed to be the general gist of the thread though. lolfighter said why bother doing this when we should be trying to get a manned mission to Mars, which isn't feasable right now, yet getting Marines to the other side of the world in 2 hours is. That's why the money is being spent, because it's a more likely to be realised and actually be, in some small way, useful.
Coleman, biofuels can be made from pretty much any plant, as there are a few methods of making them, so agricultural space has little to do with it. And I'm ruling out batteries cos they really are horrible, and bad for enviroment. Research is invested into them yet they lag behind any other modern technology in their growth.
<!--quoteo(post=1661236:date=Nov 19 2007, 07:22 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aldaris @ Nov 19 2007, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661236"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That seemed to be the general gist of the thread though. lolfighter said why bother doing this when we should be trying to get a manned mission to Mars, which isn't feasable right now, yet getting Marines to the other side of the world in 2 hours is. That's why the money is being spent, because it's a more likely to be realised and actually be, in some small way, useful.
Coleman, biofuels can be made from pretty much any plant, as there are a few methods of making them, so agricultural space has little to do with it. And I'm ruling out batteries cos they really are horrible, and bad for enviroment. Research is invested into them yet they lag behind any other modern technology in their growth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You seem to completely lack the concept of "funded research". If something isn't good yet, you research it more instead of ditching the idea.
Biofuel can be made from any plant eh? So, lets just cut down the forests in order to fuel our cars? The amount of fuel we use in a single day is just magnitudes larger then what we could hope to be able to produce. On the other hand, we already have the base technology of the electric motor (Which is more powerful then it's gasoline counterparts) and the solar panel (which just needs to be researched more then break 50% efficiency and reduce production costs). As far as energy storage go, we are working on the super-capacitor right now, the only thing we lack is a very good dielectric material but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
KungFuSquirrelBasher of MuttonsJoin Date: 2002-01-26Member: 103Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--quoteo(post=1661043:date=Nov 18 2007, 02:56 PM:name=Omegaman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Omegaman @ Nov 18 2007, 02:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661043"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see your point about supplies and such, but here's a thought: Wouldn't it be cool if the places we sent supplies, could like, you know, send supplies back? The ocean is FILLED with resources that we could use for food and energy. And space? Space is a bunch of nothing. Economically, we don't get anything out of people living in space and sending them supplies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Asteroid belt. Given the right technology and processes, that's massive mining reserves that can be moved off-planet and free up existing mining areas for greater use of terrestrial agriculture and energy production. Theoretically, at least <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
<!--quoteo(post=1661236:date=Nov 19 2007, 06:22 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aldaris @ Nov 19 2007, 06:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661236"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Coleman, biofuels can be made from pretty much any plant, as there are a few methods of making them, so agricultural space has little to do with it. And I'm ruling out batteries cos they really are horrible, and bad for enviroment. Research is invested into them yet they lag behind any other modern technology in their growth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agricultural space is required to grow the plants efficiently and keep them concentrated enough to be harvested. This takes up space if you want all the cars running on biofuel. In addition you also have to use bio fuel to transport bio fuel to urban environments where it is impossible to grow plants, and just like batteries you also need quite a bit of energy to create bio fuel in the first place. I can not see how you can claim batteries will always be bad for the environment when your preferred method is much more flawed. There really isn't much more to say about that.
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
<!--quoteo(post=1661236:date=Nov 19 2007, 06:22 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aldaris @ Nov 19 2007, 06:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661236"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Coleman, biofuels can be made from pretty much any plant, as there are a few methods of making them, so agricultural space has little to do with it. And I'm ruling out batteries cos they really are horrible, and bad for enviroment. Research is invested into them yet they lag behind any other modern technology in their growth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agricultural space is required to grow the plants efficiently and keep them concentrated enough to be harvested. This takes up space if you want all the cars running on biofuel. In addition you also have to use bio fuel to transport bio fuel to urban environments where it is impossible to grow plants, and just like batteries you also need quite a bit of energy to create bio fuel in the first place. I can not see how you can claim batteries will always be bad for the environment when your preferred method is much more flawed. There really isn't much more to say about that.
Battery technology is very slow to improve relative to other primary technologies.
Hydrogen as an energy storage medium is pretty efficient, but there are other issues.
In terms of earth based energy production, nuclear power plants are our best bet. A single bit of fuel can be sent to various kinds of reactors as it decays for a very long time.
<!--quoteo(post=1661255:date=Nov 19 2007, 08:08 PM:name=Gwahir)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gwahir @ Nov 19 2007, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661255"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Battery technology is very slow to improve relative to other primary technologies.
Hydrogen as an energy storage medium is pretty efficient, but there are other issues.
In terms of earth based energy production, nuclear power plants are our best bet. A single bit of fuel can be sent to various kinds of reactors as it decays for a very long time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Best bet but also a too risky one. Radioactive stuff isn't exactly something that you want to cuddle together with at night and in terms of safety versus mass/weight/volume of the reactors it would be damn tricky to find the right balance.
it really is a shame that solar panels are so expensive to produce or we'd have no energy problems at all <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
why is nuke power so risky? The material itself is not safe for close contact, but you never have that kind of contact anyway. And modern reactors are extremely safe from meltdown. As for where you put the spent fuel, that's why you send it on down the line to the next reactor.
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
<!--quoteo(post=1661254:date=Nov 19 2007, 08:02 PM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Nov 19 2007, 08:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661254"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Coleman works for the department of redundancy department.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll join if i get the cool green armor and helmet <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> <----
<!--quoteo(post=1661244:date=Nov 20 2007, 09:59 AM:name=KungFuSquirrel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KungFuSquirrel @ Nov 20 2007, 09:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661244"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Asteroid belt. Given the right technology and processes, that's massive mining reserves that can be moved off-planet and free up existing mining areas for greater use of terrestrial agriculture and energy production. Theoretically, at least <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eve Online is already training the new generation of asteroid farmers, happy to stare at a piece of rock as it gradually gets smaller and smaller, incrementally increasing their wealth.
Comments
I would say the exact opposite. Sending a manned mission to mars (if it were successful) would teach us many things about long-range space travel. Unless you want us to make the huge step from moon travel to interstellar travel without anything in-between.
And what do you mean it's the same with solar panels and electric engines? We have their technology right now it's just people seem to want to go other easier routes that will end up being replaced anyway instead of working straight towards the final goal(moar liek final solution m i rite?).
Water absorption is a very effective method of reducing radiation. If you place the water tanks between the inner and outer hulls this would be very effective, an added bonus is that when you have a small breach, the water itself will leave and freeze if on the non-sun side of the ship (which most will be since this thing will be rotating), allowing more time for a solution.
Finally, The water will also be a great reservoir for hydrogen/oxygen energy storage. This way, power can be readily supplied even when not in sunlight.
As for returning something to the earth. Power. You could create massive solar plants and return the gained energy by a number of means.
Im definitely all for the space elevator though, we really do have all the technology for it right now. All we need to do is begin mass-producing carbon nano-tubes and we could have it up and running in a matter of years.
But nooo we'd rather build a high-tech weapon that will never see use since we will never go against an enemy that requires a high-tech response.
But space is vast, never ending, it's the ultimate in exploration. Photos of nebulae, planets and stars are just breathtaking. Once space travel is practical new worlds open up.
The ocean is one of the scariest places ever I think. It's beautiful, but it's so foreboding for me. How gloomy would it be to wake up to just black outside your window and never see the sun? (Save for neon lights maybe...)
And what do you mean it's the same with solar panels and electric engines? We have their technology right now it's just people seem to want to go other easier routes that will end up being replaced anyway instead of working straight towards the final goal(moar liek final solution m i rite?).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sending a manned mission to Mars right now will not teach anything about getting there and back in a decent timeframe, while keeping people confortable. It will not teach us any new methods of propulsion. The only thing it will teach us is the affects of long term space travel on humans, which we can pretty much already theorise right now anyway. And yes, we have those two technologies right now, apart from the fact they're both in crappy forms. Giant solar panels need constructing in space, and giant receiving stations need building on Earth, and I point out again that batteries suck huge amounts of ass, making electric motors pretty crappy. It would also require a replacement of every single motorised vehicle in the world. Bio based fuels don't, or not as much anyway. They're still running on the same basic principle. They're also renewable, so why you think they'd be replaced, I don't know.
Yes, because that isn't horribly in danger of mole-men attacks. What are you, an idiot?
The human population continues to grow and the resources of the ocean cease to provide in quantities vast enough to sustain the colossal population.
However, all the while, humanity has also been developing space travel technology including space elevators to supply the various space stations. We begin to terraform Mars, a lengthy process, and small colonies are built independent of the atmosphere of Mars in domes and such.
Technology continues to evolve and the human population continues to grow. The solar system is dotted with mining colonies on planets and asteroids, and the raw materials are sent back to earth in gigantic space freighters. Those freighters dock with the elevators and the resources are processed on Earth.
Yea, science fiction is cool.
No one is suggest we get a shuttle and shoot people off to Mars. What people are suggesting is funding to develop the technologies to:
"Sending a manned mission to Mars right now will not teach anything about getting there and back in a decent timeframe, while keeping people confortable. It will not teach us any new methods of propulsion."
solve all of the problems you listed there. That is where aiming to get men to Mars will get us. Which is a far, far better use of money than space marines, cool though they may be.
Yes, water boils at first, but water can freeze when exiting a space vehicle. There was an incident with the space shuttle where they ejected their waste water on the wrong side of the craft and it made a big icicle... out of waste water.
Thanks for that mental scar <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
Crops that produce bio-fuels take a little long to grow, and require a portion of farming space. Filling all the agricultural zones with fuel producing farms to power all the cars in the world isn't possible and even if it were it would seriously hurt the food supplies, bringing the costs of food up. Regardless, it still requires power to create the fuel from biomass anyway and that power must come from somewhere, like a solar panel. I'm not sure why you are ruling out batteries altogether. They're not all that bad and with a bit more research they can probably be improved.
"Sending a manned mission to Mars right now will not teach anything about getting there and back in a decent timeframe, while keeping people confortable. It will not teach us any new methods of propulsion."
solve all of the problems you listed there. That is where aiming to get men to Mars will get us. Which is a far, far better use of money than space marines, cool though they may be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That seemed to be the general gist of the thread though. lolfighter said why bother doing this when we should be trying to get a manned mission to Mars, which isn't feasable right now, yet getting Marines to the other side of the world in 2 hours is. That's why the money is being spent, because it's a more likely to be realised and actually be, in some small way, useful.
Coleman, biofuels can be made from pretty much any plant, as there are a few methods of making them, so agricultural space has little to do with it. And I'm ruling out batteries cos they really are horrible, and bad for enviroment. Research is invested into them yet they lag behind any other modern technology in their growth.
Coleman, biofuels can be made from pretty much any plant, as there are a few methods of making them, so agricultural space has little to do with it. And I'm ruling out batteries cos they really are horrible, and bad for enviroment. Research is invested into them yet they lag behind any other modern technology in their growth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to completely lack the concept of "funded research". If something isn't good yet, you research it more instead of ditching the idea.
Biofuel can be made from any plant eh? So, lets just cut down the forests in order to fuel our cars? The amount of fuel we use in a single day is just magnitudes larger then what we could hope to be able to produce. On the other hand, we already have the base technology of the electric motor (Which is more powerful then it's gasoline counterparts) and the solar panel (which just needs to be researched more then break 50% efficiency and reduce production costs). As far as energy storage go, we are working on the super-capacitor right now, the only thing we lack is a very good dielectric material but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
Asteroid belt. Given the right technology and processes, that's massive mining reserves that can be moved off-planet and free up existing mining areas for greater use of terrestrial agriculture and energy production. Theoretically, at least <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Agricultural space is required to grow the plants efficiently and keep them concentrated enough to be harvested. This takes up space if you want all the cars running on biofuel. In addition you also have to use bio fuel to transport bio fuel to urban environments where it is impossible to grow plants, and just like batteries you also need quite a bit of energy to create bio fuel in the first place. I can not see how you can claim batteries will always be bad for the environment when your preferred method is much more flawed. There really isn't much more to say about that.
Agricultural space is required to grow the plants efficiently and keep them concentrated enough to be harvested. This takes up space if you want all the cars running on biofuel. In addition you also have to use bio fuel to transport bio fuel to urban environments where it is impossible to grow plants, and just like batteries you also need quite a bit of energy to create bio fuel in the first place. I can not see how you can claim batteries will always be bad for the environment when your preferred method is much more flawed. There really isn't much more to say about that.
Hydrogen as an energy storage medium is pretty efficient, but there are other issues.
In terms of earth based energy production, nuclear power plants are our best bet. A single bit of fuel can be sent to various kinds of reactors as it decays for a very long time.
Hydrogen as an energy storage medium is pretty efficient, but there are other issues.
In terms of earth based energy production, nuclear power plants are our best bet. A single bit of fuel can be sent to various kinds of reactors as it decays for a very long time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Best bet but also a too risky one. Radioactive stuff isn't exactly something that you want to cuddle together with at night and in terms of safety versus mass/weight/volume of the reactors it would be damn tricky to find the right balance.
Oh do shut up. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<----
Eve Online is already training the new generation of asteroid farmers, happy to stare at a piece of rock as it gradually gets smaller and smaller, incrementally increasing their wealth.
Oh boy!
--Scythe--