SR4 is too modern or near modern sometimes

SR4 is too modern or near modern sometimes, futuristic consistency

Options

Moon-Hawk

Feb 13 2007, 08:16 PM

Post #76

Genuine Artificial Intelligence

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715

QUOTE (kzt @ Feb 13 2007, 03:14 PM)

QUOTE (Crakkerjakk @ Feb 13 2007, 12:33 PM)

I just got the giggles imagining small, highly compressed volitile gasses in most peoples homes and workplaces. Shadowrunner paradise, for sabotage ops.

It's called natural gas. You might have heard of this.

Natural gas burns? OMFG RUN!!!!!1 :P

cetiah

Feb 13 2007, 08:30 PM

Post #77

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 745
Joined: 2-January 07
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 10,510

QUOTE ("Wikipedia")

Homemade biodiesel processors are many and varied. The success of biodiesel homebrewing, and micro-economy-of-scale operations, continues to shatter the conventional business myth that large economy-of-scale operations are the most efficient and profitable. It is becoming increasingly apparent that small-scale, localized, low-impact energy keeps more resources and revenue within communities, reduces damage to the environment, and requires less waste management.

Wow... I could so picture Shadowrunners being hired against these small time "energy freelancers" trying to move in on Mr Johnson's market... there might be a few operating out of some not-so-abandon warehouses in Auburne.

Crakkerjakk View Member Profile	Feb 13 2007, 08:39 PM Post #78
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 24-January 07 Member No.: 10,756	I still remember when a propane storage facility(or something) went up near the interstate in Sacramento... there was a 300 ft plume of flame for a couple hours till they managed to shut off the line. And Spike, I'm sure the NAN sells it to other nations. Power is big money. Also, a point on the biodeisel. From my understanding those large farms could be set up in the desert and other low property value areas fairly easily. I'm not an expert, thats just what I recall reading somewhere. Certainly not effortless, but not as bad as some of the newer techs we're just beginning to experiment with. Obviously this is a bigger problem with the resurgence of NAN and whatnot in the Shadowrun world, but in the real world it seems not insurmountable. Personally, I think nukes for power, biodeisel for transportation(in the near future, present day, not shadowrun) is the best approach, both cost wise and polution wise. Microwave power would be the next step after that, technologically, followed by fusion, if we can ever get it working well enough to get more power out than we put in. However, my understanding is the He-3 would be the preferred fuel for fussion reactors, and that requires more space industry than we have now(with potential fuel sources being lunar regolith and Europa(potentially))

Rotbart van Dain... Rotbart van Dainig View Member Profile	Feb 13 2007, 08:44 PM Post #79
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951	Forget Biodiesel. It's kinda agressive to the engine and not much more environment-friendly than real diesel. Salad oil and the like, on the other hand, work fine... the just make your car's exhausts smell like a deep fruyer. (There are people collecting the used oil of those to drive on, too.) Both share a common problem, though - they are not sufficient, and still need to be combusted. A quite efficient fuel source is alcohol... it can be used with both combustion engines an fuel cells, and is easy to produce.

cetiah

Feb 13 2007, 08:50 PM

Post #80

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 745
Joined: 2-January 07
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 10,510

QUOTE (Crakkerjakk @ Feb 13 2007, 03:39 PM)

Also, a point on the biodeisel. From my understanding those large farms could be set up in the desert and other low property value areas fairly easily.

The question isn't whether we can produce biodeisel. The problem is whether or not we can produce ENOUGH. At best, we can produce partial diesel-fuels for wide distribution, or pure biodiesel for light distribution. Even at optiminum conditions, U.S. energy surveys have put biodiesel solar-power conversion at only a net gain of 1%. That means 1% of the sun's energy is being used and successfully harnessed when you take into account the energy needed to create the biodiesel. Compare that with solar cells out in the desert that can convert about 20% of the sun's energy into electrical power.

And even solar power itself is considered rather inefficient for the resources-to-output ratio.

QUOTE ("Rotbart")

A quite efficient fuel source is alcohol... it can be used with both combustion engines an fuel cells, and is easy to produce.

All biofuels suffer from the same basic problems when looked at in a large scale. They all function the same way... converting from solar energy from the sun into chemical energy. Some plants convert better than others, but even at its most efficient biofuel isn't a very efficient power source considering how much agriculture is required.

A country can't produce enough biofuel for its vehiclular needs. It can produce small amounts of PARTIAL biofuels or small amounts of pure biofuels, but not large amounts of pure biofuels. It just can't. There's not enough land. Only countries that have large tracks of land and little to no industry would have any net gain at all, and those gains would be small and would take production away from other alternatives to that land such as food production.

As Spike and I both mentioned before, it works good on a small scale though, recycling waste or unused biomass into fuel for smaller niche markets. Which is essentially its function today. These aren't technical issues to be surmounted... it's just the way that particular technology works out.

cetiah

Feb 13 2007, 09:08 PM

Post #81

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 745
Joined: 2-January 07
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 10,510

Okay, I just found out about the biodiesel algae farms in Germany which blow my numbers out of the water (no pun intended). Small-scale experiments by private companies in Germany have successfully produced algae that is highly efficient for biodiesel production and solar-energy conversion. However, even these require large tracts of land... no where near the amount for plant- and oil-based biodeisel, however. Here's a quote. I'm still reading the full document.

QUOTE ("A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy's Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae")

The cost analyses for large-scale microalgae production evolved from rather superficial analyses in the 1970s to the much more detailed and sophisticated studies conducted during the 1980s. A major conclusion from these analyses is that there is little prospect for any alternatives to the open pond designs, given the low cost requirements associated with fuel production. The factors that most influence cost are biological, and not engineering-related. These analyses point to the need for highly productive organisms capable of near-theoretical levels of conversion of sunlight to biomass. Even with aggressive assumptions about biological productivity, we project costs for biodiesel which are two times higher than current petroleum diesel fuel costs.

The report goes on to mention that while significant land is required, significant land can produce significant fuel and so the resource limitations are no where near as bad as those for oilcrop biodiesel.

Spike View Member Profile	Feb 13 2007, 09:13 PM Post #82
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765	Just to clarify: when i was saying Biodeisel I wasn't speaking of one single fuel product. Obviously I could have picked a better term, like 'Biofuel'. Again: energy In > than energy Out. It's a stopgap that can buy us a bit more time as we exhaust the pre-existing stored energy we already have. BTW: this problem also persists for those eggheads who have 'discovered' a means of converting plant matter to crude oil overnight, instead of over millions of years. Yes, they can extend the fuel supply. However, the problem remains: It costs stored energy to perform the conversion, which subtracts from the energy 'gained' by the process.

Rotbart van Dain...

Feb 13 2007, 09:15 PM

Post #83

Hoppelhäschen 5000

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951

QUOTE (cetiah)

[...]l and would take production away from other alternatives to that land such as food production.

So poor people would have to starve so rich one could drive SUVs?
..somehow, this sounds sooo SR... :P

hyzmarca View Member Profile	Feb 13 2007, 09:19 PM Post #84
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456	What we really need to do is set up a dyson sphere around the sun and send concentrated power to Earth via microwave beam.

cetiah

Feb 13 2007, 09:23 PM

Post #85

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 745
Joined: 2-January 07
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 10,510

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Feb 13 2007, 04:19 PM)

What we really need to do is set up a dyson sphere around the sun and send concentrated power to Earth via microwave beam.

That idea is not imcompatible with either hydrogen fuel cells or biodeisel engines. It doesn't cover the method of energy distribution. You still need a way to get that energy to the consumer, his work, his house, his vehicle, and his toys.

One can concievably simply "beam" this power to a central power station, distribute it through copper wires or whatever to local power grids and from there to homes and work. You still need to cover toys and vehicles.

(Oh, and by the way... a large, efficient solar will function just as long as it only takes and converts the UNUSED energy from the sun. A dyson half-sphere or a dyson plane maybe. You don't want to terminate all the sunlight going to Earth. We need that energy for other things... like living.)

Crakkerjakk View Member Profile	Feb 13 2007, 09:28 PM Post #86
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 24-January 07 Member No.: 10,756	I agree that biofuels are energy innefficient. I'm not putting them forward as anything but a stopgap measure. Basically, the way I understand it, there are two major areas that require large amounts of power. Mobile and stationary. The stationary area is fairly self-explanitory. These are things that require power but do not move. Since they don't move, they're relatively easy to supply power to, through whatever methods(nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, etc), and thus have a great many options. The mobile area is trains, trucks, ships, planes, and cars. Basically, because they must(with a very few exceptions) carry their power with them, the options to supply power to them are constrained. While biofuel overall is a innefficient power source, if sufficient stationary power suppliers exist(read: lots and lots of nukes) there will be enough surplus power that the cost of turning biological organisms into biofuel will be negligible(or at least, significantly less than trying to burn biofuel to make biofuel.) Now, I'm not really an expert on how biofuel is created. I made a batch in biology class once, but I'm not really clear on the "pour used fry oil into your engine" vs. "100% biodeisel" difference. Basically, my idea was that if we can make enough stationary power sources, it will reduce the cost of producing mobile fuel. If someone with a firm grasp of what exactly biodeisel is says thats not how it would work, I'll trust their more extensive experience. But more and mroe, according to my dad, the enviromental engineer, the most pollutants come from vehicular sources, because the stationary sources are becoming cleaner and cleaner. Hell, even coal is really clean, these days. So thats whats running through my head.

cetiah

Feb 13 2007, 09:46 PM

Post #87

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 745
Joined: 2-January 07
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 10,510

QUOTE

Basically, my idea was that if we can make enough stationary power sources, it will reduce the cost of producing mobile fuel. If someone with a firm grasp of what exactly biodeisel is says thats not how it would work, I'll trust their more extensive experience. But more and mroe, according to my dad, the enviromental engineer, the most pollutants come from vehicular sources, because the stationary sources are becoming cleaner and cleaner. Hell, even coal is really clean, these days. So thats whats running through my head.

I'm not an expert, just a Shadowrun nut that loves these kind of discussions and has been scouring the internet for an hour and a half so that I can be equipped to contribute to this discussion.

You're covering a few different ideas here, so let me address them:

1) Pollution. Petrolium is our primary pollution baddy for use-pollution. Current nuclear technology is a baddy for waste-pollution. Fusion could clean up both. Biomass-oil fuels are not considered use-polluting. They still cause pollution when they are burned like any other oil but because the oil came from plants that absorbed pollutants during its lifespan, the net pollution factor is considered 0. Biodiesel is considered 60% less use-polluting than current petrolium-based products. Discussions of microwave power transfer open up a whole new category of potential pollution, but don't involve the others. Hydrogen fuel cells have little to no use-pollution, but leave waste material behind. However, that waste material can be recycled back into a fuel source. Ultimately, the waste product isn't necessary if you're willing to use pure hydrogen, but I haven't seen anyone recommending that for near-future widespread use.

2) Biofuel isn't limited to simply requiring energy, but ALSO resources. The most significant resources are land possessing certain environmental qualities. All the amount of available land on Earth is pretty much fixed. We can't even expand into outer space for that at the tech-levels and time periods we're looking at.

3) Microwave power is a type of power distribution, but I don't really see it having great strides until it becomes a cheaper alternative to conventional energy transportation - i.e., copper wiring, fuel trucks, and fuel cells/batteries. When we need to re-allocate power across great distances (say, to Mars) then I can see this becoming an issue because the cost to transport fuel and batteries would be extraordinarily expensive and inefficient. Until then, though, the demand's not that high.

4) Your analysis into static and mobile power sources is apt and so are the reasons this is so. However, remember in the hydrogen economy there doesn't have to be a distinction between the two. Fuel cells could just as easily operate a car as it does a city grid. These fuel cells are not a power source, but a method of power storage from conventional power sources that usually waste unused energy or lower production when energy demands are low. Essentially, you are taking "static power source" and producing a "mobile power source" out of it without needing another fuel type. The fuel cells also work to store unused energy far more efficient than batteries or capacitors with less space and materials used (making them easier to produce and transport than equivilent-powered capacitors).

*) Our discussion on biomass have, of course, ignored any potential SR advancements in bio-engineering beyond present day standard, especially regarding awakened biomass. If we could have plants that grew on mana instead of sunlight...

QUOTE

I agree that biofuels are energy innefficient. I'm not putting them forward as anything but a stopgap measure.

Why insist on a stop-gap measure when alternative technologies could eliminate the problems altogether?

Ultimately the issue comes down to a single question... how can we convert Solar power into something more usable like fire, calories, or electricity? Petrolium use fossil fuels that have collected energy over hundreds of years. Plants collect that energy throughout their life and use it to grow more biomass... the biomass can then be converted back to energy. Solar collectors could... well, you get the idea.

The factors involve include the source of power (solar, geothermal, nuclear), the efficiency of power collection (fossil fuels, hydrogen, solar mirrors, etc), the storage of the power collected (batteries, capacitors, chemical), the transportation of the energy (wires, chemicals, microwaves), the use of the energy (burning it, using electricity, chemical reactions, etc.), the byproducts of the energy transfer (pollution, heat and light, additional biomass, chemical transformation).

Hope this helps a little.

Spike View Member Profile	Feb 13 2007, 09:48 PM Post #88
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765	How biofuel is made from biomatter isn't much of an issue, but I agree it does seem at times overly simplistic (used fry oil and all that)... All fuels are nothing more than stored energy when you boil it down. Petroleum is the harnessed power of the sun (and some biochemical reactions) created millions of years ago, over a long period of time. It takes energy for plants to grow, more energy to rot them in a specific way that they remain viable fuel sources later. Growing crops requires energy from the sun, from the soil, from the labor required to move it around. Converting that energy to stored, usable energy is not inherently bad, but your efficency is never going to be perfect. The best thing to do is tap existing sources of transferable energy. Petroleum is running out (even the healthy optimists predict we'll run out around shadowrun time), because it's only stored...and stores run out. However, geothermal, tidal (or hydrological) energy is merely tapping what already exists. I can imagine a coastal city like Seattle getting a huge portion of their daily use energy from huge underwater turbines sunk to the ocean floor. Need I remind you that the colorado river/Hoover dam currently provides a very significant percentage of the power for most of the southwest? Me? I'm extremely leery of any power that has to be beamed through the atmosphere. In order to be useful, the amount of power would be staggering, creating a huge deathzone where the beam passes. I don't want to know about what the atmoshperic effects are, much less what happens if the beam... misses.

Crakkerjakk View Member Profile	Feb 13 2007, 10:00 PM Post #89
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 24-January 07 Member No.: 10,756	I'm not clear on the specifics, but as I understand it you can spread the antenna farms out(by increasing spacing between individual antennnas) to the point where cattle can graze on the grass not currently occupied by an antenna base or support, with no harmful affects. One thing I never understood. How much of our power needs would we have to get from hydroelectric(in the ocean) or wind before we would start to affect weather patterns? I mean, the wind is slowing down winds, and hydroelectric in oceans will change circulation patters, if sufficiently large, right? Is their effect so insignificant as to be negligible, or would this actually be a concern if enough plants were put up?

cetiah

Feb 13 2007, 10:06 PM

Post #90

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 745
Joined: 2-January 07
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 10,510

QUOTE (Crakkerjakk)

One thing I never understood. How much of our power needs would we have to get from hydroelectric(in the ocean) or wind before we would start to affect weather patterns? I mean, the wind is slowing down winds, and hydroelectric in oceans will change circulation patters, if sufficiently large, right? Is their effect so insignificant as to be negligible, or would this actually be a concern if enough plants were put up?

This is not a factor because these power sources are so inefficient. That's what inefficient means. If it was 100% efficient, it would instantly stop the wind or water, which is why I cautioned against saying "dyson sphere" so casually when you want to keep a life-bearing planet nearby.

Likewise, unlike prior applications, there's no need for all the energy to be consumed from one spot. Large dams, for example, are no longer considered necessary or desireable. Instead you want small tiny turbines and wind generators located all over the place.

knasser

Feb 13 2007, 10:09 PM

Post #91

Shadow Cartographer

Group: Members
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 2-June 06
From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West)
Member No.: 8,636

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)

QUOTE (cetiah @ Feb 13 2007, 10:50 PM)

[...]l and would take production away from other alternatives to that land such as food production.

So poor people would have to starve so rich one could drive SUVs?
..somehow, this sounds sooo SR... :P

Sadly, no. It's actually soooo real world.

BBC News

and from a more detailed source:

QUOTE

Corn Is Being Used More to Manufacture Biodiesel. The takeoff in international prices is due notably to the increasing use of corn to produce ethanol, which serves to manufacture biodiesel, a substitute product for gasoline during a period of expensive gas. Last year, the United States withdrew 40 million tons of corn from the market to devote to this new fuel.

I see the use of biofuels as one of the reasons why everyone is eating Soy and meat is such an exclusive luxury. We need some justifcation for this in the setting.

Crakkerjakk View Member Profile	Feb 13 2007, 10:13 PM Post #92
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 24-January 07 Member No.: 10,756	Well, you don't want planets near Dyson Spheres. They're just gonna punch holes in it. I figure you melt it down and incorporate it into the sphere during construction. But my point is not the efficiency(at least I don't think it is.) What I was asking is turbines slow down water, right? So, if you had enough in a concentrated area, would they change current patterns? And is this even anything we need to worry about, or is it something like we'd have to fill the entire ocean floor with turbines for it to be a problem? What I mean is that we don't have to be storing the energy for it to be aproblem, so long as we're disrupting patterns. I think I'm being unclear, but I don't really know how to better explain myself. EDIT And Knasser, as I understand we produce more food than we can eat already. The problem is, transporting it to all the starving people of the world is hideously expensive, especially without it spoiling first. I mean, the federal government pays farmers to let their fields lie fallow, sometimes. It's not that we can't feed the world if they were all chilling in the midwest. it's that we can't get the food to them in time without a butload of cash. EDIT And apparently in 2004 we produced 330 million tons of corn.

cetiah

Feb 13 2007, 10:16 PM

Post #93

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 745
Joined: 2-January 07
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 10,510

QUOTE (Spike @ Feb 13 2007, 04:48 PM)

Me? I'm extremely leery of any power that has to be beamed through the atmosphere. In order to be useful, the amount of power would be staggering, creating a huge deathzone where the beam passes. I don't want to know about what the atmoshperic effects are, much less what happens if the beam... misses.

Yes and no. No one knows what the health risks are.
But researchers at MIT are working on a microwave "tunnelling" technology that would prevent them from radiating outward. Essentially, it would function like a laserbeam does, projecting all of its energy to a single spot. You could stand right next to the beam and be completely unaffected so long as it didn't actually hit you. We're not really sure what happens if it hits you. The rats have been rather uncooperative lately.

The beam has no atmospheric effects. As far as I know the only problem with a missed beam is that the power will go somewhere else. :)

Spike View Member Profile	Feb 13 2007, 10:19 PM Post #94
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765	Crakker, Cities already alter wind patterns, and by extension weather patterns. This isn't new. I don't think man could erect enough windmills to 'stop all wind', or even seriously affect wind patterns in a meaningful way. Same with the tides. You'd have to essentaly build such huge turbines, so close together than all water was stopped at this WALL of turbines for there to be a noticable effect. Lets say you build a million ton turbine to harness the tides. You are still talking about several billion tons of water moving it around, driven by a planet who's mass (from which you made the turbine in the first place...) is so heavy we can't even express it in words, but only with fancy numbers that I am to lazy to write out.

cetiah

Feb 13 2007, 10:21 PM

Post #95

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 745
Joined: 2-January 07
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 10,510

QUOTE (Crakkerjakk)

It's not that we can't feed the world if they were all chilling in the midwest. it's that we can't get the food to them in time without a butload of cash.

Good news. We have extra food to give you so that you don't have to starve anymore.
Bad news. Transportation costs are too high to get it to you. Sorry folks. Hey, you don't have some money to subsidize the transportation costs, do you? No, we didn't think so.
Good news. Hey, we've developed new Biodiesel fuel sources to curb our transportation problems.
Bad news...

Crakkerjakk

Feb 13 2007, 10:22 PM

Post #96

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 238
Joined: 24-January 07
Member No.: 10,756

QUOTE

The beam has no atmospheric effects. As far as I know the only problem with a missed beam is that the power will go Somewhere Else.

/Fixed

Butterblume

Feb 13 2007, 10:22 PM

Post #97

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 19-December 05
From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex
Member No.: 8,081

QUOTE (cetiah)

But researchers at MIT are working on a microwave "tunnelling" technology that would prevent them from radiating outward. Essentially, it would function like a laserbeam does, projecting all of its energy to a single spot.

Sounds like a MASER, which have been around longer than a LASER ;).

Kyoto Kid

Feb 13 2007, 10:23 PM

Post #98

Bushido Cowgirl

Group: Members
Posts: 5,782
Joined: 8-July 05
From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats
Member No.: 7,490

QUOTE (Spike)

Just a comment on Hydrogen power and internal combustion engines.

There is no great feat of engineering to create a hydrogen powered vehicle. ICE's will run on anything that will burn, the sole issue becomes one of 'how much fuel in the cylinder'. Obviously, in order to run an ICE off of wood, you'd need fairly massive cylinders and an incredibly slow cyclic rate, you'd be better of harnessing steam at that point.

But Hydrogen is easy. Take a standard, petroleum powered engine (non-diesel works better for this by a country mile as I understand it) and change the flow valves, run liquid hydrogen from an insulated tank into the cylinders as regular fuel and you are actually good to go (changing the oxygen flow is assumed to be a part of this process...). The difficulty currently exprienced is our society is a bit gunshy about pure hydrogen as fuel, as it is considerably more likely to explod then petrol. So now you have ineffeicent fuel cell technologies that convert hydrogen into a reasonable stable solid, then release it at a controlled rate into the engines. I suspect the engines in question are rather more complex that strictly necessary to keep the fuel effiency further in the red just to maintain a monopoly on petrol fuels. But I'm a cynic.

..while I too am really interested in H2 as a fuel you are correct in that society as a whole still has visions of the Hindenburg and STS 051-L (Challenger) in their minds.

(Actually, there is (was) a group that calls itself "The Hindenburg Society" which promotes H2 as a fuel)

One of the more physical hurdles I see is storage and fuelling. The most efficient state to handle H2 as you mention would be as a liquid, however this presents additional issues like cryogenic storage and the associated safety risks. There could be no "Self-Serve" since handling of cryogenic substances requires proper training. This of course adds increased labour cost to equation for these people wouldn't be your normal teenage "pump jockeys" working at the corner station after school.

Fuel Cells are designed to produce electricity instead of a combustible gas. While pure H2 is the most efficient fuel, FCs can also operate with a number of other sources including Methanol. True these optional fuels are less efficient, but when compared to pure battery systems, you have an electric vehicle that doesn't need to be plugged into a recharge station, has a greater operational range, and operate at a lower cell temperature (witness the recent cases of Li-Ion batteries in laptops overheating). It is still a step in the right direction. The other benefit of FC technology is will be easily adaptable to pure LH2 with little or no modification needed.

The system you mentioned sounds more like the Metal Hydrite concept which stores H2 and releases it as a gas for combustion. While considered very stable, it is more cumbersome and adds significant weight to a vehicle (fine for a heavy truck or transit bus but not practical for a passenger car). Also after a period, the entire storage unit needs to be removed and exchanged which would be a service nightmare unless every car by every maker were the same exact design.

In one interesting experiment years back, the Former Soviet Transportation Bureau actually refitted a TU154 airliner to operate off of LH2 as well to test its viability as an aviation fuel.

Butterblume

Feb 13 2007, 10:27 PM

Post #99

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 19-December 05
From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex
Member No.: 8,081

QUOTE (Crakkerjakk)

What I was asking is turbines slow down water, right? So, if you had enough in a concentrated area, would they change current patterns? And is this even anything we need to worry about, or is it something like we'd have to fill the entire ocean floor with turbines for it to be a problem? What I mean is that we don't have to be storing the energy for it to be aproblem, so long as we're disrupting patterns.

Yes, it will have an effect. It might slow down the cycle rotation of the earth a few seconds in a hundred years, but that's nothin compared to, like a two degrees rise in the global temperature.

Crakkerjakk View Member Profile	Feb 13 2007, 10:29 PM Post #100
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 24-January 07 Member No.: 10,756	Shrugs Nature of capitalism. And in my opinion, it works. People can always be trusted to act in their own self interest. Occassionally we rise above this base impulse, but the vast majority of the time, it's the norm. Also, as I understand it, we actually do send a significant portion of our excess food to foreign countries. After all, in Somalia, thats what we were trying to do during the blackhawk down incedent, right? Keep the warloards from hijacking the UN food shipments and starving out their rivals?

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »