Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Global warming and flying cars.
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
MITJA3000+
So, I was wondering, has there been any info in SR canon about global warming. It is a serious issue of these days, and I suppose it still would be, even more so, after 50 years from now? There has been info about rainforests and nature re-vitalized through magic, but I don't remember reading anything about mages cooling this planet.

And the other one I was wondering, which I guess loosely connects to this, is the issue of flying cars, as I remember reading something about flying cars being the reality in SR in 2070. If I remember wrongly please just ignore this. The thing about flying cars, however, is something that I can't just imagine, the mechanics I mean. How is it going to be possible to make economical flying cars AND makin them work so that they can be used in urban, crowded areas, without bystanders being burned as is the case with T-Birds.
Cray74
QUOTE (MITJA3000+)
How is it going to be possible to make economical flying cars AND makin them work so that they can be used in urban, crowded areas, without bystanders being burned as is the case with T-Birds.

There's no need to have hot rocket exhaust to get off the ground. Use fans for lift like the vaporware Moller Skycar:
http://www.moller.com/skycar/

The skycar uses 4 rotary engines powering 4 propellers for lift. You might lose some skin from the force of the fans, but it won't scorch you.

Other ducted fan concepts:
http://www.unmannedaircraft.com/

The Bell X-22A tilt fan from the 1960s (300 test flights):
http://www.anigrand.com/AA2002x-22real2.jpg

As for being economical, such a flying car will probably be about as economical as a helicopter. In other words, fine if you have the budget for a large fuel bill.
nezumi
General environmental chaos has occured, although thanks to our advanced technology and the fact that most food is now grown under artificial conditions, we've largely overcome those problems (overcome as in the wealthy still get good food and have nice vacation spots). After the awakening, large tracts of land were reclaimed by nature, however.
Lindt
Aye, between the drastic reduction in golbal popluation (yay VITIS) and the planet taking back rather large portions of it self, I think golbal warming might have stopped by then.
Jrayjoker
What was the total population decline in percent by the way?
Cynic project
I would be shocked if there are less than 5.5 billion people on earth. I would also shocked if there were more than 7 billion. I large play as if the plauges and shit jut kept the numbers around the same level.
Sabosect
To be honest, even with a severe population decline, I'd be shocked at less than 7 billion. Humans tend to breed fast when their population starts to drop, and I can see metahumans inheriting that. Worse is the species with longer lifespans, plus the people who are effectively immortal, thrown in the mix.

Basically, I can see an easy 8 billion by 2060 with no effort, even with all of the problems they have. We've already proven we can get increase our population by 50% in less than a decade without problems like that cropping up.
arcady
I don't think the big issue with flying cars is going to be one of technology.

We could make them today if we wanted, and probably have them fueled off of nothing but pure water (we've already got engines that do that - just we refuse to market them) with 100% clean output.

The problem is going to be one of air traffic control. Traffic has enough issues letting anybody who can scam the DMV drive in 2D. Put a bunch of drunk frat boys into 3D and traffic will be unmanagable. I suspect this is why they have so many rules over flying vehicles already. Bump the number of things flying around the New York skyline by 10 million and you know you will have issues...
Nikoli
ATC is one of the big hold ups for Moller at this point. FAA just doesn't know how to classify it couple that with that it will take a huge chunk out of airline ticket sales for the smaller companies, hurting the economy.
arcady
QUOTE (nezumi)
After the awakening, large tracts of land were reclaimed by nature, however.

A lot of that reclaimed land is not being put to good use today anyway. It's in use for things like cattle, government restriction, or housing that is ten times larger than international norms...

Shift people over to mostly plant diets, with meat from fish farms to about what is healthy (maybe one fish a month or so) rather than the extreme protein excess of today, and you can support a -LOT- more people by switching out cows and other animals for them.

And probably have larger forests at the same time - land use is just that poor in the meat industry.

If you then switch wood over to bamboo, paper and cloth over to hemp (and -NOT- synthetics - which I will get to in a second) you can further maximize resources. Not here that most strains of hemp lack the chemical found in the marijuana people smoke. Most of it is harder to get high on than smoking goldfish would be... But it is still not used due to pressure from the cotton industry (and the South's power in Washington at the time hemp was outlawed - during an age when mothers preffered heroin over aspirin for their children as it was recommended to be safer).


Anyway, why not synthetics? Synthetics like plastic rely on petrochemicals. We have three major sources of those - fossil fuels, plant by products such as corn and hemp, or Jupiter - which is full of the stuff. We're just about on the verge of running out with regards to one of those sources, at which point we will likely learn just how much we really rely on plastic...

And, I'm not even sure the second source, plants, is all that viable for this one.


So cloth will be much better off in the long run returning to natural fibers like hemp, bamboo, silk, and linen.


Anyway... point here is that if you got rid of cotton, lumber, and cattle, the USA could support populations that made China look small and still have plenty of open space.

Maximize farming systems (and in the past few decades we've managed things like trippling rice output per acre thanks to simply better water draining systems and such) and ladn -can- be returned to nature safely with an expanding population.
wagnern
There are no enviromental problems in the shadowrun world.

Some tree huger cry babies start protesting your proper utilization of resorces, you just hire a Shadowrun team and Bang! no pesky protesters.

The government tryes to get you on some silly regulations about emisions, another team, some incriminating photos of senators with underaged cat-girls, and poof! no emision problems.

An investagative reporter wants to run a story about your "Rape of the Earth"? Eather: A, they work for you and HR can take care of them. ("Early retirement"). or B, they work for another megacorp. Mearly inquire about the health of there family, they should get the hint.

You see, the enviroment is doing great, and Mr Megacorp is doing his best to watch out for you, your family, and the future. (insert corny 1950's industral promitional film music here)
nezumi
QUOTE (arcady)
We could make them today if we wanted, and probably have them fueled off of nothing but pure water (we've already got engines that do that - just we refuse to market them) with 100% clean output.

That is untrue.

QUOTE

A lot of that reclaimed land is not being put to good use today anyway. It's in use for things like cattle, government restriction, or housing that is ten times larger than international norms...


That is also untrue, especially your claim that land used for agriculture isn't polluting. Cattle are among the top five contributors towards greenhouse gases. Fertilizers are the greatest cause for the dead zone in the Gulf.

QUOTE
which is full of the stuff. We're just about on the verge of running out with regards to one of those sources, at which point we will likely learn just how much we really rely on plastic...


Jupiter is full of oil? Pardon? Our oil supply is running out? Excuse me? Keep in mind, synthetics make up less than 20% of our oil usage, and I believe we could make it out of other sources which are less refined naturally, but are frowned upon as a fuel source (but dont' quote me on that).

QUOTE
Anyway... point here is that if you got rid of cotton, lumber, and cattle, the USA could support populations that made China look small and still have plenty of open space.


Getting rid of cotton and lumber is the silliest 'green' idea I've heard in a while. Cattle is a possibility, but I daresay it should be reduced, not removed. Cattle is an important industry that cannot be simply 'removed' in favor of growing edible plants throughout the US.

While your basic point is correct, we could support more humans than we currently do with better resource management, your details fail to support you.
Herald of Verjigorm
QUOTE (nezumi)
Jupiter is full of oil?

Not sure if it's what he meant, but the moon Titan is (at least on the surface and atmosphere) almost exclusively complex hydrocarbons ranging from simple methane to long chain varieties like those in oil.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Jrayjoker)
What was the total population decline in percent by the way?

VITAS outbreak #1 killed off 25% of world population at the time, outbreak #2 nailed 10% of population at its time.

~J
hyzmarca
QUOTE (arcady)
I don't think the big issue with flying cars is going to be one of technology.

We could make them today if we wanted, and probably have them fueled off of nothing but pure water (we've already got engines that do that - just we refuse to market them) with 100% clean output.

The problem is going to be one of air traffic control. Traffic has enough issues letting anybody who can scam the DMV drive in 2D. Put a bunch of drunk frat boys into 3D and traffic will be unmanagable. I suspect this is why they have so many rules over flying vehicles already. Bump the number of things flying around the New York skyline by 10 million and you know you will have issues...

Autopilot, my friend, autopilot. When you have cars that can drive themselves and planes that can fly themselves, cars that can fly themselves aren't much of a stretch. The advantage to flying cars is pretty obvious. You can have lanes stacked on top of each other. It saves space.

It wouldn't be too difficult to put a brethalizer in every car and have its robot pilot act as a designated driver, either.
Foreigner
Actually, I'd think that flying cars would at least be available by the 2060s.

After all, small personal aircraft have been around for quite some time; I'm talking about single-person miniature helicopters and ultralight aircraft, though--not Cessna 172s and the like.

And besides, there are at least three amphibious motor vehicles being manufactured right now--two are cars, the third is a motorhome.

--Foreigner
Shadow
QUOTE (Nikoli)
ATC is one of the big hold ups for Moller at this point. FAA just doesn't know how to classify it couple that with that it will take a huge chunk out of airline ticket sales for the smaller companies, hurting the economy.

That and the thing doesn't actually fly. They tested it last year, it got a whopping 5 feet of the ground, without a pilot. Flying cars have been the dream of many for years. But the reality is still a few decades off.
nezumi
QUOTE (Foreigner)
Actually, I'd think that flying cars would at least be available by the 2060s.

There is a difference though between 'available' and 'economically feasible', don't forget (not that you implied otherwise).
Foreigner
QUOTE (nezumi @ Aug 12 2005, 02:21 PM)

There is a difference though between 'available' and 'economically feasible', don't forget (not that you implied otherwise).


nezumi:

Indeed.

My apologies that my earlier post wasn't clearer.

--Foreigner
Nikoli
Funny, their last report on the website says they've had numerous successful, tethered (as required by the FAA) flights for the last few years. Where did you hear about the failed attempt?
Shadow
I didn't say it was a failed attempt. I said they got it 5 feet off the ground without a pilot. They couldn't get it to go any higher. Let alone add a 200 pound man to it.

I watched the video on their website. They call it a success, I call it a failure. Of course if they called it a failure they would lose funding. My point is, they don't have a vehicle that can fly. They have a vehicle that can hover.

Lets not even talk about the amount of fuel they need for those 30 second successes. If you watch the video you can see the fuel line attached. The vehicle runs of an external fuel tank, the added weight of an onboard one keeps it grounded.

Some 'success'.
Clyde
The flying car concepts they're looking at now all make heavy use of automation - you don't fly it so much as tell it where to go. Air traffic control would be a nightmare if there were a lot of them and also around airports and helipads, though. Really, it's hard to see a lot of these in 2070 because there pretty much aren't any in 2064. That's six years for a technology roll out - not enough for something big and infrastructure heavy like that (with high switch costs to boot).\

I run my game with a fair amount of global warming - a lot of hot and muggy weather in Seattle. Don't forget hard rain, either. My players buy chemsuits and respirators just to go outside on the bad days.
Overwatch
Check out How Stuff Works for some info on Flying Cars.

As a side note, as a GM i incorporate flying cars in Shadowrun. With all the tech advancements available, it's silly not to. BUT I treat them like toys for the rich and famous. And they are rare due to fuel consumption, cost and logistics.

As a player, I once made a character with a two seater flying car made Via rigger 3. it was cheap to build, but it was a short range fuel hog.
Shadow
I had a player make a flying surfboard. Completly within the rules. He built it on a drone fuselage. I forget if it was body 0 or 1. I have heard of some other crazy stuff, like jet packs and flying gloves.
Shadow
QUOTE (Overwatch)
Check out How Stuff Works for some info on Flying Cars.

Thats a nice article but I don't buy it. The 'flys at 350mph for 900 miles' sounds nice, but I have yet to see a video of them even doing a manned flight higher than the 5 foot unmanned ones.

I love the conept, and I wish it could be a reality, but where just not there yet.
Cray74
QUOTE (arcady)
We could make them today if we wanted, and probably have them fueled off of nothing but pure water (we've already got engines that do that - just we refuse to market them) with 100% clean output.

Water, by itself, is not going to release any energy. It takes energy to crack water, but you can't combust water (by itself**) to get energy and make a car work.

Now, water is the only exhaust product of hydrogen-fueled fuel cells (and you can even trap that water if you feel like it), but it's not the fuel. Hydrogen-burning combustion engines will probably produce some nitrous oxides, just because the nitrogen in the ambient air will get mixed up in reactions in the combustion chambers.

If you have an outside power source (like a coal-fired plant, a nuclear plant, solar power, whatever), you can crack water to produce a fuel (hydrogen), or you can use water to steam-reform oil, coal, etc. into assorted flammable gases. But in none of those cases is water the actual fuel.

**Incidentally, water will burn with fluorine. (Of course, that's not water powering the car itself.) But if you want to have a super cold tank of liquid fluorine in your car and hydrofluoric acid in the exhaust, you're probably a toxic shaman or suicidal, or both. Plus, it's not a very efficient fuel combination. Even fluorine has trouble making water burn.

QUOTE
Anyway, why not synthetics? Synthetics like plastic rely on petrochemicals.


Petrochemicals are a convenient source for many, but not all, synthetic materials. Heck, petrochemicals are not even *required* for synthetics normally synthesized from petrochemicals. In addition to the genetic engineering route (engineer germs to crap plastics), there are other chemical routes to synthesize petroleum-derived synthetics.

QUOTE
We have three major sources of those - fossil fuels, plant by products such as corn and hemp, or Jupiter - which is full of the stuff.


Even if you mean Titan (the moon of Saturn, not Jupiter), it's not efficient to access the hydrocarbons there. It'd be easier to engineer some bacteria, keep them fed on sewage and sunlight, and let them crap out profitable synthetics.

For some more complicated synthetics (like spidersilk), you might need a more advanced animal (like the "spider goats," goats engineered to produce spider silk in their milk.)

One fascinating possibility is fusion-powered recycling. Just shovel in all your trash into a fusion-powered electric arc and send the resulting plasma through an system of looping magnetic pipelines. Isotopes of different weights will take different paths through the pipelines, allowing you to separate the feedstream isotope by isotope. Collect hydrogen there, carbon here, aluminum on the next bend, iron over there, etc. Then use the waste heat from the operation to power the chemical plants that recombine the elements into steel, aluminum alloys, petrochemicals...

But, in any case, "going green" doesn't mean living in a world of primitive materials.

QUOTE
Shift people over to mostly plant diets, with meat from fish farms to about what is healthy (maybe one fish a month or so) rather than the extreme protein excess of today, and you can support a -LOT- more people by switching out cows and other animals for them.


Or just vat-grow muscle tissue, stimulated and toned to the preferred degree of tenderness and marbling. (Lesson: when you go eco-friendly, you don't have to resort to 18th Century technology and vegan diets.)
Shadow
QUOTE (arcady)
Shift people over to mostly plant diets, with meat from fish farms to about what is healthy (maybe one fish a month or so) rather than the extreme protein excess of today, and you can support a -LOT- more people by switching out cows and other animals for them.

We should restrict everyone food intake too, force them to use pill supplements as well. Get rid of every drink but water, make them eat soy everything. And then shoot the people who don't want to live that way.

You sound like a vegetarian, peddle your ideas to Peta.
nezumi
QUOTE
One fascinating possibility is fusion-powered recycling.


I'm guessing you didn't make that up, but that is one of the neatest (and funniest) ideas I've heard. Somehow the idea of using fusion to sort my tin from glass just cracks me up.
Cain
There's another source: Thermal Depolymerization, or TDP for short. It can convert almost anything organic into long-chain hydrocarbons, in theory. Currently, the research is focused on making the process more economical; but with gas prices skyrocketing, even if it takes $55 to make a barrel of light, sweet crude using TDP, it'll be more cost-efficient than traditional pumped oil.
Rev
I have heard (a friend read a book partly about the following) that a large part of the reason plastic is so cheap and thus so prevalent is that we use so much gasoline & fuel oil. The plastic is made out of the longest chain hydrocarbons which would otherwise be toxic waste and have to be further processed somehow (probably they could still be burned, just less efficiently). Happens that one thing we can process it into is plastic. So if we reduce gas & oil burning we will simultaneously and automatically reduce our use of plastic in some proportion.

QUOTE (shadow)

We should restrict everyone food intake too, force them to use pill supplements as well. Get rid of every drink but water, make them eat soy everything. And then shoot the people who don't want to live that way.

Depends on how many people you want to support. Realistically I think people start getting shot in large numbers long before we reach that point.

QUOTE (shadow)

You sound like a vegetarian, peddle your ideas to Peta.

Don't troll.
Adarael
QUOTE
You sound like a vegetarian, peddle your ideas to Peta.


From this thread here and elsewhere, I have comt to the conclusion that you are more deliberately abrasive than Brillo, and seem incapable of making a positive statement. Which is fine, of course, if you're happy with it. Just don't try to win the Dumpshock Sunshine and Rainbows competition.
Kagetenshi
This is Dumpshock. The winner of the Sunshine and Rainbows competition will be awarded the prize atop a heap of bodies.

~J
Adarael
Well, yeah. But it'd be a shame if you got to the top and saw all them bodies and was like, "Heavens! All my friends are corpses!" and were actually *surprised* by it.
Sabosect
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
This is Dumpshock. The winner of the Sunshine and Rainbows competition will be awarded the prize atop a heap of bodies.

~J

That explains the miniguns mounted on the front door.
Shadow
You know I come here to talk about shadowrun, not get pushed people's ideas about politics, religion, or how they should eat. My response was to his.

If I said, "we should force everyone to be Catholic becasue its smart" people would flip. And they would be in their right. Keep your politics out of my Shadowrun, this isn't Reeses.

@Adarael,

you have to have me confused with someone else. I have my bad mood days, but I am one of the nicer people on the board.
arcady
QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE (arcady @ Aug 12 2005, 11:58 AM)
We could make them today if we wanted, and probably have them fueled off of nothing but pure water (we've already got engines that do that - just we refuse to market them) with 100% clean output.

That is untrue.


The water engine:
http://members.tripod.com/~anon99/water_en...ine/index2.html

Google it up, there are several websites on different water engines.

QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE
A lot of that reclaimed land is not being put to good use today anyway. It's in use for things like cattle, government restriction, or housing that is ten times larger than international norms...
That is also untrue, especially your claim that land used for agriculture isn't polluting. Cattle are among the top five contributors towards greenhouse gases. Fertilizers are the greatest cause for the dead zone in the Gulf.


Cattle, you say I'm wrong, the requote me agreeing with me. What's up with that? Did you even read anything I wrote?

QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE
which is full of the stuff. We're just about on the verge of running out with regards to one of those sources, at which point we will likely learn just how much we really rely on plastic...
Jupiter is full of oil?
Petrochemicals - used to make plastics. Jupiter is full of them. And yeah, oil don't grow on trees all that fast. It's running out, and that will speed up over time and eventually dry out.


Cotton is not anywhere near as efficient as hemp for textiles. Bamboo can replace most modern uses of hard wood. Hemp and corn both can replace wood for paper.
arcady
QUOTE (Shadow @ Aug 12 2005, 02:11 PM)
QUOTE (arcady @ Aug 12 2005, 09:11 AM)
Shift people over to mostly plant diets, with meat from fish farms to about what is healthy (maybe one fish a month or so) rather than the extreme protein excess of today, and you can support a -LOT- more people by switching out cows and other animals for them.

We should restrict everyone food intake too, force them to use pill supplements as well. Get rid of every drink but water, make them eat soy everything. And then shoot the people who don't want to live that way.

You sound like a vegetarian, peddle your ideas to Peta.

Who's advocating anything?

Well you are, but not me.

I'm just pointing out a basic fact - consumption of meat uses vastly more resources and is a social luxury not a necessity. If we really wanted to, we could go far on resource management by cutting it out of the system.

I made no statements on whether or not that was a good idea in terms of social dynamics.

If the facts of the world have to agree with you own personal choices, you won't get very far in life. The fact of the matter is, human beings do a vast amount of wasteful things that in terms of just resources are not ideal choices.

All of us here, posting on this board, in raw economic terms, could find better things to do with our time. But we -choose- to be here. However that doesn't mean we aren't making a, technically, wasteful descision.




As for thread relevancy - the thread does refer to global warming, and out of that came the issue of overpopulation or likely populations. My comments are in reference to the notion that we -could- support a vastly larger population if we simply make choices different than those we do make.

That says nothing for advocacy, I'm not the one making it political here.
hyzmarca
The problem with cutting down on meat production is simple nutrition. It is possible to make up for the lost protien, fats, and minerals. However, it takes a great deal of effort to do so. Between careful diet management and actually following the food pyramid, the latter is much easier than the former.

Personally, I say just move all farming out into outer space. This would be good for Earth's enviroment and allow the production of enough meat to support everyone. After the multi-trillion dollar investment of actually building farming communities in outer space and shipping up all of the livestock, that is.


As for global warming, I say it will keep going untill it stops on its own. The thing about global warming is that there is absolutly no evidence that suggest that human activities contribute to global warming in any significant manner. It is far more probable that so called global warming is just a part of the Earth's natural temperature cycle.
John Campbell
QUOTE (arcady)
QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE (arcady @ Aug 12 2005, 11:58 AM)
We could make them today if we wanted, and probably have them fueled off of nothing but pure water (we've already got engines that do that - just we refuse to market them) with 100% clean output.

That is untrue.


The water engine:
http://members.tripod.com/~anon99/water_en...ine/index2.html

Google it up, there are several websites on different water engines.

And, of course, everything you read on the Internet is true.

The engine on that site claims to be using as fuel hydrogen that has been separated out of water using a chemical reaction with aluminum, producing aluminum oxides and hydrogen, which is then burned in the engine to produce water and power.

The problem is... do you have any idea how much energy it takes to produce the aluminum you need to produce your hydrogen fuel? Aluminum was practically unknown until the modern era, because it takes godawful insane amounts of electricity to refine it from the ore. This is just the usual "we can use electrolysis to produce hydrogen from water, and then burn the hydrogen for power!" stupidity with the point where thermodynamics steps up and kicks your ass pushed back a step further behind the curtain.

You use more energy breaking the hydrogen out of the water than you'll ever get back burning the hydrogen. On top of that, you use more energy breaking the aluminum out of aluminum oxide ores than you'll ever get back turning the aluminum back into aluminum oxide. Trying to hide point one behind point two just gets your ass kicked by thermodynamics twice. TANSTAAFL.
Cray74
QUOTE (arcady)
The water engine:
http://members.tripod.com/~anon99/water_en...ine/index2.html

That's not a water engine, it's a hydrogen engine. It combines two reactants (water and aluminum) to produce hydrogen, which is burned. So, no, it doesn't run on water "and nothing else."

And John makes a good point about how frickin' energy-hungry aluminum production is. If you're going to go through the trouble of churning out aluminum to make hydrogen, just use the energy to make hydrogen from water.

QUOTE
Petrochemicals - used to make plastics. Jupiter is full of them.


Except it's at the bottom of a gravity well 60km/s deep, plus another several kps from Earth.

And Jupiter is not full of petrochemicals. It is 75% hydrogen by mass, 25% helium, plus some traces of other things include water, ammonia, and (yes) methane. But methane is a trace, not vast puddles of oil.

QUOTE
Cotton is not anywhere near as efficient as hemp for textiles. Bamboo can replace most modern uses of hard wood. Hemp and corn both can replace wood for paper.


I'd stick to synthetics. Something germs crap out, like cellulose, or maybe some polyethylene reinforced with glass fibers. Glass: a great material you can make with sand and solar heat.

You don't have to turn to the stone age to live green.
Nikoli
Hover test
That is the most current video, still from a few years ago. Note, no fuel line connected. Note, more than 5 feet, more like 15 to 20. Note, it's listed as a hover test, hence why it's not zipping around. The line you can make out at the end as it settles down it the tether required by the FAA for the testing, nothing else.
Cray74
QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE
One fascinating possibility is fusion-powered recycling.


I'm guessing you didn't make that up, but that is one of the neatest (and funniest) ideas I've heard. Somehow the idea of using fusion to sort my tin from glass just cracks me up.

Actually, I got the idea from "Voyage from Yesteryear," by James P. Hogan.

But if the power is cheap enough, it should be plausible. Crack compounds to their elements, sort them out, and then recombine them into basic ingots, oils, and other chemical feedstocks.
Adarael
QUOTE
you have to have me confused with someone else. I have my bad mood days, but I am one of the nicer people on the board.


Uh huh.
Vaevictis
QUOTE (John Campbell)
This is just the usual "we can use electrolysis to produce hydrogen from water, and then burn the hydrogen for power!" stupidity with the point where thermodynamics steps up and kicks your ass pushed back a step further behind the curtain.

You use more energy breaking the hydrogen out of the water than you'll ever get back burning the hydrogen. (...) Trying to hide point one behind point two just gets your ass kicked by thermodynamics twice. TANSTAAFL.


C'mon, let's not trash hydrogen based engines too much. The use of hydrogen extracted from water is a highly renewable, available, and portable (and potable!) resource. Using elecytrolysis to produce hydrogen from water isn't stupid in and of itself. Using "non-renewable" energy sources to do it is stupid. Yes, in that case, thermodynamics steps up and kicks your butt. But in the case of renewable resources... well, the laws of thermodynamics still apply, but in the case of renewable resources, the sun pumps plenty of usable energy into the system (Earth) and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

The fact is, hydrogen and water are *not* a reasonable energy source. They are just a way of making the energy source *portable*, a critical feature of sources like oil and gas; they obviously have the added bonus of being highly renewable and minimally polluting. (Aside: Another nice feature is the water output; use your fuel, and get drinking water out of the equation! Add energy, get oxygen! There's a reason NASA loves this tech. Pound for pound, it's the best battery for manned space travel available, because you can go back and forth between battery, water and air.)

But all that aside, don't knock the hydrogen based engines too much. They're potentially a big part of the renewable energy source problem. Just recognize that all it does is make the energy portable. You still have to get the actual energy somewhere else -- preferably from the sun or moon.
Cray74
QUOTE (Vaevictis @ Aug 13 2005, 11:37 AM)
But all that aside, don't knock the hydrogen based engines too much.  They're potentially a big part of the renewable energy source problem.  Just recognize that all it does is make the energy portable.  You still have to get the actual energy somewhere else -- preferably from the sun or moon.


I'm all for hydrogen if...
1) You have a cheap power source to make it from water
2) You can find an easy way to store it

Right now, hydrogen is most easily obtained from oil. It's a waste product of oil refining.
nezumi
QUOTE (arcady)
QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE (arcady @ Aug 12 2005, 11:58 AM)
We could make them today if we wanted, and probably have them fueled off of nothing but pure water (we've already got engines that do that - just we refuse to market them) with 100% clean output.

That is untrue.


The water engine:
http://members.tripod.com/~anon99/water_en...ine/index2.html

Google it up, there are several websites on different water engines.

As has been said, the example is a load of hooey. It might function, but you'd be using more (whatever energy source) to run it than the existing hydrogen electrolysis systems used.


QUOTE
QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE
A lot of that reclaimed land is not being put to good use today anyway. It's in use for things like cattle, government restriction, or housing that is ten times larger than international norms...
That is also untrue, especially your claim that land used for agriculture isn't polluting. Cattle are among the top five contributors towards greenhouse gases. Fertilizers are the greatest cause for the dead zone in the Gulf.


Cattle, you say I'm wrong, the requote me agreeing with me. What's up with that? Did you even read anything I wrote?


I read what you wrote, but it simply wasn't clear. You seemed to indicate that nature 'retaking land' wouldn't make a huge impact because so much land was already green. I refuted that, my original statement is clear. Are you rather suggesting that we could support a greater population on less land? Because that was not actually expressed in your original statement.


QUOTE



QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE
which is full of the stuff. We're just about on the verge of running out with regards to one of those sources, at which point we will likely learn just how much we really rely on plastic...
Jupiter is full of oil?
Petrochemicals - used to make plastics. Jupiter is full of them. And yeah, oil don't grow on trees all that fast. It's running out, and that will speed up over time and eventually dry out.


As has been pointed out, that is a wicked gravity well. Perhaps harvesting hydrogen from Jupiter (since it's lighter, and therefore farther out from the core) would make a little more sense? Then again, perhaps harvesting hydrogen from comets, open space, reasonably sized gas giants or any of the many other possible sources would make just a LITTLE more sense, all told.
Cray74
QUOTE (nezumi)
As has been pointed out, that is a wicked gravity well.  Perhaps harvesting hydrogen from Jupiter (since it's lighter, and therefore farther out from the core) would make a little more sense?  Then again, perhaps harvesting hydrogen from comets, open space, reasonably sized gas giants or any of the many other possible sources would make just a LITTLE more sense, all told.


Even a space elevator might incur transport costs of several nuyen per kilogram lowered to Earth, making it difficult to import any low-price, bulk commodity (like petrochemicals) to Earth.
Cray74
And VatMeat gets closer to reality:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4148164.stm

Get rid of the ranches if you want to, but you don't have to go vegan if you go green. Mmm. Cloned, vat-grown meat.

Hey, if you vat-grew human meat, would it be cannibalism if you chowed on it? And could ghouls be sustained by it?
ShadowDragon8685
VatMeat - Yum Yum. So much better than Soy. I think that SR's official canon needs to get with the pace of real tech. smile.gif (Or at least, update again. What they thought was probably gonna be the primary food in 1989 is looking more like cheap ink and sauce in 2005. nyahnyah.gif )


And about energy in autos and such - Solar energy is probably the best you could shoot for. The problems, however, lie in:

A: Harvesting it in enough quantity. Ideally, we'd pull a Dyson Sphere scenario. Failing that, we can set up mucking huge networks of solar-collecting satelites around the moon or something. But that raises problem B early.

B: Distributing it. While it's true that current power lines don't give a drek whether the electricity they conduct comes from the pure-yellow-sun, black-as-ass coal, neon-green nukes, or something else entirely, we have to get it into cars. If we go with the space collector idea, we also face the challenge of getting it down to earth. (Maybe make a space elevator that, instead of being used as an elevator cable, is a gigantic power conduit?)
Then, the problem is getting it into a portable form - we'd need truely high capacity capacitors. SR 'solves' this problem with the Grid, but has anyone ever thought about the inherant unsafeness of that much juice running just under the pavement? I don't think it ever actually says how the power gets into your car from the Grid - is it like, arcing between the ground and the underside of your auto? Collection strips on the tires? What?

C: Using it with an efficiency to rival petrochems. Let's face it. We all want voom voom. Especially when you're in a trade where your life and death may depend on your ride's ability to squeeze out 10 more KpH than the 'Star. To be truely acceptable, electric cars must:
A: Offer the convienance of gasoline. Nobody has four hours to wait at the pump while their ride gets juiced. You need to plug an' chug, and chug fast.
B: Offer an efficiency comparable to that of gasoline. You put the foot on the pedal, and you need to GO. Most people won't give a hoop if that GO is the form of a high pitched whine or the roaring rumble of a Hemi. (Me, I'm funny. If my car dosen't rumble, I don't feel like it's really going. smile.gif )
C: Offer an economy comparable to gas. Even if you can do 0 - 60 in 3.8 seconds and your car fills it's batteries in two mintues time, it's still not very useful if you have to recharge it every few hours.

So to summarize: We have all the energy we could ever possibly need. It's that huge glowin' thing, most Shadowrunners consider it a vauge childhood memory, if that. The problems are
A: Harvesting it.
B: Getting it to us.
C: Using it properly.


And I'm rambling, aren't I? smile.gif
hyzmarca
Nokola Tesla was working on a method of wireless energy transmission before his death. Unfortunatly, a lack of funding kept him from completing is work.
If someone could get Tesla's trdient energy transmitter to actually work, it would solve most energy traansmission and storage problems.

There is no need for gasoline when power is simply broadcasted to your car.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012