Chris Burck wrote: > that a technical challenge might be interesting does not justify > pursuing it.
Why not? Much of the technology we have today came about simply because someone decided to pursue a technical challenge, and it wound up turning into a product. > this project is being funded for no reason other than to > get yet more taxpayer dollars to a gigantic corporation whose primary > product is death, so that it can explore a method which, if marketed > correctly, might prop up an infrastructure based on a failed paradigm. <shrug> You can look at it that way if you want to. Yes, Lockheed is a major player in the MIC. So what? If they can produce a product that doesn't involve death, and hopefully reduces death, then more power to them. If it generates profit for them then so much the better. It means they're more likely to keep doing it. > and it's a woefully inefficient approach. direct use of the solar > would be vastly more efficient and effective--even for transport, How do you figure? > with > the energy-density gap between batteries and liquid fuels shrinking > rapidly. It may be shrinking, but I don't think you could call it anything like "rapidly". Even so, now you're not talking about direct use of Solar, you're talking about using solar PV to charge batteries for a battery electric vehicle, which involves inefficiencies of its own. As it stands now, and for the forseeable future, when it comes to kilowatts per kilogram nothing comes close to liquid fuels. > mars only addresses the initial stage of breaking down the > co2. Well, if you read all of the article, you'd see that Sandia is also talking about using the process to form "a hydrocarbon fuel" such as methane, which in liquid form, makes good rocket fuel. One of the other products of the process is oxygen, which is both atmosphere, and the best oxidizer for rocket fuel. > you can't use that argument to justify the rest of the > experiment. I believe I just did. > in fact, even that small part can't be justified by > invoking space, since a variety of co2 scrubbing technologies already > exist that wouldn't require lifting a nuclear reactor into orbit. But those processes don't turn it into fuel. The energy to do that has to come from somewhere. The current plan is either an RTG, or a Rickover. The energy for the process could come from a sufficiently well developed solar system as well. > but, supposing it were the best approach available, that still only > matters to those who share your clarke-ian view of the "importance" of > "stepping beyond the cradle." Granted, but I suspect you'll find there are a lot of us. Notably, Peter Diamandis, who's stated goal is to get there before NASA, and do it with private funds. AP _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
