Many of the plans for addressing climate change rely on 20- to 50-year roadmaps of increased efficiency and use of renewable energy. But, as Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin pointed out in his talk at the Lindau Meeting, we're going to have to deal with alternative technologies on that time scale no matter what—many projections indicate we're going to be out of oil within 60 years (usable coal will last a century and a half longer, give or take). So, even if you don't think climate change is something to worry about, Laughlin suggested you might want to be thinking about the sorts of technologies we'd need to do without fossil fuels—and that, in turn, requires some thought about what existing technologies we'd want to bring forward.
Laughlin got his Nobel for providing a theoretical explanation for some odd behavior of bulk electrons, recognizing that they were acting as if they were a quantum fluid. Energy policy is only related in that the energy used to run cars and airplanes involves shuffling electrons around in chemical bonds, but it's what he's thinking about these days.
For many purposes, we shuffle the electrons by burning hydrocarbons, which are useful because they have a fantastic energy density. Batteries can provide electrons for a number of uses, like short-distance road transit, but they simply don't have an energy:mass ratio that's compatible with things like aircraft or long-distance travel, and Laughlin didn't think they were likely to get there. Biofuels might be a partial replacement, but he was unwilling to make a bet on a technology that might ultimately compete with food supplies.
Hydrogen, when compressed, can have a decent energy density, but its high-pressure storage and explosive tendencies make it a very iffy choice for things like aircraft. Laughlin made an explicit comparison between the slow-burn of jet fuel, which has enabled some orderly evacuations of aircraft, to the explosive demise of the Hindenburg. In essence, he suggested, the best way to store hydrogen for use in transportation is as a hydrocarbon. And, give or take the errors in various sources, we've only got about 60 years of liquid hydrocarbons left—assuming we're willing to accept the climate consequences of burning it all.
One alternative would be to find a way to do without some of the things we currently rely on hydrocarbons for. Laughlin seemed to be giving his talk with the assumption that the electric grid, if needed, could be transitioned to something else. But he (and most of his audience) was skeptical that we'd be willing to do without cars. He said that in conversations around the world in many different cultures, the universals tended to be worries about a person's home, their children's' education, and getting a nicer car. He just doesn't see people giving up on that sort of autonomous personal mobility, nor did he expect that electric vehicles being able to fully handle all the driving needed.
Airplanes are even worse, since there's no way to substitute anything for the hydrocarbons that fuel them without giving up almost all of their carrying capacity. We may cut back on air travel if the price is high enough, but Laughlin doesn't see their use ending entirely, in part because militaries will keep the technology afloat. (He also made a joke about a businessman calling home and informing his wife he'd be late for dinner, since he had to swim home from France.)
Comment too long. Click
here to view the full text.
what do you decide guys? does everyone need to know everything? is being totally open the right way of the future? should the government be censoring information from the publics hands?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/06/12/0250206/Pentagon-Seeking-Out-Wikileaks-Founder-Julian-Assange?from=twitter
i can see both sides of this, but at this point in my life, i have to say the government is a flailing bunch of fucktards. i'm so in the mood for change i'm willing to suffer the consequence of a failed nation just to restart. where do you all stand? do we or should we have the right to know everything that's going on? personally i think we all can handle it.
if some of the 'evil' forces are as evil as they say, maybe opening some intel to the public would bring more support for the war we're in.
maybe if things are as fucked up as they'd have us believe some evidence of the despairity of the situation might shed some much needed light, hell maybe even increase military sign ups.
Support the JSF F136 Engine. Click the link on the page and keep the production going.
Why stop funding on a program that already has 2.5B invested?
Get the facts.
http://www.f136.com/facts
Congress has invested $2.5 billion dollars to fund competition for 14 years. The alternate engine is nearly complete and will deliver benefits to taxpayers and the DoD for the next 30 years.
Let your voice be heard.
http://www.f136.com/actnow/
Tell Congress that continued bi-partisan support of the Joint Strike Fighter F136 competitive engine program preserves thousands of high-tech jobs, lowers our overall defense spending, and creates a better quality engine to protect our interests at home and abroad. To get started, complete the form at right and click Register.
