CaptainPanic

Seems to me it's cheaper to give unemployment benefits rather than keeping these people working in an old fashioned industry. Then you save the employees from poverty, while liberating a large workforce and finances that are used by an old industry. I cannot change numbers. The wiki link I provided (here it is again) shows that US citizens only travel 80 kilmeters per year, per person. Netherlands gets 940 kilometers per person per year. Another example is the "Modal share of railway transport (excluding metro) compared to other modes of transport." - The USA is completely at the bottom of that, well below a country like Finland which also is not so densely populated... or switzerland which is... hmm... pretty much only mountains. I believe I heard that Obama wants to improve this situation. If true, it would make me glad. (Trains are nice, and cleaner than cars - comfortable too). Breaking out of an old fashioned pattern is always a good idea. Perhaps it's America's new years resolution for 2009?

Cancer is going to be the #1 cause of death. But indeed, traffic and fastfood (or other bad food) also cause a lot of fatalities. And I really doubt that criminals care about cameras. There exist soooo many places without cameras that they're still really easy to avoid. However, the privacy of people is affected much faster. My bet is that while cameras are installed to prevent heavy crime (for example drugdealing) and violence, in stead most of the "crimes" that it will prevent is people crossing a red light on a deserted crossroad or other minor things.

I refer to this wikipedia website (I'm surprised it exists). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_country#Passenger_km_per_head_of_population It shows passenger kilometers per head of the population. Simply said: US citizens don't take the train, they either drive or fly. If you have 1 person in a car, and no luggage or cargo, on a flat paved road, then an "efficient SUV" is a contradiction, also if it were to use clean energy. But, if the US would use clean energy, then you will not hear me complaining. If it's clean, you can be as inefficient as you like. But using clean energy definitely requires a new type of car: as you wrote, a clean and efficient car (SUV is you like). And I don't think that the developments by the industry are going fast enough. An individual consumer will happily buy an internal combustion engine car, and he can in the same time wish that the whole country would be buying cleaner cars. It's a paradox of the free market. I think that if the car companies go bankrupt, there will be new jobs soon enough. A new factory for a new product can be built in 1 year. And new type of clean cars are already being developed and even built. I fear that I have offended you in some way, so I shall try to be as objective as possible in a politics thread (it's hard!). I also think you're not reading my arguments, and you are being offensive (saying that I would complain no matter what)... This is no crusade against the USA or anyone in person. But I do hope that people will accept the fact that many people worldwide are no fundamentalist capitalists, like some/most Americans. I think that reforms in an industry do not always need to be market driven. A population can have a different need than a market. If that is the case, then an intervention is acceptable. But I fear we have a fundamental difference, which may be as fundamental as religion. I don't agree with the "privatize everything" and leave it up to the market to solve all the world's problems, and I do see many benefits of state owned companies. Since the "economy" is such a vague thing (even economists don't seem to understand it), we can discuss it forever. (And we are, given the length of the thread).

That too already exists. There exist setups that first make electricity from solar/wind, and then use electrolysis to make hydrogen and oxygen. Other setups can even make hydrogen immediately, although these are not nearly as efficient as the first one I mentioned. You can even make methanol or other liquid fuels, but I haven't been able to find a link. How would you make starch from CO2 (and water)? You have any idea? Or are you just daydreaming?

There are 2 aspects of being and staying in space: 1. altitude 2. velocity (speed) Regarding the altitude, your plan seems good. You go as high as you can with the balloon, and then use a rocket engine to do the next step. It is said that space starts at 100 km. That is just a human invention. Space doesn't start, and the atmosphere doesn't stop like that. At 250 km there is still a bit of gas, although very little. It just gets thinner and thinner. For example, the X prize was given for the first rocket to bring a man up to 100 km twice in 2 weeks. The other aspect of space is how to stay there. In order to stay in space, you need to overcome the gravity. You can do this by getting enough speed to stay in orbit. Note that this velocity is several kilometers per second! If you want to get away from earth forever, you need to achieve the "escape velocity" of 11.2 km/s. And in that second part is your problem challenge. I really doubt that you can accelerate enough to go that fast with your little rocket. Summary: I think that if you do a really good job, you can make it to space... but to make some rocket that actually stays in space, I would be impressed (and you would become rich and famous).

We sink faster than that (Estimates are that the Netherlands, on average, sinks 4 mm per year). Sorry, not in the mood for finding a link to back that up. Original question: The oceans have not warmed up. The air however has warmed, we know it (it's called global warming). Since there is warmer air over the ocean, it automatically must transfer more heat into the ocean. If the ocean has not heated up, it means that the ocean is able to lose the heat again. The only mechanism to do so is by evaporation. Evaporated water condenses again. And that is the process that drives a hurricane. It makes sense to me, even though I think we'll all agree that reality is more complicated than my 3-4 line description here.

See? This is why we all download movies. Program information is only about airing in the wrong time zone. Tsk. Any idea when it's aired in the central European time zone?

That's also why you don't have a functioning train system in the USA. The USA uses more energy per capita than almost all countries in the world (except some really cold or really hot and oil-rich countries). You can mention Carl Marx as much as you like, or call the rest of the world commies... that does not change the fact that the ultra-capitalist American system hasn't proven to be very energy efficient... It's time that somebody puts a stop to that... because the celebrated free market isn't gonna do it. And I don't believe the argument that the USA is so much richer than Europe and therefore uses more energy. Taking a car for 250 meters to go shopping is not wealth, it is an attitude problem. And this trick with the car companies can be just what the rest of the world needs. Yes, I hope that all the people who build SUV's will be fired next month. I'm sorry for them, it's not personal. I hope they get a new job the next day.

how about wind turbines? Solar panels? Biomass for power and fuels? Tidal energy? Of course, hydro electricity? How could I forget the geothermal power? We're working on that 24-7 already! But indeed, all ideas are welcome. If you have a look around on this forum, I am sure you can find lots of ideas already. (Sorry for not linking to all the threads - there is a search function for that - there are so many threads already!).

So, you want to use the 10 centimeter waves to power a pump to pump water to 5 meters high? To "convert" the 10 centimeter difference in height to 5 meters, you need a factor 50 in pressure difference. Therefore, if you have a certain surface that goes up and down with the waves, your internal diameter of the pipe going 5 meters up must be 50 times smaller. (And that is not yet including losses due to any friction or other losses). Keep in mind that the waves are already small (the 10 centimeter height difference is only reaches at the top of the wave, which is a really small surface area). I have no good suggestions for a friction free system... some lever system that pushes on the piston perhaps?

This forum is here for having discussions and getting explanations. So, anyone who has an answer should post it here (and not send it by email).

I'd hate to see this happen. If people want to see me, they can visit me in person. Things that can be prevented by cameras are mostly harmless! The world is already a very safe place. (Why else would life expectancy go up everywhere?)

Yeah, that's the problem with democracy. Every 4 years it all changes again, and ... wait a second... we're not on the same topic. This thread should be closed before we're all accused of creative statistics.

I found a nice article in which Michael Moore suggests that in stead of spending 34 billion dollars to bail out the car industry, the US government can also buy the entire car industry and hire a "transportation genius" to run the companies and ... well... read for yourself: Source: http://www1.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-12-03/lets-buy-the-big-three/2/ (article is longer than the quoted text). I sure hope that the US is going for some Marshall plan. Too long have they delayed progress.

It's not so much the question what holds solids together, it's the question what holds all matter together. Atoms and molecules are always attracted to each other... also in the liquid and even gas phase. When they have less energy for moving, then these attractions become more important. It's probably best to investigate the list that insane_alien has given. Wikipedia will certainly have a page about all 4 forces.

Every day I wake up from beeping noises. I get out of bed, stand under some artificial rain for a couple of minutes pretending that I like it (contrary to "real" rain). Then get dressed... then I eat: the first sane thing of the day... Then I go to another building only to sit behind a square light with pictures and symbols for a whole day, watching them change while I push some keys with symbols. Am I insane? I don't see how I produce any food or how I increase my chances to mate... yet I do this every day, thinking it is the right thing to do.

And because your wind energy came from almost 100% recycled materials, the energy-payback-time was really short.

Air pressure is nearly the same at the poles and the equator (about 1 bar). Pressure is simply the weight of the atmosphere pressing down on us (units of pressure are Newton per square meter). So cold air, being more dense, does not require the same volume to create the same pressure. Temperature is not the same at the poles and the equator. Assuming that the temperature at the poles is a uniform -10 deg C, and at the equator it's +30 deg C, then a gas at the pole would be about 15% denser. Obviously it is not so simple, because temperature fluctuates from day and night, and also it is colder when you go up in the atmosphere... but the 15% I just calculated comes close to explaining the difference between 600 and 800 km.

I guess not... I'm sure you're not the only one interested in it by the way. I think the turbine would be in the way if the scramjet would start to operate in its scramjet mode. All flow inside a scramjet is supersonic... and I can imagine that you do not want some turbine blades in the way of a supersonic flow. Also the combustion process in a scramjet works different. You could mount both types of engines on a plane, and first use one, then the other...

You don't want to separate gases I think, unless you can do it by condensation. Any other process is too bulky for applications in a car. Well, it might work, but I am skeptical about large surface area processes (membranes) that need to be shock-proof and preferably light-weight in a moving vehicle.

Large scale wind turbines (the >1 MW turbines) nowadays cost about 1 euro / Watt (peak power). Or was that dollar? Hmm... anyway, that order of magnitude. Most likely depends on where you want to build them, and where you buy them.

In a simplified representation of reality (call it a model), there are 2 systems: 1. Companies pay less salary, but keep some apart for a pension 2. Companies pay more salary, employee is responsible for his own pension In both cases, the amount of money spent on employees is should be similar. However, what has happened in many (too many) cases is that the companies that kept the money that was intended for a pension have lost that money in some way (credit crunch or sometimes they've just invested it into the company again). Now new funds have to be found for pensions. That is not something you should blame on the pensioners! I'm probably talking about the general case, while ecoli must be talking about the ridiculous situations in the US car industry. By now I have learned that those car companies basically deserve to go bankrupt, whether due to bad management, bad unions, bad products or the credit crunch... I don't know. But they're no healthy industry.

I believe that in order to answer this question, you first have to define the goal of mankind, or the purpose of life. Another way to answer the question would be to have 100% certainty about the future. Since we don't have this, we need assumptions. One answer to that was already given: a purpose is to expand beyond our own planet. If that is the goal, and under the assumption that reduced availability will still enable us to set up a complicated project like interplanetary colonization, then it is a good thing. If you assume that we'll eventually focus all our resources on fighting each other over the precious resources, then it probably goes into the "bad things category".

Umm... Any discussion points? Questions? Bold statements? If you have none, I'll just throw one in: The energy-payback time of those small windturbines, including the adaptations you need to plug it into the net, or to provide some energy storage is longer than the lifetime of the turbine. (I didn't calculate it, I'm just guessing - but at least there's a discussion now - you're welcome).

Yes, it is likely you will need a gas separation, because almost all gasifiers and pyrolysis equipment that I've heard of will produce some kind of solids (char). In addition, sand or other solids can be used as a way to bring the necessary heat into the reaction chamber. This sand is heated in a combustion section where for example the char is combusted for heating.