Nuclear power is the slowpoke when it comes to scaling owing to its high cost: http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C...

The other energy cost is collecting carbon from sea water. That is not very high.

In this case no. This is a catalyzed reaction between hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen comes from electrolysis. The reaction is a more complete version of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... They try to go past methane. That reaction is exothermic so you should not need process heat to any great degree. The reaction won't be 100% efficient but if it is too inefficient the cost range can't make sense.

So... inside baseball....

Seems like a barrage pattern might work pretty well to produce a focused sub crushing wave. It would work like a directional antenna.

Seems like a barrage should be able to form a wave that can capsize a boat. Go back in and salvage and you get an addition to your own navy. Our first naval battle did exactly that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

I think that is where the barrage helps. My guess is that a under a thousand rounds of these hitting in the same place could give you Barringer Crater. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... A spaced based system probably could not deliver in that way since you'd probably use rockets to get the mass to orbit instead of this more efficient method.

Intercontinental ballistic railgun emplacements may end up replacing nuclear ICBMs since a patterned barrage may be more effective, particularly for excavating bunkers to decapitate command and control. The ground penetration problem may soon be licked and the Iranian nuclear threat can be settled through negotiations from a position of strength. Nice work Dalgren!

So, Austin Energy is paying $0.05/kWh for solar. http://www.treehugger.com/rene... and that price is expected to fall by 2020 when the technology is expected to be available. So, say $0.02 per kWh. You need about 32 kWh to make a gallon of jet fuel at 100% efficiency so that comes to about $0.64/gallon. If you want to stay under $2/gallon, the process could have an efficiency as low as 32%. Since hydrolysis can be done at much higher efficiency, and catalyzed fuel production is exothermic, they'd have to have very poor CO2 capture efficiency to make this look like the dog you are claiming.

You can probably count on better than 10% efficient with the quoted cost range of $3-$6/gallon. With an energy cost of $0.1/kWh you are already in the quoted range at 100% efficiency.

TFA: "The predicted cost of jet fuel using these technologies is in the range of $3-$6 per gallon, and with sufficient funding and partnerships, this approach could be commercially viable within the next seven to ten years. Pursuing remote land-based options would be the first step towards a future sea-based solution."

This cost range is an interesting number. That is the cost for parasiting off a naval reactor. But those reactors are built to be rugged before they are built to be cheap. It could be that if you were to use stranded offshore wind energy the cost would fall to $1/gallon or so, which would be below market value.

cause FOTRAN is hard --Barbie

Not worth upgrading then. Sounds like many power plants are on the edge of economic obsolescence now. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R...

Lessons from Fukushima may keep two thirds of Japan's nuclear plants closed. http://www.reuters.com/article... It could most nuclear power is a bad risk and should be written off.

Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant closed because of this situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...