Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Government control of our lives... (Score 1) 155

Ah, but here you are mistaking the difference between a corporate entity and a person.

Unless you believe Citizens United the rights of a corporation are different than those of a person.

There really is no difference within this context. If I have a lemonade stand and would like to deliver lemonade by drone I would be subject to the same regulations as Amazon. Just as I'd be subject to health department regulations like Applebee's is.

Submission + - Common Fuel Cell Myths Debunked (olathetoyota.com)

thejman78 writes: Most fuel cell vehicle myths and misconceptions stem from a single seven year old article in The New Atlantis magazine. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and DOE, fuel cells will cost $30-$50 per kw-hr of output by 2017, depending on production volume. To put this number in perspective, Tesla battery packs are estimated to cost over $200 per kw-hr of output today and may fall to $140-175 per kw-hr by 2017. In all likelihood, fuel cell vehicles will cost less than battery electric vehicles by the end of the decade (barring some major decrease in battery costs, of course).

Comment Re:What's the point (Score 1) 353

In the long run "subsidizing the people who don't take care of themselves" will save money for everyone. Even you. A rising tide lifts all ships and all that stuff.

Really, the best thing we can do now is to make sure everyone is healthy and educated and happy. You just never know where the next Einstein will come from.

Or Hawking. I wonder what his FitBit readings would look like.

Comment Re:Hydrogen? (Score 1) 216

I don't assume they're going to put the fuel tanks on the roof of the car?

Why would you think that that would even be a good idea? It would actually be much safer than mounting a gas tank up there (and much lighter)

But Honda, Hyundai and Toyota, (among others) have not found it necessary.

Comment Re:Nice to see. (Score 1) 216

If there was a high school science fair project that demonstrated some sort of free energy, I would definitely sit up and take notice. If only to debunk it.

But who said anything about Free energy? It could be anything generated by a Bunsen burner or pond pump. In the real world, it could be anything from Germany's solar plants, or Iceland's abundant hydroelectric or geothermal power.

I don't see where you get "Free energy" from that.

We don't ever need to get beyond 'cost effective' - that would be fine. If we could get to 'ubiquitous', it could be a world saver.

Comment Re:Nice to see. (Score 1) 216

Electrolysis may not be the most efficient way, but neither is carrying an extra 1,000lbs worth of batteries to haul around your electricity - as a Tesla does (comparision: Tesla Model S vs. Honda FCX Clarity).

But efficiency may not be that much of an issue. When you think about it, solar power can never be very efficient because the vast majority of solar power never comes anywhere remotely near earth. Yet solar power can still have a significant impact.

Why, let's just take some of Germany's new 22GW solar capabilities and merge them with the hydrogen zeppelin tech they had in the 1930s. These could now be piloted automatically by GPS (a heck of a lot easier than a Google driverless car). The hydrogen already on board could power the craft all the way to a delivery point where the hydrogen (providing a few thousand tankfuls of H2) could be replaced with helium for the trip back.

Of course, by this means of delivery, production wouldn't be limited to sunny Germany, but could utilize all sorts of energy of the sort that's available in places like Iceland. Hydrogen can float itself anywhere in the world. You can't do that with a battery.

Comment Re:Hydrogen? (Score 5, Interesting) 216

This is a common, but knee-jerk reaction. But as bad as it looked, I think many would be surprised to learn that most of the people aboard the Hindenburg survived the disaster despite it being engulfed in flames hundreds of feet off the ground.

Imagine if it were filled with gasoline fumes. Everyone on board would've been dead as well as most of the people on the ground.

Toyota was fired bullets at its pressurized tanks. Regular bullets just bounced. 50 cal rounds too chunks out. It took an armor piercing round to penetrate the tank. When that happened, the hydrogen simply leaked out. And, being lighter than air, it just rose up into the atmosphere instead of pooling on the ground.

Slashdot Top Deals

One of the most overlooked advantages to computers is... If they do foul up, there's no law against whacking them around a little. -- Joe Martin

Working...