It's not a bad idea, but I would imagine that the salt water would wreak havoc on the solar panels and any electronics attached. Wave power might be a better bet than solar. Perhaps we could build a fleet of these in one of the low-oxygen zones and try to re-oxygenate the water there...

That's a safe bet no matter the premise.

I support the repeal of the laws of thermodynamics. I doubt the fundamental congress will take up the bill though. They seem to have been in recess for the last thirteen billion years or so.

Well, it's more likely to need a pipeline. Cheap real estate + easy access to renewables usually means desert. This process requires water. Deserts, as a defining characteristic, lack water. (Yes, yes, I, in an attempt at brevity that this parenthetical phrase defeats, am omitting some fine points about the definition of desert.) Deserts also tend to be rather remote. Therefore, we'll need an incoming pipeline of water (though if you can handle the salinity problem seawater would work fine.) and an outgoing pipeline of fuel. I feel sorry for the poor sap that has to maintain this whole mess of course.

Well, imagine a world where we have so much energy being created through hydro, wind, solar, nuclear (fission and fusion) that we have a true net surplus. We could make oil with this then pump that oil back into the wells we originally got oil from. True sequestration.

The problem we have today is, fundamentally, that we are outrunning nature's ability to handle our activity. The true, long-term value of this then is that we can speed up nature's process to meet our desires.

Never has a username been so relevant.

Well, I have a few holes in my head that are necessary for my survival. So you're saying Alto is necessary for my survival? Cool.

As a pile-on to what others before me have said, piercings usually go into healthy individuals. Pacemakers and similar devices usually go into people who are highly vulnerable to immune system compromise.

First they came for our idle power maybe? (Not seriously, but maybe?)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Bring down prices! Hilarious!

No, seriously, hahahahahaha.

Very few cars are most efficient at full load or at high speed. This site even has a calculator, even accounting for the coasting distance (which isn't significantly different between 55 and 130 MPH compared to the length of the trip.)

Unless, of course, congress ends up in a 50-50 split on an important issue. Like, for example, abortion...

+1 Insightful.

Maybe to you and me, but to MisterMidi it seemed painfully un-obvious.

Interesting, I didn't realize that the reduction in air density at height greatly offsets the cost to get there. I assumed it would be similar to how gunning it to 130 MPH in a car and then costing down to 55 will kill your fuel economy.