If you're aware enough to preface your statement with "No troll intended" then you know your comment is offensive. If you post a comment you know is offensive, especially one that is only one line, you are trolling.

The average gasoline internal combustion engine is only 20% efficient. That is to say, only 20% of the energy present in the fuel-air mix at ignition is reclaimed as mechanical energy by the engine; the rest is lost as heat. A further 90% of the energy harnessed by the engine is used to keep the engine itself running; pumps, belts, fans, and transmissions all take energy to run. That means only 2% of the energy present in the gas tank makes it to spinning the wheels. And that's with the air off! So you can see, there's a lot of room for improvement. Turbo Diesel engines are half again as efficient than a gasoline engine of the same weight. If every gas engine were swapped for a Deisel engine, the US could stop oil imports from all other countries except Canada. And that's just going from 2% efficiency to ~3%. If you were to add gas turbines in the exhaust system to capture some of the waste heat, essentially making a multiple-expansion engine, you could easily tripple or quadruple current mileages. Combine such an engine system with and electric powertrain, like the Chevy Volt, and regenerative braking and you could have a 100MPG car within the decade. All using existant technology. So don't tell me a 54MPG fleet average is unattainable. If it was, the car makers themselves wouldn't have agreed to it.

So... it's a Fresnel zone plate? 'Cause they had those in the eighteenth century.

Get an old microwave from a thrift store or pawn shop. Stick your smartphone in it. Turn it on high for at least three minutes. There'll be nothing left on the phone to be stolen. Then just recycle it and the microwave you probably killed as well.

Republican or demonrat

And clearly, you're an objective, non-partisan source for such judgements.

The fact is at least some Deomocrats are for NN. None of the Republicans are. Ultimately, as always, you should look at the record and positions of each person you're voting for and make an informed choice. Something I'm not sure you're capable of.

...Time to start shorting Apple.

History lesson: the QWERTY keyboard was adobted as the English-language standard keyboard on typwriters. This was because, with most words, including most common words, you alternate which side of the keyboad your stroke lands. This helps reduce the amount of times the hammers in mechanical typewritters will jam. This sped up typing time considerably. DVORAK isn't a faster keyboard layout. It's simply more ergonomic, which carries more weight once you get rid of hammers in typewritters. Fast-forward to today: QWERTY keyboards are standard on almost all smartphones. But, as smartphones lack hammers, what are they most pressing criteria for a mobile keyboard? What are the greatest limitation to using mobile keyboards? The size of the keys are a major obstacle, but QWERTY is actually a rather efficient layout to use with auto-correct. The other major limitation is the fact that you only have two digits available for input, the two thumbs. Thus the most optimal keyboard is one where you alternate the sides of the keyboard between strokes as often as possible. So what's the most efficient layout for smartphones? One that's easy to use auto-correct with. One that alternates the side of keyboard used as frequently as possible. In other words the one we just happened to already use. So, upon consideration, QWERTY should be standard on all smartphones.

Most hydrogen today is made from natural gas. CO2 is a byproduct of the process. Electrolysis of water is a really expensive way to generate hydrogen. Just the electricity it takes to generate the hydrogen from water makes it more poluting than hydrogen from natural gas. First the natural gas or, more likely, coal is converted to electricity at 40% efficiency. Then the electricity is transmitted with 3-7% loss. Then the electrolysis is only ~80% efficient with electrolytes that are economic on an industrial scale. You might as well just turn the coal or natural gas into liquid fuel. The problem with this system is that mining and refining zinc would be more poluting than just using the Fischer-Tropsch process to turn the fuel used to refine the zinc to make liquid fuels. That way you wouldn't have to even replace any infrastructure.

Vacuum isn't cold. It's a vacuum. Like in a thermas. You need a shiny structure with a large surface area facing away from the ship to cool things in space. That's why the shuttle kept the bay doors open in space. It's also why the ISS has those shiny panels near their solar arrays. Also energy input from the sun dies off with the square of the distance. So once you're out about 12-15 AU, you can cool a fluid below the boiling point of liquid nitrogen easily.

Actually, we're still Apes. Just like we're still monkeys. Just like we're still placentals. Just like we're still mammals. Just like we're still tetrapods. Just like we're still vertebrates. Just like we're still animals. Just like we're still eukaryotes. Evolution produces nested hierarchies. We never stop being any group. We simply add new taxonomic levels as time goes on. That's one of the reasons modern biology is moving away from Linnaean taxonomy and towards genetic cladistics.