Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with X
I don't have a Facebook or a X account
 Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
Ten years after the formation of an FAA/industry alternative fuels initiative, significant technical progress has been made, but commercialization remains a challenge. Now the White House is adding its support to the fledgeling industry. 
No comment yet.
Sign up to comment
Scoop.it!
According to a recent study at the University of Illinois, harvesting invasive plants for use as biofuels may sound like a great idea, but the reality poses numerous obstacles and is too expensive to consider.
PIRatE Lab's insight:
We have found the same thing with analyses of using prolific invasive species here in southern California. The basic problem is that the most noxious invaders are not in locations where easy transportation corridors exist. The next big hurdle is the fact that we would (hopefully) have a big immediate impact locally...forcing the harvesters to constantly be moving to new sites for material collection.
|
Scoop.it!
Marine engines News Article Seawater Carbon Capture Process Receives US Patent
PIRatE Lab's insight:
More alternative fuel approaches coming out of the Naval Research Laboratory.
Scoop.it!
WASHINGTON — When the U.S. Navy sailed an imposing fleet near Hawaii that was powered in part by algae and used cooking grease, environmentalists weren't the only ones who were thrilled.
PIRatE Lab's insight:
This critique seems strange to me. We are talking about military R&D. The apparent uproar seems to miss that point. The critiques from congressmen were apparently absent when the miitary was developing its own private Space Shuttle, it brain imaging initiative, all the robots and "future warrior" tech, ARPANET, etc., etc. Let alone the congressional penchant to build military hardware that either fails cost benefit projects (such as the military's joint strike fighter) or simply is a joke and outright boondoggle (e.g. almost any new heavy caliber cannon/tank/etc.). If we are going to critique R&D, then critique ALL R&D. Critiquing a technology that is certianly in development and fraught with risks but which holds the possibility of huge benefits for society as a whole (not merely war fighting) seems to greatly miss the mark. I am all for watchdoging and oversight, but this seems a very, very strange target with which to begin that activity.
I would also add that (while it is certainly within his purview) it is unusual to say the least that the former Captain Kiefer who is essentially 80% of this story is also chiming in with unreferenced statistics in the comments section of this section following the story text. This seems to smack of a personal crusade on his part rather than a reasoned, objective analysis of the issue of government spending.
|
