= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Why safety is not safe - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (97)
Yes, the US military is extensively researching how to convert nuclear energy + atmospheric CO2 + water (all of which are in no short supply) into traditional fuel. New York Times article about it. The only thing holding it back from use is that it costs more than making the fuel from ordinary fossil fuels, but when you account for existing taxes in my most countries, if this method weren't taxed while other taxes remained in place, "nuclear octane" would be cost-competitive.
Well, one way to convert nuclear energy into hydrocarbons is fairly common, if rather inefficient.
Well, one way to exploit the properties of air to fly is fairly common, if rather inefficient ;-)
Indeed. It's a hard resource to exploit, that one, but it has been done. ;)
It's harder to hitch a ride on a bird than it is to turn plants into car fuel, though, but, on a less silly note, the fact that so much fertilizer comes from petrochemicals and other non-renewable sources seriously limits the long-term potential of biofuels.