I think it would be meant for solar water heating in the house, it won't be hot enough to drive a steam turbine.

>They are also more vulnerable to tsunami, as they couldn't be anchored in bedrock to the same extent a traditional city could. They would fare even worse than the cities we've built on dredged "reclaimed" shorelines. Likewise they are vulnerable to rogue waves, should they be open water or shore impacting. You need to learn more about rogue waves if you think they only occur on open ocean. One sank the Edmund Fitzgerald on a Great Lake, for example, and rogue waves can absolutely hit shorelines.

I can promise you that after spending a good majority of my career working at Sea & most my life around boats, I can probably speak with greater authority on rogue waves or waves in general more than yourself.

The danger that rogue waves pose to ships is in general is the risk of a capsize or in truly bad cases, a pitch pole.

A rule of thumb being that any breaking wave higher than the beam of the vessel is enough to risk a capsize.

In reality for something like a floating city that will be extremely large, even compared to todays ships, the risk of capsize will be non existent.

These cities would be so large in relation to the waves that they would pose no risk of that kind, actually I would say the greatest risk would be to fatigue of such a large structure due to the constant bending and torsional forces over a long time. But I'm not designing it, and presumably they would build it somewhere sheltered.

Lake superior does not count as sheltered by the way, its classed as a 'lake' because its landlocked, but due to its size it might as well be a sea.

Again, tsunamis. A tsunami is dangerous when it hits the shore, go and look at videos & you can see various vessels at anchorage just off the coast being barely impacted by them, at sea they are not even noticeable, its only when the reach land that the wave builds to a dangerous height & breaks.

And I actually agreed with you that a floating city is a bad idea compared to living on land, harder to maintain, scant available resources, hard to build. They are a science fiction idea & even if built will still be reliant on land support.

I just disagreed with some of your reasoning.

Hurricanes are a problem, tsunamis not so much. At sea a Tsunami is basically almost imperceptible, the wave only builds to dangerous heights when it reaches land and the water depth shallows.

>Rogue waves, super typhoons, tsunamis, pirates, terrorists, wars, etc. exist already. There's no telling what kind of frequency and/or intensity increases we'll see as the climate and seas change, driving natural disasters and human desperation to new heights.

That's just a collection of words with no thought about how they apply to this subject.

I actually agree that a floating city is a bad idea compared to living on land, but a lot of what you've listed is highly locational. Super typhoons only appear in certain parts of the world, rogue waves only occur out in exposed waters, tsunamis aren't even dangerous until they almost hit land and the wave starts to build. Pirates, terrorists and wars are just generic and can occur anywhere.

Yeah, no, the amount of anti-matter that humanity has ever produced is literally in the nanogram range.

I'll never say it won't happen one day, but I'm pretty confident it wouldn't be within out lifetimes.

Right but this is an article about jet fuel.

And batteries right now weigh around 50 times more for the same energy density as jet fuel. Even taking into account the efficiency differences between electrical powered props & a jet engine. Its still not even close.

On a car this is not an issue, it doesn't need to take off and it can always stop to recharge.

Right now battery tech isn't close to being able to replace aviation fuel. Which leaves either bio fuels, or an alternative like Hydrogen.

But it can be. It isn't right now.

I don't get how we're still arguing this.

Burning fossil fuel derived jet fuel can never be zero carbon.

Burning hydrogen derived from fossil fuel isn't zero carbon, BUT that fuel can be made from renewables, which would make it zero carbon for all intents and purposes.

Of course right now that's highly inefficient, but this may not always be the case.

>Hydrogen has been identified as a promising fuel solution for planes because it produces no greenhouse gases when burned. However, unless the hydrogen is produced using renewable energy, the process for creating it relies on fossil fuels.

5th paragraph of the article. FFS, give it up, even the article itself states that it is NOT Zero Carbon.

>In the future the robots will kill us all before we have a chance to switch over to a truly zero carbon power source. Because even making solar panels and wind turbines produces carbon emissions.

Now WTF are you talking about? Killer robots? There's some next level subject changes going on here.

Nice about, first you said the OP was saying it was zero, carbon and instead of just admitting you were incorrect, all of a sudden we're arguing about something else when this only came about because you criticised the OP and article for something they didn't say.

But you're missing the point, most of the electricity to power electric cars comes from fossil fuels as well, but it could be low or zero carbon.

The point of this fuel isn't to demonstrate that this aircraft is zero carbon, its to demonstrate alternative fuels that could potentially be low carbon.

Current battery tech isn't anywhere near the energy storage to weight that we need to power an aircraft that's going to carry a useful amount of people over a long distance.

>Getting hydrogen from seawater is a fantasy that's not practical in the real world due to the insanely high energy cost

Right now, yes. In the future, who knows.

Neither the OP nor the article said it was zero carbon. Only that it could be.

You didn't reply to anyone?

Or do you mean the article? Because that doesn't say its zero carbon either, just that the fuel could be.

Who said it was zero carbon?

Call me cynical.

But I bet if we were just discovering about this today then there would be nothing done about it. Governments would hand wring, morons would be calling the science into question, misinformation campaigns would be run, rednecks would be against it just to spite environmentalists. Etc etc.

Some people are naturally more patient than others. Genetic, upbringing, I don't know, but there are differences, I don't think you can say its just respect.

If I live near a library with a fireplace then I'll be safe right?

Since these currents are generally caused by temperature differentials across vast scales, I doubt we would be able to control them in the way you describe.

Certainly not within our lifetimes.

Is this a legitimate concern or not?

I remember watching a documentary about this, probably 20 years ago, and haven't really paid attention since.

You're swimming against the current if you mention Hydrogen will be used as fuel on this subreddit.

A study this year estimated that 1.1 million birds (ish) are killed by wind turbines in the USA each year.

Might sound like a lot until you consider that a 2014 study estimated that as many as 1 billion birds die from hitting windows each year in the USA. (Think the range was between 20 million and 1 billion)

But even if its 20 million, its still way more than windfarms. I've yet to see the campaign to remove glass from peoples homes.