Hydrogen for fuel cell cars from hydrogen peroxide?

There is a group of Israeli scientists who claim to have discovered a new way to get hydrogen for fuel cell cars.  It is from hydrogen peroxide.

Quote:

“Beyond the scientific breakthrough, we have shown that the photo-electrochemical reaction mechanism belongs to a family of chemical reactions for which Prof. Gerhard Ertl was awarded with a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, about a decade ago. Our discovery opens new strategies for photochemical processes,” Yochelis is quoted as saying.

My take:  Someone seems to be following the work of a Nobel Prize winner, but that doesn't mean that this is Nobel Prize winning work.  How do you get hydrogen peroxide?  Does the process make that, or do you obtain it from some other source?

The current method is described in Wikipedia thusly.  If this new process produces it more cheaply, then the next step is to obtain hydrogen from the hydrogen peroxide.  Hydrogen peroxide will break down naturally into water and oxygen.  We don't need the oxygen, though.  We need hydrogen.

The trick is to get the hydrogen into the water molecule, which produces the peroxide.  This process must make hydrogen peroxide in a new way.  Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to me yet.  Or, it may split the hydrogen from the hydrogen peroxide in a new way, which cannot be done easily just yet.

Hydrogen peroxide is useful as rocket fuel, but I am not sure that oxygen alone will oxidize it.

The other part of this claim is that it doesn't use as much power, so sunlight or windpower can drive the process.  We'll have to see about that.

If it all works as claimed, I am all for it.

BFR's potential

There was an article on NextBigFuture,  mentioned courtesy of Free Republic, which was about the BFR's development cost.  It is estimated to be anywhere from $2 billion to $10 billion.
Given the great potential of this rocket, it would be of the utmost national importance for the government to grant enough business to SpaceX so that they can have the necessary funds to develop the rocket.

You could do this with a moonbase project. It was estimated by NASA to be a project that was doable under the current NASA funding scheme.  The actual numbers ran out to about half of the Apollo project.

If a moonbase was turned into a commitment, such as with Apollo, it could be done in ten years at a price that should be even less than the NASA number.  Of course, SpaceX would have to win a competitive bidding war.  But it should be done as a national priority.

The government is not likely to do this however, as funding tends to get spread out over a number of states.  This doesn't work well with one company getting the lion's share of the business.

What purpose would a moonbase serve?  It could process lunar regolith into fuel.  The fuel could be used for deep space missions.

The most likely fuel from the moon would be oxygen.  Oxygen is not a fuel, but is a reaction mass.  For all intents and purposes, it is the same thing.

For the raptor engine, which uses methane, oxygen would be close to 80% of the reaction mass.  In such a scenario, it would be profitable for the BFR to land on the moonbase, load the oxygen, and transport it to a refueling depot at the L1 Lagrange point.

The advantage of using these points is that it takes less energy to get to the Lagrange point than to the moon itself.  Morever, the big rocket could be mostly fueled up for a trip outbound to Mars and other destinations.  One big rocket can service the Lagrange point, and provide extra for more ambitious missions.

Almost all of a rocket's launch mass is fuel and oxygen, so if you can get it elsewhere as opposed to the Earth, you can vastly improve access to the Moon and points beyond.

Cosmic rays aren't rays

At least it is not a ray in the sense that I understand rays.  I would define a ray as a high velocity particle with no mass.  A cosmic ray is a high velocity particle with mass.  But not always with mass.  Capiche?  Or no?

A cosmic ray may not have mass if you include neutrinos.  These are particles with no mass.  But the totality of all cosmic rays will indeed have mass.  If that isn't confusing enough...

A ray is like the ray of the sun.  It is electromagnetic energy.   But so does cosmic rays in a sense.  But what makes it different is the mass.  Light is said to be composed of "photons".  Photons have no mass.  Gamma rays, X-ray, UV light, and visible light all have photons, which have no mass.

Photons are a different thing than neutrinos.  Neutrinos are harder to stop than photons.  But both have no mass.

Electrons have mass, but are they rays?  Electrons convey electricity, and can be made to go pretty fast.  But they are still particles.  It is often referred to as an "electron beam".  A beam is like a ray, but it is still a particle, that is if electrons are what's in the beam.  Can there be such a thing as a particle beam?  It is commonly referred to as such.  Your TVs use cathode ray tubes, which utilize electron beams in such a way that it can be used to view images on a screen.  Perhaps cosmic rays can be said to be high energy particle beams from outer space.  But don't try to watch TV with cosmic rays.  It might be hazardous to your health.

This may all seem rather pedantic, but the proper use of words can be made to clarify what is misunderstood.  In terms of cosmic rays, if the term "cosmic particles" were used instead, it may help people to understand that these are not rays.  It is not like an X-ray or gamma ray.

However, cosmic particles can have an electric charge, because they are mostly ions.  Cosmic particles are often atomic nuclei, which means they have a positive charge.  Because they move at nearly light speed, they can cause damage to the nuclei with which they come into contact.   "Atom smashers" may create the same kind of high energy collisions that occur naturally in the atmosphere.  Human beings can only emulate nature after all.

The big atom smashers are used to break down protons into its constituent parts.  It may also be a component of cosmic rays when it happens naturally in exploding stars, aka supernovas.  Supernovas are said to be a source of "cosmic rays".

Cosmic particles ( or rays ) cause carbon to become radioactive.  The particles strike the atmosphere, thus creating the carbon 14.  Carbon 14 decays into nitrogen, which is stable.  The mechanism of the creation of carbon 14 is not clear to me, but it is interesting that carbon 12 combined with an deuteron ( hydrogen plus a neutron) can create carbon 14.  Is carbon 14 a result of fusion then?  Nothing I see in the stuff I have read indicates such.  But is merely a speculation.   But it is generally believed that cosmic particles cause carbon 14 to be formed.

So what do we call them?  I will call them cosmic particle beams.  What do you think?

Making gasoline out of goat piss

That was a line from the Blues Brothers flick.  It was probably meant as a joke, but you can really do that if you have enough energy.

However, these people say that you can make gasoline out of water.  Sure.  You can also make ammonia out of water and air.

Ammonia is combustible as well, and can be transported as a hydrogen fuel carrier for hydrogen fuel cells.

At any rate, the energy input is nuclear, and here's another approach to nuclear in this article.

Solving a problem that isn't a problem

If you solve the alleged carbon problem with a solution that leaves you better off financially, then you can bypass the argument against AGW.

The argument is fruitless.  The truth of the matter is that the AGW crowd could care less about global warming.   But we can "solve" the problem this way and be better off.  Funny how they oppose a solution that would work for their so-called problem , and the solution would actually improve upon the current situation whether or not there was AGW.

UN IPCC opposes stopping global warming using nuclear power, ignoring facts such as ...

Nuclear is the safest way to make... https://t.co/sRkZFcsbRj

— Thorcon Power (@ThorconPower) October 26, 2018

Some objections to nuclear power, and the answer to those

It has long been my opinion that the anti-nuclear people are doing a disservice to mankind.

But this is an opinion of an amateur.  I am not a nuclear physicist type, so I cannot explain myself scientifically in all its detail.  However, what I have learned about it as an observer does not dissuade me in the least with respect to its potential as a solution to a lot of problems.

The number one objection is that bombs can be made from fissionable materials.  That objection is handled if you use Thorium.  It stands to reason that it is true, because if it were not, somebody would have done it by now.  In fact, someone already has.  The USA made a bomb out of the stuff, and it was a dud, for the most part.

Look, there is no need to downplay this risk.  It is going to be a risk that somebody is going to try to make bombs with these things.  Yes, it can be done, but it is not easy.  If it were easy, it would have been done already as mentioned.  Therefore, you know the risk is small.  But the risk is not zero.

This leads you to having to do a risk-reward analysis.  Is the risk worth the reward?  At present, the world seems to be saying "no".  However, at some point, the people out there are going to have to reconsider.  If you have a lot of distress coming from a lack of energy resources versus the risk of somebody making a bomb out of this stuff, I think the reward is going to start looking good at some point.  That point does not yet exist.  But it will.

The risk is small and manageable.  There is also the risk in pursuing the current strategy of so-called renewables, which will never work.  There is no workable way for that path, and eventually that must lead you back to nuclear.

If you decide that you can accept that risk,  you are still not finished.  There is the risk of radiation.  However, that is another one of these risks that you can manage.  You will also have to decide if it is worth the risk.  In my opinion, the risk is even less than with a bomb, and even more manageable.

For instance, with conventional reactor technology, you have a lot of waste.  Most of that is unused uranium.  Therefore, you haven't created new radiation hazards.  It is still the same stuff as before.  There are some other wastes that are produced as well, and one of those is fissionable plutonium.  However, as mentioned above, fissionable plutonium is not an issue with Thorium.

If you use Thorium, you will a decay chain that doesn't include fissionable materials.  It is as simple as that.  The only way you make a bomb with this stuff is with the uranium that you breed from Thorium.  That stuff isn't practical for a bomb, as discussed above.

 With molten-salt reactor technology combined with Thorium, you will consume all of the uranium, and you are left with much less waste.  Even less radioactive stuff than what you started with.

What about the waste that is left?  It is about 1% of what you started with.  Seems like a good deal to me.  You get all that energy, with hardly no waste.  The waste that is left is not zero, however, so you have to manage it.

It is not an impossible problem.  There are ideas out there to encase it in glass, and store it for about 300 years.  That sounds like a long time, but if you put it in a place where it cannot be disturbed, nobody will be the wiser.

Another idea is to encase it in concrete.  Concrete will last MILLIONS of years.  We know that from the limestone that prehistoric creatures made.  Concrete is no different than limestone, it is simply manmade.

What can go wrong?  Well, what if it leaks?  Not likely.  Even if it does, so what?  Just put it where nobody goes anyway.  The bottom of the ocean is a possibility.  In a deep mine shaft is another.  The Earth is a big place.  You can put it somewhere where it is a long way from anybody, and nobody is going to go there.   If they go there, they may get sick and die.  Yeah, and if they go into an erupting volcano, they will die too.  People don't act like that.

What if it gets out in the environment?  Again, so what?  Radiation is everywhere, and there is less of this stuff than what you already had anyway.  Provided that you seal it well enough, it isn't going anywhere.  Three hundred years in some remote place, and it is then harmless.  That is not that big of a risk.  In fact, I'd say the risk is near zero.  However, it is not zero.

Back to your cost benefit analysis.  If you look at the "risk" and the rewards, this will look good.  However, that isn't the way people think today.  But as mentioned, someday it will look a lot better.

Is there any way you can end up with more radiation?  Not likely.  In fact, that may actually be impossible.  I am not well versed enough on the subject to answer that definitively.

Of the ways to make things radioactive, there are two that I know of.  One is with neutron bombardment.  The waste left over may emit some neutrons, I am not sure.  However, it is unlikely that it does.  If it did, it could still be used to breed more uranium from the Thorium.  Stands to reason that the free neutrons are all used up.  The neutrons were all used up in breeding uranium from the Thorium.

The other way to make stuff radioactive is from pions.  If the process produces any of those, it is miniscule.  Therefore, even if any of that is produced, there won't be enough of it to matter.

In my opinion, the risk of making more radiation is for all intents and purposes, nonexistent.  The reverse is actually true.  You end up with less radiation than if you did nothing.  In three hundred years, you end up with nearly zero.  You cannot say that with the Thorium that you started with.  It has a half life of billions of years.  It will be radioactive forever.  Get rid of Thorium, and get energy out of it.   How can you lose?  If somebody did something that took tremendous effort and at great risk to themselves in order to cause harm?  This is unlikely, but even so, it is manageable.

In summary, even those there are risks, they are manageable.  The rewards greatly exceed any risks.  Even if the worst happened, it wouldn't not end the world.  The world will get by regardless of whether this is done or not.  The greater risk is to do nothing.  Doing nothing will result in greater distress than even the worst case scenario for the nuclear option.

An idea for an carbon neutral car

This is a compromise of sorts for the greenie types.  They want a carbon-free car,
not just a carbon-neutral car.  Perhaps they would settle for this.  Lots of luck
with that.

Anyway, the idea is to use molten-salt reactors of the type that Thorcon is going
to make.  This should be scalable, so that many reactors could be made, thus
lowering the cost.  Not to mention, it is a much cheaper nuclear reactor than the
solid-fueled water-cooled conventional reactors.

You could even run it on waste from nuclear power plants, which would kill two
birds with one stone.  Maybe the PETA people would object to killing birds.

There was already an idea discussed in a video I once posted somewhere, which
proposed to use molten-salt reactors to make jet fuel.

It so happens that seawater has 100 times more carbon dioxide in it than the
atmosphere.  There may be enough to make this economically feasible, provided
that the costs can kept as low as possible.

The idea is nuclear methanol.  The idea of using nuclear power to make methanol was
discussed on my blogs as well.  This was a Japanese study , however the
price for methanol thus produced may be a bit higher than market prices.  Of
course, molten-salt reactor technology should be cheaper, and mass production
of Thorcon reactors cheaper still.

Of course, if you just use hydrogen, it may be better.  Why?  Hydrogen is the
best for rockets because it burns hotter.  The same principle could be applied
to Stirling engines.  That is to say, the hotter the Stirling, gets the more
efficient it is.   Make the engine small and compact.

In order to obtain the hydrogen, we can make ammonia instead of methanol.  Ship
the ammonia to the point of sale, and crack it to make hydrogen.  There would
be no carbon at all.  Maybe that would make the greenies happy after all.

Provided that nuclear hurdle can be surpassed, which may be possible, the second
part of the system involves Stirling-electric hybrids.  Stirling engines have
some setbacks as an automotive power plant, but if they are small, then they
should work in cars.  In addition to making them about 25 kilowatts or so, the
batteries can be smaller as well.

The batteries add to the weight of the car, so they should be minimized.  You
could use ultracapacitors for quick bursts of power as well.  The ultracapacitors
will last the lifetime of the car, most likely.  Batteries have to be replaced
often, and those aren't cheap.

You don't need large powerful engines.  A car can cruise down the highway on
25 kilowatts of power from a Stirling electric engine.  A little more power
for passing and going up hills can come from the batteries and the capacitors.
One problem for Stirling electric is that they need to warm up.  The warm up
period can be electric only.

Perhaps this idea would a lot like the existing hybrids of today.  However, no
existing hybrid that I know of uses Stirling engines.  They still use internal
combustion engines, which aren't as efficient as Stirling engines.  So, the
higher priced fuel can be partially offset by increased efficiency.

So there you have it.  If the economics can be made to work, then the car concept
could be marketable.  The economics of cheaper energy from molten-salt reactors
and efficiency of Stirling electric engines may make this idea economically feasible.

Tesla

One thing that I wish I could be is a guy like Elon Musk, and have the name and the money in order to put my version of an electric car on the road.

If I could, it wouldn't be a battery powered machine like his.  It would be a fuel cell car.

However, there's a good reason why fuel cells won't work.  The reason is because of the fuel problem.

The criticism against fuel cells that you hear out there is that there's no infrastructure.  No, infrastructure is not the problem.  You can transport hydrogen via ammonia.  Ammonia already has an infrastructure, so you can use that infrastructure to move the hydrogen around.

Another criticism you hear is the cost of the fuel cells themselves.  But that is not the problem either.  There is somebody who has already made fuel cell cars, and says you can make fuel cells comparably priced with respect to internal combustion engines.

I think the problem is that fuel cells make no sense unless the energy is supplied by nuclear power.  Nuclear power is out of favor, so that leaves fuel cells in the cold.

Using carbon based fuels for fuel cells is inefficient.  Most of the energy from fossil fuels is from oxidizing carbon.  If you take away the carbon, you lose a lot of the energy.  That means the cost of the energy must be higher in order to offset this loss.  Economically, it won't make sense.  However, nuclear power can be cheaper than coal, but is being regulated out of existence.

Nuclear power need not be out of favor.  But that is the way things are right now.  If that can be changed, then electric cars can succeed.  Tesla is not likely to succeed, so I have seen.

I could have said I told you so, but I didn't say I told you, so I can't say that.  But I suspected it, for whatever that is worth.

Aldrin Cycler

Second man on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, conceived this concept.

The advantage is that it uses much less fuel.  Perhaps one disadvantage that I see is that you must stay on Mars for a very long time.  It might take five years or more to go through the cycle so that a crew can make a return journey home to Earth.

Obviously, I still don't understand this concept completely.  However, I think this is a valid concern, because there is no way it can be less than two synodic periods.  This means at least five years, and probably more.

Five years is a very long time.

German Environmentalists Will Rally For Nuclear!

Wonder how many of these folks are around?  Enough to make a difference?

German Environmentalists Will Rally For Nuclear!
Is this the tipping point of the failing anti-nuclear... https://t.co/TkFBBz8NDL

— Thorcon Power (@ThorconPower) October 15, 2018

First Man: Trivializing the lunar landing

The movie is said to not be doing well at the box office.  Here is a review that might explain why.

First Man: Trivializing the lunar landing https://t.co/iXkSvx3U5w

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 20, 2018

9.25.18: Off-grid notes ( altimeter )

9:25.18:

----A close inspection of the boundary waypoints shows that -the east-west line
between the north 20 and the south 20 -- runs in a slightly north-south direction.
Distance is between 50 and 100 feet.  The west side is more northern than the
south.

----The thought occurred to me that animals can crawl underneath the trailer or
cabin.  Need to prevent that.  Don't want animals making a home underneath mine.

----Have considered laying a slab out there to combat this, but it is way too
impractical.  May seem otherwise to the professional who suggested this, but
I am the one who has to build this thing.  Therefore, this idea is out.  I
I would really like to make this a final decision on this item.

----An idea came to me to pull the trailer there with incinerating toilet, and then
integrating the trailer into a cabin.  A cabin would be 8x24', with the last
8 feet as a bathroom.  Since the trailer is only five feet wide, it will have
to be widened to line up with the rest of the structure.

----Subdivision idea could work, since other people are selling lots less than
20 acres in size out there.  I think five acres is the limit, but I don't think
I will go down that small.

----Got an idea to do my own research on typography.    (it's topography) Also, on the potential of
a water well.

Update ( 9.27.18) :

Topography links

8 in 1 Black Backlight Multifunction Digital Altimeter Barometer Compass Weather Forecast For Outdoor Hiking - Walmart.com

Watch "Find the Topography of Any Property in the World" on YouTube

Update ( 9.30.18):

Altimeter not in stock!  I might be ordering one once they are back in stock.


Update ( 10.5.18):

Now in stock and order is on the way.

Update ( 10.14.18):

It has arrived.  Actually, I have had it for several days.  It is like a new toy, which I have had some time to play with.  It will be useful in determining the highest point on the property.  More than likely, it won't make that much difference, because the land is pretty flat.  However, you cannot
go by the topographical maps, nor the Garmin, which depends upon topographical maps.

It will also be useful for weather forecasting, as it is sensitive to changes in barometric pressure.

Roof leaks

There is a significant problem that needs to be addressed.  This trailer is leaking when it rains.  Now that is definitely a problem.

Given how slow I seem to move these days, getting this addressed is going to take more time than I would prefer.

What is really needed is a roof over the top of this thing.  Yesterday, I spent some time studying the problem, and I think a solution can be had for a reasonable price.  Trouble is, I will have to do this myself.

More than likely, I could get help.  But if I am going to do such things out there away from it all, I am going to have to start handling these things myself.

Right now, I am figuring on doing the most immediate thing, which is to plug the most obvious leak.  After that, I can start working on the roof.  Reason being, by the time the roof gets on top of this trailer, it will have rained again.  Things are so bad that another invasion of water would be a disaster.  I cannot afford to have that happen.

Update from 10.11.18 post:

10.13.18:

I've managed some repairs, but the roof is still a matter of study.

Reviewing my April 2015 trip

Seems like the umpteenth time that I have done this.

One thing that stands out is the lost time in looking for misplaced items.  It is the same thing while I have been in this trailer for the last couple years.

Could this be a matter of shortage of space?  Seems like that is what the two experiences had in common, although this trailer is a lot bigger than the van.

Another thing that stands out is the lack of endurance.  I get tired too easily.  This was true out there as well.  It may be well to remember not to push too hard.  Especially at first, when I am not used to it.

Progress was mighty slow and tortuous.  For something that I thought I could get up in a day or two took almost two weeks.  For something that seemed easy in principle, it was surprisingly difficult in practice.

Finally, I hope that what I saw was not discouragement.  There is a lot of information available for learning and thought.  I think I am going to be able to get the most that I can get out of it.

Volume I links ( off grid project )

The original blog is friggin' huge with so many posts.  Now that I have spun off the off-grid posts into the second blog, I can ease that transition with a set of links that I want to review from time-to-time.

Here they are:

With respect to the trip in April 2015:

What worked and what didn't

Summary of the trip out West

With respect to the early parts of this project

Table of Contents for Volume I

Water subseries

Power subseries

General subseries

Construction subseries

General all around helpful to have handy:

Sierra Blanca blog

Finally, the How to category can be accessed on the other blog in order to find anything not here.

Update 10.9.18:

For review purposes, there is a video series of when I was out on property.  This began on about 4.6.15, and concluded about 12 days later.

These are linked together, so that they can be watched in sequence.

The Space Show: Space nuclear power

In my opinion, that is the way to go.  Especially on the moon, where it is dark two weeks at a time.

Dr. Chris Morrison, space nuclear power - a new look!, 7PM PDT, 10 PM EDT, Listen @ https://t.co/kY8igW2Yy5; Call Chris @ 1 866 687-7223. #fb #in.

— Dr. David Livingston (@SpaceShow) October 2, 2018

Japanese Rovers are Now on the Surface of an Asteroid

Japanese Rovers are Now on the Surface of an Asteroid, Sending Back Amazing Pictures https://t.co/QV1WhAzDb0 via @universetoday

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 4, 2018

Can't find a video

Update 10.5.18:

I found the videos that were missing.  These will be good in helping me recollect
what's out there.  It has been over 2 1/2 years since my last visit.

There was one video of significance that will help me locate a new spot for
the cabin, or to park the trailer.  This video was the one I wanted to find the
most.

There were others of interest for historical purposes.  The one in which I rode
on "Blueberry Hill" for the first time was of poor quality, but it did remind me
of how little I knew of the area.

"Blueberry Hill" is easily visible from the shack location, and I have a video
that shows where I drove down the hill on the way back to my place.  So, there
was no way I was even close to being lost, but at the time, I really didn't know
where I was.

The way I found these videos is a bit puzzling.  It is puzzling because they were
never lost.  The video was on the phone that I use now, but for some reason, the
phone won't let me access it.  So, I took out the little micro-usb card, and plugged
it into this computer, and bingo.  The phone probably needs to be set so as to
access the videos.  Kind of a dumb set up, if you ask me.

Anyway, I think these videos will be helpful going forward.  I am glad I found
them.



the original post on 9.24.18 follows:

The better part of this morning has consisted of a futile search for a video that I made in 2015.

It was about the area I am considering placing a cabin or trailer on.  There was a clear pathway to a yucca tree close to the northern 20 boundary.

I put the pic up in an earlier post, but this was a video showing it.

There are some other videos missing.  Don't have a clue of their whereabouts.

It could have been incorporated as part of a sales presentation for the land.  That idea may have taken a dump.   Not the sales idea, but the video.

Terrestrial Energy: "power for clean low-cost hydrogen production"

Of course.

Simon Irish, CEO of @TerrestrialMSR says #IMSR can provide power for clean low-cost hydrogen production, as well as many other applications. Speaking at Advancing Nuclear Energy session at #PBNC2018 @ANS_org pic.twitter.com/V1O9OovhKh

— Terrestrial Energy (@TerrestrialMSR) October 2, 2018

Germany and California bet against nuclear, and lost

Renewables aren't as clean as they are cracked up to be.

Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power https://t.co/0Z3LrzB5Qe

— Thorcon Power (@ThorconPower) September 12, 2018

Sabre powered rocket planes

The BFR rocket has a potential competitor.  The more the merrier...

SABRE engines could allow #aircraft to fly much faster than traditional jet engines for various applications.
Find out more: https://t.co/5xEe2jmPWx#engine #propulsion #space #aerospace #jet #rocket #flying #plane pic.twitter.com/HNi1Fo2iV7

— Reaction Engines Ltd (@ReactionEngines) September 27, 2018

Focus Fusion for Space

Fusion rocket engines have an ISP of about a million.  That compares to the low hundreds for fossil fuel rockets.  Interplanetary space travel becomes economical.

Can #fusion take us to #space further, faster and cheaper?https://t.co/gqUxHILvab https://t.co/gqUxHILvab

— Focus Fusion Society (@focusfusion) September 18, 2018

The creation of anti-matter may make interstellar space travel possible.

Can #fusion produce the necessary energy to reduce the costs of anti-matter fuel production even further and make us a truly #space-faring civilization? https://t.co/OV1I4CioXU https://t.co/OV1I4CioXU

— Focus Fusion Society (@focusfusion) August 5, 2018

Elon Musk: Mars Base Alpha

If the future isn't now, it may be coming soon to a planet "near" you.

Mars Base Alpha pic.twitter.com/O1llQp8rFY

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 21, 2018

pic.twitter.com/Fn0hKJd3uJ

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 21, 2018

Johnny Cab.  Hope you enjoy the ride!

Thorcon Power: We are not defenseless against radiation and it takes an awful lot of it to harm us.

It’s why we never saw the thousands of deaths predicted from Chernobyl and why all... https://t.co/D9Yqtu1oqI

— Thorcon Power (@ThorconPower) September 30, 2018