New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | February 3, 2006

Ronald Bailey explains how mutant grass could keep your gas tank liquored up.

Comments

|2.3.06 @ 9:43AM|#

Damn you, Ron, you just gave away my plan to take over the world! Mua ha ha... oh, wait...

Seriously, work IS being done on non-food energy crops, including some futzing around by yours truly (OK, as a side project to something else - but, hey, if you can do that "something else", AND get energy to boot, who's there to complain? Radical environmentalists, perhaps?).

CB

|2.3.06 @ 10:21AM|#

Far be it for me to throw a bone to Dave W., but is there any truth to the statement that biofuels derived from sugar cane contain more energy than fuels derived from corn?

Also, what about processes like Thermal Depolymerization that break down biowaste into actual oil?

|2.3.06 @ 10:29AM|#

Build more nukes.

|2.3.06 @ 10:41AM|#

You mean, nuclear weapons?

|2.3.06 @ 11:05AM|#

"And there is great side benefit for culture war spectators: They can pull up a ringside seat and watch as the global warming faction of the environmentalist movement thrashes the anti-biotechnology wing."

Can someone just make sure we have enough beer? I don't want to miss this show.

|2.3.06 @ 11:32AM|#

Biotech and/or nanotech have great potential in this regard. Design extremely efficient energy collectors (biological or otherwise) that are equally efficient in coverting energy into electricity, and we'll all be happy. Well, all of us except for the extreme lefties and righties who don't like us fooling with Mother Nature.

I still think fusion is the panacea, but it's going to take a while. And there's no reason not to exploit other energy opportunities. Like I said yesterday, there are advantages to a diversified energy infrastructure. One thing that impresses me about what Brazil is doing is that if oil gets cranky, then they can rachet up ethanol production. If they have a bad sugar crop, then they go with more oil. That's one reason electric cars make sense in the long run--we can generate electricity in fifty different ways, but the cars will run the same whatever the ultimate source for the electricity may be. Of course, purely electric cars aren't really ready for prime time (and there'll need to be a huge change in our energy-delivery infrastructure, too, which won't be cheap).

|2.3.06 @ 11:34AM|#

Ron, good article. however, two complaints:

1. I can't view the Science article

2. I take some issue with the second sentence of this assertion:

One can even imagine that biofuels could become cheaper than fossil fuels. If that's the case, the industry will not need any federal subsidies to take off.

considering the fossil fuels industry's established infrastructure, economies of scale, well-researched, well-understood system, not to mention THEIR government subsidies, I strongly suspect that subsidies, at least in the form of government grants to research institutions to develop the protocols to energy- and economically- produce the biofuels will be initially necessary. Once private investors are convinced of the feasibility of biofuels, the competing system of using biofuels will likely take off. Why should we not let this happen in a natural, market driven manner? Because the market may operate too slowly, if the global warming people are right. I know you and many posters here consider that a really big if.

thoreau:

are you any good with hydrogen fuel cells? I've got a good idea for generating hydrogen without using fossil fuels.

|2.3.06 @ 11:38AM|#

PL-

The best alternative to 100% electric cars is probably the plug-in hybrid. Use as much electricity as possible when electricity is most economical. Use oil for the rest (or most) when that's most economical. Use ethanol (from sugar, cellulose, or whatever) when that's most economical. A diversified approach is the safest approach.

biologist-

I know very little about fuel cells. But what's your idea for making hydrogen?

|2.3.06 @ 11:44AM|#

presumably, hybrid cars (which have gasoline engines) could have their carburetors/ fuel injection systems recalibrated to take ethanol.

thoreau:

sorry, I'm keeping it to myself, for when I have time to develop the idea, so I (and my collaborators/ investors) can keep the patent.

|2.3.06 @ 11:52AM|#

Works for me, thoreau. I suppose the way this will work (barring Mr. Fusions for each car or some sort of radical fuel cell breakthrough), is that hybrids will become more efficient and economical, and, as a result, will become increasingly widespread. As they become more common, gas stations will begin supplying some sort of fast rechargers along with gas (though perhaps electrical suppliers will be separated from gas suppliers to avoid Earth-shattering kabooms). If we get to the point where gas-powered or hybrid vehicles are dramatically inferior (in performance, cost, whatever) to the pure electric ones, then we'll see the final move to a purely electric infrastructure. Turn over the controls to computers, add wings, and it'll finally be "The Future" we've been waiting for :)

I'm curious about fuel cells, too. A few years ago, I thought fuel cells (especially for home use) might be the wave of the future. I remember Plug Power being a possible contender in the marketplace (either owned or supported by GE, as I recall).

johnl|2.3.06 @ 11:57AM|#

Biologist - Hydrogen generation attracts a lot of wishful thinking and people who run through the same bad ideas again and again. Check my collection before trying to raise funds.

|2.3.06 @ 12:28PM|#

Johnl, Consider your blog bookmarked.

Question:

Have you had a chance to take a look at Switch 2 Hydrogen

If so, what are your thoughts?

|2.3.06 @ 1:19PM|#

johnl, mediageek:

thanks for the urls

johnl, thanks for the warning. I did a google site search on your site, and all of the sites you linked to under "Fantasies". an indispensable keyword of my idea was nowhere to be found.

when I am awarded the Nobel, you are all invited to the ceremony. :)

johnl|2.3.06 @ 1:20PM|#

Media, those guys are not as out there as most of my guys but I have to disagree with
"""
Our system comes with its own "in-home" Hydrogen generator which allows you to manufacture fuel yourself at near zero cost.
"""
Look at the DOE Kids page energy calculator.
http://tinyurl.com/7swpb

1 gallon of gasoline is about 130 mJ, or about 36 kWh. Dividing that into the price of gasoline, you see it delivers chemical potential to the engine at about 7.5 cents per kWh. Is gasoline "near zero cost"? Take whatever you pay for a kWh of electricity, divide it by the efficiency of their hydrogen generation process, and then you get their "near zero cost" point. I bet it's higher than 7.5 cents per kWh.

|2.3.06 @ 1:25PM|#

when I am awarded the Nobel, you are all invited to the ceremony.

Just two questions: Are you buying the beer? Will someone TiVo the "global warming v anti-biotech" cage match in the event of a scheduling conflict?

|2.3.06 @ 1:30PM|#

yes, I'll buy the ethanol-containing consumables, since we won't need to burn the ethanol, we can just drink it.

my dates for the evening will include: Stephanie Swift, Amanda Bynes, and Jennifer Connelly

|2.3.06 @ 1:42PM|#

biologist-

Will this be a dissertation topic for you? Or will you just skip that and do a start-up?

|2.3.06 @ 1:45PM|#

It's also an answer to peak oilers who claim that the world is about to run out of fossil fuels.

Here we go again.... Peak oilers don't claim this--I'm sure you know that.

|2.3.06 @ 1:58PM|#

Biologist - it has nothing to do with certain fern and its symbionts? Just wondering...

kgsam|2.3.06 @ 2:49PM|#

In any event, doomsayers miss the point.
It's not hydrocarbons we need for heating, transport, etc. It's the energy.

When we were staying at the Yosemite Lodge, there was a printed notice about economizing on "priceless" energy. Did yall know that energy had no price?

|2.3.06 @ 4:04PM|#

thoreau:

when I finish my master's, I'm hoping to have time to do the start up before going off to a PhD. the idea has nothing to do with the area of research I'm interested in, but I wouldn't mind making money and helping to reduce carbon dioxide emissions while I'm at it.

cynical bastard:

no, nothing to do with mosquito fern (I'm guessing that's the fern you're obliquely referring to - hope I didn't give away your own plans for a start up) :)

|2.3.06 @ 4:15PM|#

Not to threadjack, but I see the webmaster is a Futurama fan. Go Bender!

|2.3.06 @ 4:18PM|#

biologist-

If you ever want to bounce ideas off of a physicist, let me know. I may not be a fuel cell expert, but it sounds like you just want to focus on hydrogen production rather than fuel cell manufacturing. You have my email address.

|2.3.06 @ 4:50PM|#

but I wouldn't mind making money and helping to reduce carbon dioxide emissions while I'm at it.

Please avoid destroying the ozone layer while you are at it.

|2.3.06 @ 5:00PM|#

But, MikeP, breaking stuff and making a big mess is half the fun of doing science! :)

|2.3.06 @ 5:05PM|#

Christ, everything us humans do is gonna fuck something up. So what? Go back to living in caves? Well, we'd still pollute our environment with human waste and burning stuff. I would hazard to guess that if we went back to living in caves (metaphorically and literally, natch), we'd probably fuck up our environment even more than we do now.

Of course, as someone pointed out recently, a huge number of people would also die, but who cares? Mother Earth is more important than all those people who'll die, right? Afterall, I won't die, because I love Mother Earth and she'll spare me.

*rolls eyes*

|2.3.06 @ 5:08PM|#

Biologist,

Make sure you invite crown princess Mary of Denmark

|2.3.06 @ 5:15PM|#

MikeP: if I screw up the ozone layer, then someone else can use their idea and market forces to solve the problem, win the Nobel, and make a shitload of cash. or, I'll do it and become richer and more powerful! then I'll take over the world!

HRH Princess Mary will be another of my dates, thanks for reminding me, guy in the back row.

Lowdog:

that went over my head.

|2.3.06 @ 5:27PM|#

johnl: 7.5 cents per kwh of POTENTIAL energy. But remember that electric motors use electricity more efficiently than internal combustion engines use gasoline. It's the energy density of gasoline that makes it attractive, not its efficiency.

The biggest and best advance of ethanol policy in the short term would be to import ethanol made from cane sugar. Brazilian ethanol is much cheaper than that from Iowa and if we ever manage to get our Cuba policy out from under the vengeful expatriates in Florida (do they really think the islanders will be grateful for their cruelty when this is all over?) we would have an even cheaper supply. But Big Sugar and Big Corn are conspiring against us...

|2.3.06 @ 5:32PM|#

biologist - I'm just saying "go for it"! (And taking a cheap shot at some environmentalists attitudes.)

If we worry about every little thing, we'd never do anything at all.

A rather callous opinion, maybe, but I am fairly optimistic that it'll work out in the end.

If not, I probably won't be around to see it, anyway, unless we get that gene therapy shit going strong, pronto.

johnl|2.3.06 @ 5:39PM|#

Biologist - I hope the word is not resonance. Good luck.

James - The system we were looking at was proposed as a retrofit kit for an ICE. And fuel cells are a couple orders of magnitude more expensive than ICEs. Anyway, go ahead, divide everything out by your assumed efficencies and then report back on the comparison.

|2.3.06 @ 5:44PM|#

johnl, the word is not resonance

|2.3.06 @ 6:00PM|#

Christ, everything us humans do is gonna fuck something up. So what?

There are frying pans and there are fires.

I was being mildly flippant. But if the reason for changing the way people do something is that the current way is harmful, the new way should not be more harmful.

The panaceas that many people -- especially governments -- see in a hydrogen economy are sure to blind them to the new damages before they force the complete infrastructural conversion that they insist must precede adoption.

Of course if the conversion is market-driven, then there will be more time to see the gradual damage and perhaps fix it. And the prior technologies will still be there if needed, having not been eliminated by government edict or tax.

|2.3.06 @ 9:28PM|#

Before I dozed off, I recalled hearing W. mention "switchgrass."
I commented to the Little Woman that I hoped he was referring to hemp. (He has that cute way of nicknaming persons and things, eh?)

Off topic, but did anybody here ever smoke "rabbit tobacco"?
Does it grow in the southern Ohio area?
Somebody once informed me it is lavender.
That may be, but lavender stems don't draw well, so I remain doubtful.

|2.3.06 @ 9:38PM|#

SOTU's modest proposal for an ethanol led energy revolution does not sit lightly on the American landscape. In fact it may not
fit within America's borders at all. Like all calls for an enthusiastic transition to biofuels,it betrays the failure to do the requisite dimensional analysis that plagues advocates of wholesale solar power-do the math ,and you can see why.

The fuels needs of America are well defined, as is the biofuel production potential of its most productive farmlands-high yield corn is a mature example of what modern biotech can do when it gets to build on thousands of years of selective plant breeding. Yet even well watered and amply fertilized land, producing corn tall as an elephant's eye yields less than half a gallon of ethanol a day per acre, and the US consumes roughly 320 million gallons of gasoline daily. Ethanol production likewise represents a mature high technology already pushing productivity's theoretical envelope -in 1998 I visited a Russian ethanol plant that was using souped up versions of jet engine turbopumps to minutely mill its fermentation feedstock.

It would therefore take roughly 640,000,000 extra acres, or one million square miles of cornfields to supply ethanol enough to fuel the
nation's cars. Not to mention the expanded fleets of tractors and combines a national biofuel strategy would need-farming extra millions of square miles entails trillions of miles of low gas mileage driving.

Alternative crops are still hypothetical despite decades of discussion by the Greens. Converting the nations entire productive acreage of wheat, soy, and other major crops to alcohol production might not wholly satisfy
transportation fuel demand, but an attempt to do so by central planners would gravely disrupt the domestic farm economy, and by
collapsing export farming acreage, risk famine abroad.

But what really worries me is Ron's continuing reluctance to predicate his essays on dimensional analysis. Unless he learns to operate his calculator to bettereffect before he turns to his keyboard, he may produce another classic like "Ecoscam; Global Warming and other Eco-myths ." and compound the fuel problem by driving his fans to drink their next day's gas ration.

|2.3.06 @ 11:12PM|#

Russell, let's turn the entire world into one giant birdless treeless monoculture so we can save it! No?

|2.4.06 @ 12:39AM|#

Russel, they are talking about switchgrass mostly, not corn, as it does better than corn, and doesn't have the climate needs of sugar cane. But any cellulose can be used, mostly the waste from a wide variety of crops. So no mono culture problems.

Your real point however is also moot; Most crop land in the US is devoted to growing corn and soy to feed animals which we then eat. Fuel crops would primarily be in competition with animal-feed crops, and not really demand new land. And there is plenty of arable land being underused, and would otherwise be sold to make stip malls and ugly/stupid housing tracts. Crop usage would fluctuate with the price of fuels and meat, and otherwise invigorate our sagging agricultural industry. It is (or should be) a free market thing.

|2.4.06 @ 12:34PM|#

Russel-

A point that was made either here or in another thread was that things become possible when we stop looking for *one* alternative source to hit a home run. We don't need "roughly 640,000,000 extra acres... to supply ethanol enough to fuel the
nation's cars," because I don't necessarily expect us to fuel all of our cars 100% with ethanol. In the future I envision our energy needs being met by a wider variety of sources with a smaller percentage each.

|2.4.06 @ 12:55PM|#

following that thtought, all we need to do 'now' is produce and distribute enough E85 ethanol fuel to the existing E85 engines out there (%10 gasahol for everyone else), and produce and distribute B20 (%20 biodiesel-petrodiesel blend) to all diesel engines out there (most can handle more than that but %20 is safe). If one must do a big-government regulation (to make theme feel like they are 'doing' something), requiring all new small vahicles (SUVs and smaller) to have some form of regenerative braking would be helpful...so would a national fuel standard...and Euro-Style� emmissions controls (ours make no sense). And the Prese shoul actually be a Leader� and convert his fleet of white house vehichles to use alternative fuels and improved car technology...he sure talks alot but doesn't put out in this regard.

Mark Lambert|2.4.06 @ 1:51PM|#

What strikes me as odd about this debate is that few people ever ask: "What's the energy balance of gasoline?" Toyota says 0.70; others say as high as 0.80. Scientists are busy arguing about the energy balance of ethanol, while we all are using coal-fired electricity with an energy balance of about 0.33 and nobody is howling. They are wrapped up on whether ethanol is over 1.00.

Mark Lambert
(former utilities commissioner in Iowa)

amazingdrx|2.4.06 @ 2:04PM|#

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.jaffe.html

"The prospect of cheap cellulosic ethanol makes it possible to envision a very different energy landscape. Since it doesn't require fuel-intensive refining, Iogen's product would provide a net energy gain"

This is a bit misleading. Actually the Iogen process requires more processing energy than ethanol from corn does. Which is what it ought to be compared too.

Sam is comparing it to the energy intensive process of breaking down the cellulose into fermentable starch and sugar using large industrial pressure cooking, similar to the process used to break down cellulose to make paper.

The Iogen process uses a bacteria that works like a natural organism in a wasp's digestive system to break down the cellulose. That adds an extra fermentation process which takes more energy than the single fermentation of corn mash.

The lower price of ethanol from the Iogen process is due to the feedstock, crop waste, wood chips, or switchgrass is a lot cheaper than corn.

And the net energy gain from cellulosic ethanol is from the lack of chemical fertilizer needed to grow switchgrass and the fact that crop waste gets a free ride (so to speak) fertilizer wise, because the cost of the fertilizer is absorbed by the food portion of the crop, the grain or corn.

Monoculture switchgrass taking over the land now in conservation would further devestate the environment and burning more fossil fuel or using more nuclear power to process crop waste will cause more green house gas and other pollution and contamination related to nuclear power.

Only cellulosic ethanol from crop and food waste processed with wind, solar, and by using heat pumps to make fermentation and distillation much more efficient will be an eco-friendly method.

And taking all that crop waste, normally tilled back in, out of the soil ecosystem will devestate the soil even further than chemical farming already has. Use up the soil and we are sunk.

The costs, all heavily subsidized, for this cheap fuel could never compete with electric cars charged up with wind, solar, and wave power systems.

And where did anyone get the idea that burning ethanol is that much better than burning gasoline as far as global climate change is concerned?

The fuel cell/ethanol concept seems a good one as far as greenhouse gas goes, except that fuel cells are way too expensive and the catalytic converters to produce hydrogen from ethanol have not been perfected and still may emit a certain amount of CO2.

Wind, wave, and solar powered by the nuclear reactor in the sun is as close as we will ever get to perpetual free fueless non-polluting energy. And run through electric vehicles and geothermal heat pumps it will beat these other schemes all hollow in every respect.

But that's in a real free market without government subsidies, hidden as in the cost of war, global climate disaster, and nuclear waste; or exposed in the form of pork barrel legislated corporate welfare for oil, nuclear, and agri-bizz interests.

Once again, I will repeat, the environmental movement needs to get unified behind the very best energy policy or the powerful interests behind these other subsidized corporate plans WILL win.

amazingdrx|2.4.06 @ 2:17PM|#

johnl, where do you get the time and energy to dig up and expose these fraudulent energy scams? r

It IS fascinating. But why not use your experttise to find schemes that work and report on those instead?

Anyway, great blog! Great job on the science involved!! Go to work on debunking switchgrass now!

|2.4.06 @ 3:37PM|#

Russell-

Thank you for your post. I'm a huge fan of back of the envelope calculations. However, to be fair, keep in mind that efficient use of cellulose could change those numbers by a factor of 10. Then again, a lot of "ifs" have to happen to get that factor of 10.

|2.4.06 @ 6:54PM|#

Is anyone claiming a factor of 10 higher biofuel yield per acre for Grass than Corn?
I doubt it, and I certainly have not seen such a claim.

Lignin fermentation is clearly a Good Thing, but we are likelier to see its debut in enhancing corn alchohol yields by utilizing stalk cellulose- 2 cheers for ADM on that point.

But the order of magnitude land use problem remains, whether you expand existing crops or attempt to add a million square mile sea of switchgrass to the equation. The Iowa booster notwithstanding, fuel crops have to get their ash content out of the ground, and it must be put back to sustain their production .

That takes energy, as does thrashing all that bagasse into shape for fermentation- so make that envelope back result _ Two Million - square miles to provide an engineering margin and some access roads.

Anybody know the NASDAC symbol for General Irrigation & Giant Sphere Digester?

I think I will return to the Handbook of High Hydrogen Coal Deposits Greens Reall Don't Want To Know About, and give it a good read.

|2.4.06 @ 9:12PM|#

Fermentation is exothermic. Better to find some way of using all the energy in the plant without feeding it to bugs first. This will be a great problem for scientists to work on in a couple of hundred years when we have run out of coal.

amazingdrx|2.5.06 @ 12:26AM|#

Hmm johnl you are right, I stand corrected. The heat energy given off merely has to be managed to keep the heat of the mash in the correct range for proper fermentation.

Put these solar concentrator designs through the old perpetual motion detector if you will?

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003127.html

How would the use of excess heat from the PV cells effect the economics of home installation for heating/cooling energy and domestic electric power.

|2.5.06 @ 1:47AM|#

amazingdrx,
switchgrass is:
1. like bamboo it's root structure is permanent, you don't need to tear up the roots to get the crop and then retill.

2. a soil restorer, use it on fallow land to restore the land. when the soil is all better, then dig it up and plant somehting else.

3. native to the midwest, no real worry about monocrops or otherwise being invasive. As with 2, it is a good part of the farming cycle.

4. cattle will graze it in place of corn feed or other grasses.

amazingdrx|2.5.06 @ 2:43AM|#

Well that sounds quite a lot better sam.

I have to object to turning that 15% of marginal cropland from comservation to energy farming though. That land area is needed to remediate chemical agri-bizz destruction of the soil and watershed.

Maybe if americans turn to eating far less agri-chem-bizz tumor producing meat and switch to more vegetable protein the land area saved from grain farming could grow switchgrass?

But the reality is that less than 2% of the high wind speed area of the northern great plains, much of which is already marginal farmland in conservation acerage and nearly deserted, would be needed for wind farms to supply half of US electric power needs.

And only a tiny percentage of that area would be enough for the wind tower bases and rudimentary service roads, the rest of the land under and between the huge (1000 foot scale)wind plants would be free for conservation or farming.

The other half of electric power could be obtained from rooftop and parking lot solar cogeneration and small to medium scale wind plants. With the heat from the solar cogeneration and geothermal heat pumps providing heating and cooling, enough elerctrical energy would be left over to power electric cars.

Why mess around with heavily subsidized boondoggles like switchgrass and ethanol? It's all just a politically motivated corporate welfare plan that can't stop global climate disaster. Wind and solar electric can, and it's far less expensive in the long run because it never needs fuel and produces no waste.

|2.5.06 @ 5:10AM|#

For the record, I am much more in favor of biodiesel than ethanol. I am not aware that switchgrass is being subsidised at all; though I do know that conventional fossil fuels are being subsidised already, so it's not like anything new is being tried in that regards. If anything, switchgrass would need less subsidies (if any) than corn to 'compete' with conventional fuels. And there is a market for E85 ethanol, why ignore it?

And frankly getting rid of all subsidies while taxing imported fuels would solve most of our problems real quick.

"I have to object to turning that 15% of marginal cropland from comservation to energy farming though."

switchgrass is already a pretty wild and native grass; plant it, ignore it. It would serve nicely to heal already agriculturally depleted areas (e.g. King Cotton plantains)...any fuel gains from it after the land heals after the land heals, are extra yummies for the land owners.

|2.5.06 @ 1:30PM|#

johnl: you asked about relative efficiency assumptions of IC versus electric. So I took a trip around the web.

An internal combustion engine appears to have a basic efficiency of around 50 percent. By the time idling, losses in the transmission, and braking are taken into account, only about fifteen percent of the energy in the fuel is actually used to move the car forward.

By contrast, a lithium-ion battery has a power transfer efficiency of about ninety-four percent. Because braking power is partially recovered and the losses in the "power train," meaning the cables and electric motors that produce the mechanical energy, are kept to around ten percent, we can assume something like eighty-five percent efficiency. And so I stand by my statement: gasoline is a cheap energy source right up to the point where it gets to your engine.

Using the "cost of a kWh hour" and comparing it to the "cost of a gallon of gas" is comparing apples to oranges. I wasn't proposing fuel cells or anything else, merely taking exception to your implied statement that gasoline is "cheaper" than electricity. And so it is, because electricity is fossil fuels already processed into an energy that can be used more efficiently. It has added value, hence its higher price.

Incidentally, efficiency at the power plant is no better and even worse than in your car: forty to forty-five percent is exceptional. But the pathway losses from the plant to the road are low once the power is actually generated. About seventy-seven percent, according to one calculation I saw, including what is lost in the vehicle. Multiply .77 times .4 and you find that 30 percent of the energy potential of the fuel as it goes into the power plant is used to move your vehicle forward, compared to the fifteen percent of the gallon of gas.

Bottom line? If batteries had the same energy density as gasoline, then you would spend a lot less on energy. But they don't. Gasoline is a more powerful source of energy than batteries. That, more than anything else, is why things are the way they are. It has nothing to do with the price of gas versus electricity; that argument is not in favor of gasoline.

johnl|2.5.06 @ 5:17PM|#

James - We were not talking about electric cars, we were talking about using electricity at home to cook up Hydrogen fuel.

Drx - How can anyone not love a giant insect vaporizer? But I don't think it will ever pencil out compared to coal.

Media - I wrote up a post that included 4 links about United Nuclear, but it got eaten. I might blog it up. It was started by Bob Lazar, so, maybe aliens will supply some future technology that will make the idea work out.