Guess what: they aren't even going to show Project X in Dunkertown, Iowa. They probably won't even show him babbling un-profoundly at John Galt and having Galt tell him, "You have said everything I wanted to say to you."

I repeat: the only way to do justice to AS, as a dramatic presentation, would be as a mini-series. Someone needed to form a TV production company and get Showtime to distribute it. I say Showtime because you can shoot it in ultra-wide screen and they will letterbox it, instead of panning-and-scanning to "the new standard screen" as the HBO family does.

If you want to know my insight on Robert Stadler, follow this link:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Robert_Stad...

I agree, Temlakos. Dr. Stadler knew what he was doing--he was able to successfully pull his own handmade blinders over his mind. To me, that was the key to making his role so utterly dastardly. If the movie makers made him to be "rescued" in his mind at the end, without experiencing even a bit of the pain and horror his work inflicted on the world,then I will be very disappointed. How could he realize what he'd done? The "realize" part would not ring true with the Dr. Stadler we saw him become in the book. He was too far gone in his megalomania (I think that word suits...) to be moved by John in a torture chamber. See the good doctor's speech at the inauguration of Project X. Or are they cutting that out too?

Greenies don't condone humanity!!!

They are a bunch of nihilist assh*les - the ones who started the organisations, they greenwash their true intent to make it palatable to the rank and file.

The word I get is that Robert Stadler will simply "realize" he was "used" in connection with what will become the torture chamber from which Ragnar and companyh rescue John Galt. But I wanted to see John Galt read Stadler the riot act, and see him jump in his car and head for Dunkertown, Iowa (a/k/a Harmony City) to try to take over Project X, onlyh to find that Cuffy Meigs had beaten him to it.

He's not? That is disappointing. That was one of the most important parts of AS to me.

You want to know my biggest disappointment?

It's that Robert Stadler isn't going to get his due--his "bad" due--in the upcoming film.

If I were bringing AS to the screen, I'd bring it to HDTV. And labor long and lovingly on Project X. And give Robert Stadler his death scene.

"Did you think it was for you...that I sold...don't touch those levers, G_d d__n you!"

You cannot imagine how many Stadler wannabes are out there. There aren't that many Floyd Ferrises, but there are some. The primary difference between the two is that Ferris is unadulterated evil, and Stadler believes he is honorable.

At the time, the Navy was viewed as an opportunity for testing out this technology because a) the fuel cost was such a minor part of their cost, and b) this allowed naval vessels to stay out at sea indefinitely (as you said). Sigh.

Read about this a few months ago, but haven't seen any news about a scaled up demonstration project yet - just the lab results. It's earth shattering if scalable and operable.

Setting aside the 95% BS in the article, I like the concept if only for the fact it would require a source of cheap electricity, nuclear being the obvious choice. And thus, in a wrong-headed rush to kill petro energy, the greenies may finally be moving us toward the real solution, nuclear power.

Thanks AJ. The article this whole comment line is based on does not seem to mention the part that it is still at least 10 years away before it is operational

That is my understanding, too.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternati...

Nothing like instant gratification.

almost as thin, I particularly liked the phrase "Projected cost" hell, that sounds like a whole lot of Alice in wonderland stuff to me. Another "Cold fusion" in a mason jar type story if I ever heard one.

So much important detail missing. This an energy storage system, not a source. I assume (since the article doesn't explain much) the generation process will depend on using nuclear power from the aircraft carrier itself. I read elsewhere that it takes 39,000 gallons of seawater to generate one gallon of jet fuel. Is this a process that the carrier could operate while underway, or would it have to dedicate most of excess power to fuel generation, sitting idle until the fuel tanks are filled?

No mention of the metals in the cation system (probably rare, expensive metals), so the cost trades may be deceptive, relating only to the generation process after the system is installed. This may work for the Navy, but extending the technology beyond is doubtful.

Anhydrous ammonia can be generated with nothing but water and air, given a power supply. Ammonia is, in some respects, the ideal fuel. It has no carbon component, so it generates no CO2. It has about 70% of the net power per volume of gasoline, and is liquid at pressures similar to those needed for propane storage (~200 psi). Like the seawater fuel, it's strictly an energy storage and transport medium, but it delivers four times the hydrogen content than the most highly compressed hydrogen gas.

Just felt an alternative example might put this in perspective.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternati...

Not intentionally, of that I'm sure. :-)

I'm not even going to bother looking up again the stuff I once read on the use of hydrogen as a fuel. BUT ... anyone who has been involved in storage and use of hydrogen gas is aware of substantial problems involved. It can make metal (tanks) brittle. It seeps through containment materials.

And as has been said IT IS NOT A SOURCE OF ENERGY. Nor is the seawater from which it might be generated.

And this will also fuel a perpetual motion machine....

Agreed. Though I doubt the greenies will ever opely condone or advocate Nuclear power.

I'd think that they would have to go all-in and remove the older engines and fuel tanks to make space for the generator and batteries.

Used to be nuclear cruisers (CGNs), essentially big destroyers. All decommissioned now.
Would be a good place to test an SMR, but soooo much politics and ignorance (redundant?) stand in the way.