Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday July 22 2015, @12:07AM   Printer-friendly
from the hard-up-for-a-date? dept.

Growing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are threatening the effectiveness of radiocarbon dating, according to new research. The dating method has been used for decades to accurately determine the age of a wide range of artefacts. But using fossil fuels pumps a type of carbon into the atmosphere that confuses the dating technique. Scientists say that by 2050, new clothes could have the same radiocarbon date as items 1,000 years old.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday July 22 2015, @04:32AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday July 22 2015, @04:32AM (#212189) Journal

    Future generations can just make diamonds and breathable O2 out of it.

    They wilL dO this using Limitless energy from fusion and antimatter reactors.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday July 22 2015, @04:57AM

    by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday July 22 2015, @04:57AM (#212193)

    Antimatter is unlikely to ever be a significant energy *source* - like a battery charge it has to come from somewhere. There are actually limited quantities captured by the Earth's magnetic field, but try to "mine" it regularly and you won't get more than a trickle. Beyond that it would have to be created using energy from some other source - and conservation of energy requires that more energy be put into it than can be usefully extracted.

    Basically it could be used as an extremely high energy-density single-use battery, if we had a use for such a thing. Which is debatable, as it would likely require a bulky magnetic suspension system to prevent it from prematurely interacting with normal matter (BOOM!), which would severely restrict it's minimum size. We'll probably never see antimatter-powered watches. Even cars would likely be a trick, and better suited to less volatile power sources - you *really* don't want to lose containment in a crash. It might be useful for space travel, if we could produce it efficiently enough, but the benefits over fusion are likely to be questionable for interplanetary travel, and even antimatter doesn't really have the energy density necessary to make interstellar travel feasible (plus you'd probably want to be able to refuel at the next star - much easier with fusion).

    I'm sure it would make for some truly spectacular fireworks though...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @08:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @08:32AM (#212238)

      and conservation of energy requires that more energy be put into it than can be usefully extracted.

      No, conservation of energy (aka the first law of thermodynamics) just means you cannot extract more than you put in. It's the second law of thermodynamics which implies that you'll actually get less (i.e. some of the conserved energy will be converted into useless form).

    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday July 22 2015, @03:41PM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday July 22 2015, @03:41PM (#212357) Journal

      I think its obvious what the big future fuel source will be and that is hydrogen. After all you can make it from sea water, its abundant all over our solar system so it'll be good for space travel, doesn't pollute, it just makes sense.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday July 22 2015, @04:55PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday July 22 2015, @04:55PM (#212397)

        Nope. All that remains to be done to make it a good energy SOURCE is to work out a way to make it that doesn't consume more energy than burning the hydrogen will produce. Which is physically impossible.

        Hydrogen has potential as an efficient energy STORAGE medium, assuming the difficulties in actually storing it can be overcome, but the energy has to originate somewhere else. Leading hydrogen production candidates seem to be catalytic solar panels or microbial bioreactors. Either way the energy is coming from somewhere else: either directly from sunlight, or from the chemical energy stored in the plant matter used as microbial feedstock.

        Fossil fuels are relatively unique a a fuel in that they are an actual energy SOURCE, at least on human timescales - though in actuality they are an energy storage medium that was mostly "charged" millions of years before humans came on the scene. Coal for example is believed to be the remains of trees and other woody plants that built up for about 50 million years in the window between when plants evolved cellulose and when molds first evolved the ability to digest it.