Alternative Futures 2.0
[L[Quote]] · 1945 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·

Today we stand like many days at the crossroads of what can be and what should not be.  We can utilize the technolgies we have created and continue to create a better cleaner tomorrow, or we can use the technologies for ill and continue the self destructive status quo we have for been on for over 4 centuries.


My vison is simple I see a world where we are powered mostly by Verticle Wind Turbines (generally down the length of intertstae medians) with compressed air storage for slow wind days, where parking lots and flat top roofs are always zoned to have solar panels, and sewage is clenaed up enough to use in our hydropinic frams and the its waste gas methane is used in the heating and electrical industry,  I envision that most vehicles will run on electricity stored in ultracapacitors or fly wheels.  I see a world where we have mass transit cargo and passenger trains that run on the electricity generated by the solar collectors next to their tracks. I envison rigid sail ships and airships carrying most of the world's cargo.  I see the possibilty of not rebuilding urban sprawl after natural disasters that destroy cities but self sufficient arcologies.  I see a future where cattle herds are a thing of the past and meat is grown in vats and is free of many of the adverse properties which complicate or lives.  I envison a world where forest deforestation is replaced by the introduction of carbon nanotube building materials.  I see a woprld where whales and other animals live in a abundance and reach their full potentials. 


This is the Thread I have created to discuss the possibilities and potentials for building that future.


On The previous incarnation of the Blackvault I had a thread called Alternative Energy & Alternative Futures These are some of the comments and links from that thread which I felt were important enough to save. Note Yahoo news links often dissappear and are generally temporary some other links may be dead as well. (The solution to the hydrogen flamibility and storage for Fuell Cell 12-12-2001) (Muliply this by four years and what do you get),2554,61245,00.html (LiOn battereis due have problems);_ylt=AsaOHItVt63jPsODYGe6HUd34T0D;_ylt=Al9WClai5UBW4WG7AYG7bU6s0NUE (Home nuclear reactors this is not a good idea) (this is an example of bad science, its a metal hydride battery see ) (A great building material for sails, hulls, and rotors if it come around commericially)'s_kick_nuclear_power_out_of_the_climate_change_debate/

"[Part of the reasons of why windpower makes sense. Note that windturbines especial Horizontal ones have turbulence can affect local weather, the solution is to use better low turbulence rotors. Other than that minmal spacing of 1000 feet to 1/2 mile is good to keep them from making downwind turbines ineffecient.]

Cost of a 1600MW nuke plant=$6 000 000 000

As for costs

The Cost of 1600MW of Wind turbines at $1700 per kW
2 720 000 000 or assuming we'd build the old non-Maglev style (those that need 8mph winds instead of 2mph winds) we can assume they operate 1/3 of the time so the cost is x 3 for triple the turbines=$8 160 000 000. Still no centralization, no nuclear waste, and harder target is very appealing even at the slightly higher price.

By todays 6-25-08 exchange rate
0.04 EUR=0.0626638 USD per kW hour for nuclear energy

The new Maglev wind turbine site is
0.40 CNY=0.0582725 USD per kW hour

One of the hidden costs of nuclear energy is toxic waste, and I'm not talking about the depleted fuel rods I'm talking about the mining operations polluting the local areas and the health hazards og processing the uranium into fuel. Really how many places like Fernald ( ) and uranium mining sites ( , ), ) Wind is less of a hazard.

will citizens put up with for a nuclear future and uranium mining sites ( )"- Aquatank Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:04 am

"A small bit on why nuclear power should be avoided.

The cost of a nuclear reactyor is up from $2-$4 Billion 2 years ago to $7 billion

The price of Uranium has gone up from $10 per pound to $60 per pound and easy to get supplies of it are becoming rarer hence the Sharbot Lake, Haudenosaunee & Algonquin vs. Canada standoff. ( )

The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility is 19 years behind schedule and $38 billion over original cost estimates. leaving 121 temporary sites in 39 states with inadequete security.



"There is a growing risk of radioactive material getting into the wrong hands," Brown said. He said there were 250 incidents last year of nuclear material being lost or stolen, and a lot was never recovered. "


Reactors only last about 40 years, and decomissioning costs $250-$500 each. Over 100 reactors have closed but not all have been fully decommisioned since 1954.



Comparing nuclear power with wind, Brown pointed out that nuclear power already costs twice as much as electricity produced from the wind, not including the additional costs he cited.

"If we look at the economics comparing nuclear with wind, a dollar invested in wind produces more energy, leads to a greater reduction in carbon emissions, and creates more jobs than one invested in nuclear power," said Brown.

"-Aquatank Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:29 pm


"now the Enercon E112 Wind Turbine. Three to Seven of these babies will power a 12000 home town. "-Aquatank Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:33 am (How wind turbines kill bats, but does this apply to Verticle tirbines as well as Horizontal?)'s-Roads

"A very indepth 210 page report by the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and Greenpeace has sated the world can be off fossil fuels by 2090 if the world invests heavilly ($14.7 Trillion until 2030, not too expensive for a planet) in Alternative Energy generators such as wind thermal and biologicals. One radical scenario says that coal use could end by 2050. The optimistic report says that 30% of energy could come from renewables by 2030 and 50% by 2050. It is in contrast to the International Energy Agency's (IEA) less optimistic 13% alternative & renewables by 2030. "-Aquatank Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:34 pm

"Note on the IEA and renwables, its predictions are being exposed as quite faulty. Somaybe there is still hope.

1998 IEA prediction wind would reach 47.4GW by 2020. Reality it was reached in Dec.2004

2002 IEA prediction would reach 104GW by 2020, reality it was exceeded in Summer 2008

The predictions of the IEA from1995-2004 have been exceed by 4 fold so far." Aquatank Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:00 am

"A note about the sewage power. The above mentioned an American fraction of power assuming 1 person 1 house at full American annual load. A 3 person European home uses 4238kwh per year
So if American cut down their usage to European loads at three persons a house San Antonio would need 442994.67 x 4238 KWH per year the toatal annual load would be 1877411411.46 kwh (not counting factories & stores etc.) with an annual output of sewage electricity of 96277765.5 KWH thats 1/19.6 th of the power needed for residences. Think about how much more we'd save by going to LED bulbs"-Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:29 pm


CMTV may be on to something; according to the French Association of Shipowners, wind-powered boats could capture .5% of the commercial shipping market. This may not sound like much—until you consider that 90% of the world’s traded goods are transported via boat.


Energy Recovery Efficiencies:
Flywheel 90%
Electrochemical 70%
Hydrogen 42% (projected estimate)
Gasoline 18%

Where to get the money for an Alternative Energy Infrastructure

"Newest offensive give away, $63 billion in military aid Israel and some of teh Arab States, ( ) in addition to the $80 billion a year being put into rebuilding Iraq. Imagine what they could do if they spent that kind of money on an alternative energy system and new infrastructure to support it in the USA, not to mention universal health care and social security."-Aquatank Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:57 pm

"A crack down on tax evaders with offshore accounts. Apparently $100 billion dollars a year in taxes is evaded this way. Senators are already asking for a crackdown, so what I'm suggesting is getting the money into the national alternative energy infrastructure project and onec thats stabilized any extra funds into social security (and perhaps a government pays for health care plan if there enough to do both) instead of buying more military equipment and waging war with it."-Aquatank Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:51 pm

"If, for argument's sake, you were to put a five-year levy in OECD countries of $5 a barrel, you would generate $100 billion per annum. It translates into roughly 0.3 cent per liter," he said" In reference to a $750 Billion global green program cost. "-Aquatank Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:13 am








[L[Quote]] · 1944 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·

Hey aqua, nice forum huh?

Carbon nanotubes definitely have a future in human technology and science, you'll soon start to hear of the things they can be used for, and are being used for.

I don't know about meat being grown in a vat though....

[L[Quote]] · 1944 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·

Personally I think meat should be...a thing to forget in the near future...

Atleast on this planet...

Too many diseases on Earth...

We should find other lifeforms on other planets...and eat them...Money mouthWinklol...

[L[Quote]] · 1941 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·

The new board is all right but I miss the view counts because it let you know if the thread was being read and if it deserved to be kept going.


I've been thinking lately carbon nanotubes may very well be what saves the coal industry since so much of the worlds industry will depend on carbon like they depend on steel.


And I've been think aboat sail powered maglev trains and the technical hurdles involved in their making lately, as well as hybrid wind/electric cars and the technical challenges there as well.


On a far easier technological not I been thinking about arcologies.  I'm not sure the pyramidal cone shape is best.  My feeling is that to meet they required food growing acreage per person by way of hydroponics, it might be more advantageous to creat a city as just a long strip along an east west roadway so that the sunny side tiers gets the most sunlight for growing.  After all grow bulbs use a heck of a lot of lumens, so using the sunlight directly is more advantageous. I've also been thinking underground cities or mainstreet shopping districts with subways is better than staying above ground. Living in the north I know lots about tornados and snow from first hand experience and I know most people would like to avoid both.  Lots of stuff on my mind and a friend of mine keeps putting me on a KISS technology course too. 


So at the moment I keep watching the news looking for the right things to work, like mass production of graphene.  Unfortunately when that comes into production it may end up being illegal for civilian use considering its possible use in military armor . Imagine a new Main Battle Tank that instead of weighing 55tons only weighs ten but has armor stronger than a 22000 ton tank and with the weight reduction instead of 5 gallons per mile gets 50 miles per gallon, now imagine civilians with that kind of material in your hands and you'll see both parts of the downside if we can't establish a real lasting peace in this universe.  But if we can avoid the downside we may be on the edge of new technologicla revolution with endless possibilities for the good of all humankind.

[L[Quote]] · 1941 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·

Yeah, Sadly...humans need to change first in order to change everything else...

[L[Quote]] · 1940 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·

You can blame Nevada Senator Harry Reid for the delay at Yucca Mountain.  He keeps blocking it.


Some of what you propose is nice.  You're a dreamer Aquatank.  The thing is all those technologies take people working to make it possible and with all the anti-capitalism going on no one wants to invest in risky technology.


But there is a problem with your "urban sprawl" idea.  Well designed and efficient cities is a nice concept but I don't think its possible in a world with humans in it.Cry Cities always end up being run A-holes and it ends up being all about THEM instead of what's good for the city.  Cities end up government bound and corruption pervades throughout.  See: New York City.  Sure it would be nice to have a well designed city that was more energy efficient but we have all these old rotten cities that no one is going to spend money on re-designing from scratch.  If any great, well designed, efficient city is going to happen, it will have to be in the middle of that "urban sprawl" away from the ruined cities of the present.  Unless, of course, you plan to nuke all the current cities.  If "Supreme Leader" Kim can ever get his Dong up...

[L[Quote]] · 1939 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·

I don't particulary want to see Yucca Mountain opened, BUT unfortunately it is partly needed for what I do propose which is this the banning of nuclear power in the USA and its military and all current waste shipped there and then closed forever.  Nuclear power is inefficient, dangerous, and costly, and as an investment it is afr riskier than any other currently utilized form power of power generation.  Wall Street knows this thats why it is shunnning nuke industry proponents in favor of wind which has been growing faster than anyones expectations (up until last october, of course). 


Like I 've said the arcology thing looks better if stretched out along a latitudal road way than a big city.  I also think by making each housing unit self contained it would allow invidual property ownership like we have now, thusly while it is urban sprawl in a certain light being non verticle its is also less of a fire hazard.  The technical hurdle is what the architecture will be I'm currently envision almost  A-frame housing with one side being glass with tiered gardens in it.  The gardn space basically is the problem using the hydroponics model every occupant needs 3/4 of an acre of of plant growing.  So a family of four needs 3 acres of tiered sapce and glass on one side of the building.  Thats quite a bit, but its less than the 12+ acres they'd need to farm regular on.

[L[Quote]] · 1939 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·


The gardn space basically is the problem using the hydroponics model every occupant needs 3/4 of an acre of of plant growing.  So a family of four needs 3 acres of tiered sapce and glass on one side of the building.  Thats quite a bit, but its less than the 12+ acres they'd need to farm regular on.

 You feeding an army or something?  On the RHS site they had someone doing a blog for a year and they feed a family of four on a 3x3 plot. Sound amazing but the Victorians used to grow all the fruit and veg for a house inside and acre, easily at that.

[L[Quote]] · 1939 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·

sounds like a job for "Veridian Dynamics"

[L[Quote]] · 1939 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·


sounds like a job for "Veridian Dynamics"

 that looked good. do you know when they're showing it over here?


[L[Quote]] · 1939 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·

I have no idea.

It just started here in the USA. (it might not even make far viewership of it is still kind of low)


I was looking for a video clip from the second show to post here, but couldn't find one.


The episode was about a kind of cowless meat they had invented .

They were calling it "meat lump"

It was hysterical.

[L[Quote]] · 1939 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·


Nuclear power is inefficient, dangerous, and costly, and as an investment it is afr riskier than any other currently utilized form power of power generation.  Wall Street knows this thats why it is shunnning nuke industry proponents in favor of wind which has been growing faster than anyones expectations (up until last october, of course).


There is only one problem my friend.  Not one part of that is actually true.  Nuclear power is the most efficient large scale power technology ever created.  And its actually cheaper than other forms of power before excessive, inefficient and burdensome government regulations are added to the price tag.  Nuclear power is not riskier.  In fact nuclear power has had fewer injuries and almost no deaths worldwide as compared with all other forms of large scale power generation which have had large numbers of injuries and deaths.  Even wind power has had an unusually high number of injuries and deaths (Fact).  It has always been paranoia about nuclear power that was the biggest problem, outside of the waste problem.  Wind power is causing problems and those problem will only get worse.  The windmills are expensive and wear out fast, kill lots of birds, are a significant danger to anyone nearby, are noisy as hell, and are a blight on the landscape.  Wind power sucks!


And many technologies useful to nuclear power have seen major advancements since the last nuclear power plant was built in the US and they would bring down the cost dramatically if utilized.  Just one example is the replacement technology for radio-graphing welds, its much cheaper.  Still, we do need to deal with the radioactive waste but that can be managed if unfounded prejudice were not in the way.


The current holy grail of energy is fusion power, but even that produces radioactive waste.


[L[Quote]] · 1939 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·


If you go back to my original post on this thread it shows the difference in costs between nuclear plants and wind power, and currently windpower is cheaper.  Furthermore there has not been a new nuclear power plant built in the USA since the before the Three Mile Island accident.  And yes they are dangerous because the companies that run these place slack on maintenence as evidenced by repeated problems at Davis-Besse where the reactor cap was seriously corroded.  Furthermore nuclear waste is constant and accumulating danger Yucca Mt. or not it needs to transported many kilomters & across state lines and that is not a safe thing any day no matter how many precautions. Nuclear power also is a centralized power in which most of the power it generates is actually lost transmitting through high voltage lines, this is the opposite of decentralized local power sources which lose less power because they transmit power through shorter distances. Its also cheaper to to create local lines thant to string more long high voltage lines. Another more important factor especially in this climate is wind creates more jobs and is assembled quicker than the 10+ years of building a nuclear plant with its and its longer term cost overruns.

[L[Quote]] · 1939 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·


You are correct my land estimate was off because I was looking at USA footprints (about 3 acres person, we Americans eat a lot and the foot print gets even beigger with other things) instead of arable land needed. If we look at this ( ) we see normal arable land necessary is .5 hectares ( 1.24) per person is necesary. That means .31 acres for hydroponics per person (Hydroponic foods get between 4x to 8x the yield of normal crops) or 1.24 acres of hydroponics for a four person household. This still means the greenhouse side of a house requires a massive 54014.4 square feet (a 232.41 ft x 232.41 ft side) tiered for maximum sunlight or spread out in greenhouses.

[L[Quote]] · 1938 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·

I see now.


Wind power is the worst idea you could think of though.


Tide power is cheaper and cost almost nothing to start (not to mention the amount of times they have to go to court to be allowed to put wind turbines up). Better yet solar panels.