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.
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13671/story.htm (The solution to the hydrogen flamibility and storage for Fuell Cell 12-12-2001)
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0112-07.htm (Muliply this by four years and what do you get)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery (LiOn battereis due have problems)
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html (Home nuclear reactors this is not a good idea)
http://www.genepax.co.jp/index.html (this is an example of bad science, its a metal hydride battery see http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/genepax-water-powered-car-japan-debunking.php )
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/dn14354-atomthick-carbon-sheets-set-new-strength-record.html (A great building material for sails, hulls, and rotors if it come around commericially)
"[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 ( http://offo2.epa.state.oh.us/Fernald/FernaldInfo/fact.htm ) and uranium mining sites ( http://www.nirs.org/miningandpollutioninuppermidwest.pdf , )http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/uri.html, http://sccchatham.blogspot.com/2008/07/judge-mining-company-liable-for.html ) Wind is less of a hazard.
will citizens put up with for a nuclear future and uranium mining sites ( http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/uri.html )"- 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. ( http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news/singlenews.php?lang=en&layout=mnn&category=58&newsnr=551&backurl=%2Fnews%2Fnews4.php%3Flang%3Den%26layout%3Dmnn%26category%3D58%26sortorder%3D0%26start%3D0&srcscript=/news/news4.php )
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.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/worlds_largest_6.php#ch02 "-Aquatank Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:33 am
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn14593-wind-turbines-make-bat-lungs-explode.html (How wind turbines kill bats, but does this apply to Verticle tirbines as well as Horizontal?)
"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.
http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=nw20081027124159375C802827 "-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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/08/windpower-energy" 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 http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/01-02/RE_info/hec.htm
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:
Hydrogen 42% (projected estimate)
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, ( http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/mide-a01.shtml ) 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.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/07/2008725191423968487.html"-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. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=shift-to-greener-economy "-Aquatank Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:13 am