Greening of cities / alternate energy

[The Bear's Key]

I have a love for technological advances. But to me, greening doesn't mean the killing/withholding of technology or even blunting the advancement of society. In fact, the old guard methods resisting compatibility with the natural systems of the living world actually seem pretty backwards (in thinking).

 

The future world, upon remembering the technological advancements of this era, likely won't be congratulating those who urged "more of the same" policies in alignment with the industries best positioned to rake in the most $$ from such crafted logic.

 

As beautiful as the marvels of technology are to me, I love the marvels of nature far better -- however, it also seems a waste to have put us on Earth only to savor its natural beauty, as we've evolved an inborn talent to create great marvels ourselves.

 

So both have their place.

 

It's a balancing act (as usual).

 

Some people were meant to enjoy only natural beauty, while some people are mostly happy around constructed environments. And the world can be made so neither intrudes on the other, but just superficially -- we live in nature, and that will never be undone, it can only get somewhat "hidden". Even in the far reaches of space, it's all nature. I doubt the universe makes a distinction of where the Earth's atmosphere finishes and space begins.

 

We've neglected an important element: balance. Our "progress" is limited if we neglect to recognize that the Earth's living and ecological systems are networked in a way that often affects the bigger picture in the manner of dominoes. That's why in the Obama cuts funding for Yucca Mountain thread, when someone offered the middle of the desert as a great place for safely keeping nuclear waste, its fallacy was immediately obvious, and iNow's response confirmed it.

 

There is no place to "dump and forget".

 

So, if our need to reconcile progress with natural stewadship is viewed as a hindrance/obstacle, then we're not advanced enough. Progress isn't about just money and infrastructure -- for our economical system is too likely to crumble if no growth is made. Thus we're still leaps and bounds away from hitting sustainable progress that's not overly dependent on material expansion.

 

Thus I'm listing a few places which might hold the key to more sophisticated advancements, compatible with both natural harmony and futuristic tech.

 

For those who didn't see my post on Greensburg, below are snippets.

 

Obama acknowledged Greensburg in his speech to Congress.....

Yet what is happening in the city's rebuilding process may not only re-invent Greensburg but provide a model for "green" building everywhere.

........

"Kansas is known for being very conservative,"

 

Results from the Greensburg project can even be integrated by other green city projects like Dongtan (in China), planned to be built entirely from scratch by Arup (the group who just signed the Demonstration Industrial Park for Energy Saving and Environmental Protection {link} -- a UK/China joint effort).

 

 

More info

 

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/060223china.asp

"If growth in China continues as it has until now, they’re going to permanently damage the place,"

.....

"They hope that by ignoring the way the west has industrialized, they’ll be able to keep growth growing while reducing the impact."

........

Dongtan should become a model for future development in China, says Head. But it will also, he adds, allow the Chinese to develop environmental expertise and green products that they can then sell to the rest of the world.

 

 

The next article shows us the effects of a market with little to no environmental regulation.

 

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.05/feat_popup.html

The trouble is, environmental degradation has become a drag on China's development. The government revealed last year that environmental damage costs the economy $200 billion a year, a full 10 percent of China's GDP.

Dongtan is a dramatic gambit, and not just because a whole city will rise, fully realized, from nothing. With Dongtan, Arup is testing a radical new approach to urban design, one that suggests cities across China and the rest of the developing world can actually get greener as they grow.

 

 

Two interview parts with Arup

 

(#1) http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-green-city-for-china-interview-part.html

(#2) http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-green-city-for-china-interview-part_22.html

Dongtan.....a city powered by local, renewable energy, with super-efficient buildings clustered in dense, walkable neighborhoods; a recycling scheme that re-purposes 90 percent of all waste; a network of high tech organic farms; and a ban on any vehicle that emits CO2.

 

 

But Dongtan isn't the only green city project in the works for China.

 

A new eco-city called Wanzhuang

Wanzhuang will be an internationally recognized eco-city based on the highest sustainability standards in energy and water use, the protection of natural resources, and the promotion of social harmony and a healthy lifestyle.

 

 

Other places

 

Treasure Island Community Development

When completed, it will be one of the most sustainable developments in San Francisco, with more than 50 percent of its energy drawn from renewable sources.

 

 

And even in oil-rich places like Dubai, there are glimmers of hope for renewable energy. Its Dynamic Tower is pretty cool, all floors rotate to offer changing views -- and it's all powered by solar and wind energy.

 

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=dynamicarchitecturebuilding-dubai-unitedarabemirates

It is estimated that the building will not only generate all its own energy, but also provide enough surplus energy to power five more skyscrapers of similar size.

 

At the following link is an artist's impression video of its floors rotating after the building's completion.

[Mr Skeptic]

There is no place to "dump and forget".

 

I'd say at the subduction zone between tectonic plates, where eventually the waste will be as buried as it is possible to be buried.

 

Dongtan is a dramatic gambit, and not just because a whole city will rise, fully realized, from nothing. With Dongtan, Arup is testing a radical new approach to urban design, one that suggests cities across China and the rest of the developing world can actually get greener as they grow.

 

I always liked the idea of a planned city, being built by design rather than growing in an awkward fashion from a small town. On the other hand, it may also end up with a planning mistake, which would be extremely costly.

[the tree]

I have a love for technological advances. But to me, greening doesn't mean the killing/withholding of technology or even blunting the advancement of society. In fact, the old guard methods resisting compatibility with the natural systems of the living world actually seem pretty backwards (in thinking).

Technology is awesome, seriously. Have you ever really looked at a train - those things are pretty damn cool and there's no way in hell I would want to go back to a time before trains (not to mention that would also mean going back to a time before penicillin). So yes I agree with this.

 

The really stupid idea that a lot of people come up with is that green means natural and vice versa - this irritates the hell out of me. Coal fires and stone buildings are pretty natural in comparison with solar panels and loft insulation - but obviously the latter is preferable for the sake of the environment.

 

I'd say at the subduction zone between tectonic plates, where eventually the waste will be as buried as it is possible to be buried.

Can we actually do this? Has anyone tried?

 

I always liked the idea of a planned city, being built by design rather than growing in an awkward fashion from a small town.

Clearly you've never been to the lamest place in the entire world.

[DrDNA]

I always liked the idea of a planned city, being built by design rather than growing in an awkward fashion from a small town. On the other hand, it may also end up with a planning mistake, which would be extremely costly.

 

 

Then, if you ever get a chance to see Singapore, you should.

It is amazing how nice, green, beautiful and open a city with a VERY dense population can feel.

 

It was VERY well planned.

 

Of course, the government had/has a lot more to say about the planning than simply enforcing zoning restrictions........

[foodchain]

We just have to get solar power, its free past being able to harness and transport it which in reality could be embeded into construction practices. Again most all the suns energy that comes into the earth simply is not harnessed and it is more then enough to support us dialy with stuff left over. Again I would just like to point out that it could be almost free, and it wont destroy the planet producing landfill to keep people from getting bored.

 

The next greening process will simply be that of not overpopulation.

[Royston]

As beautiful as the marvels of technology are to me, I love the marvels of nature far better -- however, it also seems a waste to have put us on Earth only to savor its natural beauty, as we've evolved an inborn talent to create great marvels ourselves.

 

So both have their place.

 

It's a balancing act (as usual).

 

I would like to hope, that it's not so much a preservation of natural beauty, than survival, although the two are intertwined as it were. The main problem is, that technology is swamped by a consumer market, and so there isn't enough interest let alone funding into technologies that are beneficial in the long run. Though I think, I'm probably just reiterating your point.

 

It was VERY well planned.

 

My housemate and ex-housemate have both been there, and they agree, travel around the city is second to none, and the general infrastructure is, as you said 'well planned', which is impressive considering it's history.

 

Can we actually do this? Has anyone tried?

 

I would of thought transport of waste, and then constructing something that came even close to dumping it into a subduction zone would be very costly. Surely, to be effective, you'd have to dig a couple of hundred kilometeres, to stop most of the waste spewing out into the atmosphere.

 

We just have to get solar power

 

I vote fusion personally.

[Mr Skeptic]

I vote fusion personally.

 

I think space solar would be awesome. Use the giant fusion reactor in the sky, say I.

[the tree]

I think space solar would be awesome. Use the giant fusion reactor in the sky, say I.

How would you propose getting the energy from a space solar farm to ground level where people will want to use it? If transporting energy were easy - then we'd have wind farms in the middle of the Atlantic and nuclear power plants as far away from human dwellings as possible.

 

We just have to get solar power

I don't think solar power is ever going to be our only source of power - the wind, the tides geothermal energy are all going to be important. But in the short term reducing energy consumption is as important as finding alternate ways to generate it.

 

The next greening process will simply be that of not overpopulation.

The reality is that in the future, extra terrestrial colonisation will have to be on the agenda. But I don't think that's for now.

 

I would of thought transport of waste, and then constructing something that came even close to dumping it into a subduction zone would be very costly.

I've heard the idea being banded around on the Internet enough times that I'm pretty curious as to whether there's been a proper serious feasibility study done.

[ParanoiA]

I don't think solar power is ever going to be our only source of power - the wind, the tides geothermal energy are all going to be important. But in the short term reducing energy consumption is as important as finding alternate ways to generate it.

 

Probably isn't smart to have only one source of energy anyway, but I've always been drawn to solar since it's the one form of energy that, to my layman sensibilities, isn't dependent on our home world. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we can buzz around this whole universe if we master turning star light into energy on big scales, right?

[The Bear's Key]

I'd say at the subduction zone between tectonic plates, where eventually the waste will be as buried as it is possible to be buried.

If they could get to the subduction zone, couldn't they just draw and use (convert) lots of heat energy from it? More than nuke energy would give us, I'd presume. And safer.

 

Even the movement of tectonic plates could be directly harnessed for energy.

 

I always liked the idea of a planned city, being built by design rather than growing in an awkward fashion from a small town.

A lot of awkwardly fashioned towns do gain quite a charm from their setup, I guess both planned and unplanned have their advantages/disadvantages.

 

For example, in some unplanned areas of the Northeast, traffic is beyond hellish. Further to the West, in areas that got more city planning, the difference in traffic systems is remarkable.

 

Yet like you said, one planning mistake -- especially as a template to be mass produced -- would be not just unwelcoming, but probably too costly to fix.

 

On the other hand, it may also end up with a planning mistake, which would be extremely costly.

The point is to learn from smaller, tested formulas (i.e. Greensburg), and not to place all bets on a single technology which hasn't even been adequately tested.

 

Might be really idiotic to build large-scale new technologies of insufficient diversity and/or without having tested it all on smaller projects, in order to avoid later getting screwed big time.

Edited March 14, 2009 by The Bear's Key
spelling error

[Mr Skeptic]

If they could get to the subduction zone, couldn't they just draw and use (convert) lots of heat energy from it? More than nuke energy would give us, I'd presume. And safer.

 

A poor place for geothermal power IMO. Why build an expensive plant at a fault zone? It's not like we can't get geothermal from elsewhere.

 

Even the movement of tectonic plates could be directly harnessed for energy.

 

Only if you have something that can stand the sorts of forces that create mountains. Most likely you'd have to build something along the entire fault line, which would be exorbitantly expensive. On the bright side, you would probably end all earthquakes along that fault line. Hmm...

 

A lot of awkwardly fashioned towns do gain quite a charm from their setup, I guess both planned and unplanned have their advantages/disadvantages.

 

For example, in some unplanned areas of the Northeast, traffic is beyond hellish. Further to the West, in areas that got more city planning, the difference in traffic systems is remarkable.

 

Yet like you said, one planning mistake -- especially as a template to be mass produced -- would be not just unwelcoming, but probably too costly to fix.

 

Yup, its a mixed bag all right. However, we have far more "naturally grown" cities than planned cities, so I do think the planned cities idea needs further exploring just to see how well we do. If we can afford the potentially massive failure, that is.

 

The point is to learn from smaller, tested formulas (i.e. Greensburg), and not to place all bets on a single technology which hasn't even been adequately tested.

 

Might be really idiotic to build large-scale new technologies of insufficient diversity and/or without having tested it all on smaller projects, in order to avoid later getting screwed big time.

 

Well, the city itself need not have any new technology at all. With some planning, traffic, sewage, water, electricity, etc., could potentially be done more efficiently and/or cheaper. There could also be room allocated to technology expected to be developed in the future, without having to actually invest in it yet.

 

This is something I have considered. Are there any online collaborations to design the perfect city? I'm sure that a lot of people would participate just for the fun of it, to make a difference, or for prestige, or whatever reason they may have. Some very interesting ideas would most likely emerge. Anyone know if that can be done? Perhaps I could start a thread on this.

[The Bear's Key]

I'm not sure how it'd be done, without more knowledge of fault zones.

 

Are there any online collaborations to design the perfect city? I'm sure that a lot of people would participate just for the fun of it, to make a difference, or for prestige, or whatever reason they may have. Some very interesting ideas would most likely emerge. Anyone know if that can be done?

Unlikely. Each city has major differences: founding purposes, access to resources, environments, modes of trade, zoning laws, physical elevations, material needs, wilderness intermingling, population densities, etc.

 

It seems more feasible to collaborate on what to avoid doing. Or the best designs for basically universal things, like efficiently coordinating a stoplight grid for the least congestion.

[SkepticLance]

There is no such thing as a perfect city. Even those who praise Singapore have obviously not visited average apartments, which are small and cramped. I would hate to have to live in one.

 

Energy supplies have many options. If fusion of deuterium is ever made practical, then there is enough deuterium in the oceans of our world to provide humankind with electricity at today's rates for a billion years - till long after the warming sun makes our planet uninhabitable.

 

In the short term (20 years), nuclear power and hot rock geothermal are more practical. Medium term (20 to 50 years) - oceanic wave energy can provide masses of power. Ditto solar. Long term? Maybe fusion??

[The Bear's Key]

Energy supplies have many options. If fusion of deuterium is ever made practical, then there is enough deuterium in the oceans of our world to provide humankind with electricity at today's rates for a billion years

Not realistically. Energy is like money, which burns a hole in your pocket if left sitting there. And unlike money, energy doesn't collect interest by sitting there.

 

The vast energies we'd get from the oceans are likely to power a greatly expanded satellite network, moon bases, huge space travel insfrastructure and mining expeditions, and a vast number of things which spring up after energy conservation is *supposedly* no longer an issue.

[SkepticLance]

To Bear

So energy use expands ten fold and we have 'only' 100 million years supply. I do not think I am ging to lose much sleep over that.

[The Bear's Key]

So energy use expands ten fold and we have 'only' 100 million years supply. I do not think I am ging to lose much sleep over that.

I'm thinking more like we'd be facing a shortage within 1,000 years or so. With the seemingly *boundless* energy made available, the world's population can move anywhere, the oceans would be full of deuterium mining. The next frontier of living would likely be the oceans, all levels, with the only limit on possibilites being the amount of energy a hydro-metropolis system can extract at once.

 

Sea-farming and exploration, tempearture regulation of underwater dwellings, all manner of submersible watercraft, traffic infrastructure, etc. And we're only talking about Earth underwater. Space projects/infrastructure will require vastly more energy.

 

Presently, we avoid building numerous things due to the energy costs. No longer would it be an issue, and they will proliferate.

 

Study the history of energy use, you'll find that usage keeps pace with new discoveries of energy (at least the non-renewable kinds). Wise budgeting and foresight are here to stay, regardless of the era or its advancements.

Edited March 15, 2009 by The Bear's Key

[SkepticLance]

Bear, fusion energy off the Earth will be fuelled by deuterium mined off the Earth. There is almost certainly water on Mars and the moon, in significant quantities, and water will be a big part of smaller clusters of matter such as the asteroids, or the moons and rings of Jupiter and Saturn. To extract deuterium on Earth and lift it through the gravity well for use in space makes little sense. It is energetically cheaper to move a tonne of deuterium from Saturn's rings to Earth orbit, rather than lift it from the surface.

 

If humanity builds a space elevator, making transport into space cheap and easy, then we can move deuterium the other way if needed. Space to Earth.

 

On Earth, if we get to use deuterium fusion energy, it really is not going to matter how much energy we will need, since the total is so massive. Once you get above a million year's supply, you might as well call it infinite. Who knows what the human species will be doing in a million years, or what its needs will be, or even if it still exists.

[The Bear's Key]

On Earth, if we get to use deuterium fusion energy, it really is not going to matter how much energy we will need, since the total is so massive. Once you get above a million year's supply, you might as well call it infinite. Who knows what the human species will be doing in a million years, or what its needs will be, or even if it still exists.

That's if you believe a functionally endless supply is possible.

 

But never has the supply of energy, compared against the demand for more, ever shown anything remotely close to what you say.

 

The kinds of predictions you hear about near-limitless energy fail the test of reality. Nothing exists to give those predictions credibility. On the other hand, industrial development has always needed to balance supply and demand of energy.

 

This reality's ingrained not only into economics, but in our life and the ecosystem. There's a reason all quests to perpetually satisfying our energy needs (food) hits the roadblocks.

 

We must face that balance is the key. No amount of bio-engineering, nuclear technologies or formulated assumptions is going to magically slip us past the issue of sustainable responsibility.

[SkepticLance]

Bear

The big assumption behind what I say is simply the assumption that humanity will crack nuclear fusion using deuterium. That is not certain.

 

However, IF we do, then the rest is basic maths. The deuterium in water contain energy from fusion that is, in theory, 8 times that of oil. That is, one kilogram of water might release as much energy as burning 8 kg of oil.

 

Since the oceans contain E18 tonnes, the rest is simple maths.

[The Bear's Key]

....simple maths.

That's the problem.

 

The variables of human economics are being ignored. As well the costs to ecological balance/stability once you've drawn past a certain amount of deuterium from the natural levels in oceans.

[SkepticLance]

Bear

Deuterium is a tiny part of the hydrogen in the water of the oceans. Removing it will have zero impact on ecology.

[The Bear's Key]

Deuterium is a tiny part of the hydrogen in the water of the oceans. Removing it will have zero impact on ecology.

I would hope. Similar thoughts have proven wrong, though.

 

Might your expertise on the subject be good enough for us to rely on that statement?

 

Depleting a widespread component from an ecosystem larger than half the world's surface likely isn't a great idea unless comprehensive analysis/testing were done beforehand.

 

Probably few, if any, major studies will be done until the time arrives, however.

 

But existing studies have revealed a possible tie to circadian systems. Which, might be pretty important (if the study is reliable -- they're from the 70s, apparently not many further investigations since then).

 

http://www.websciences.org/sleepandhealth/richardson.html

Despite the early difficulty identifying environmental and metabolic manipulations with circadian clock effects, there were a few prominent successes. One early example was deuterium, which when fed to hamsters and mice in drinking water, produced a concentration-dependent lengthening of the circadian period

 

 

On a species of fruit fly.

http://www.pnas.org/content/70/7/2037.abstract

D2O is the only “chemical” agent that consistently affects the frequency of circadian oscillations: its effect is now known to be so widespread and predictable that its action merits closer study as a potential clue to the currently obscure concrete nature of circadian oscillators. The great diversity of D2O effects on biological systems in general is briefly reviewed and the need for rejectable hypotheses concerning the action of D2O on circadian clocks is stressed because current speculation on its action yields “predictions” expected from almost any hypothesis.

The part that stands out is "The great diversity of D2O effects on biological systems in general", yet I'm unsure if any enough studies have followed this.

 

We'll know more after nuclear fusion's been conquered, making the priority higher to find out. But I'll wager deuterium has a bigger tie to the ecosystem than is readily apprarent.

 

_

In any case, your math still doesn't account for trends of human economics, industrialization, and energy consumption.

 

Plus, see below.

The deuterium in water contain energy from fusion that is, in theory, 8 times that of oil. That is, one kilogram of water might release as much energy as burning 8 kg of oil.

 

Since the oceans contain E18 tonnes, the rest is simple maths.

And it's not as if we can suck up the deuterium with a giant straw from one port. We'd have to travel the entire ocean, seeking the great depths, watching out for debri, sea life, etc.

 

Thus it's premature to say E18 tonnes available.

 

Which....is not the case anyway. (that's is the amount of water, not deuterium)

 

Even if you could grab up 100% of all the ocean's deuterium: water also consists of Oxygen, so we'll subtract that part (33%?). And of the remaining Hydrogen, deuterium makes up just 0.015% of it by volume or 0.030% by weight. (Source: Wiki). To be honest, it's still a vast amount.

 

Don't forget though, we have yet to learn if substantial removal of deuterium will upset any ecological balance.

[SkepticLance]

Bear

The percentage of deuterium in water is 0.015%. Since hydrogen is 11% of water, the deuterium is less than 0.2% of the hydrogen. If you think removal of this component is going to cause an ecological upset, your logic needs tweaking.

 

In addition, the removal of deuterium would take untold millions of years. Hardly a trauma! Remember that my original statement was that the theoretical fusion energy of deuterium was enough for a billion years at humankind's curren energy usage. Even if humanity's energy demands increased very dramatically, the removal would be very, very slow.

 

It is also interesting to note that the natural deuterium in comets is twice that of Earth's water. In the distant future, humanity is likely to extract much of its deuterium from extra-terrestrial sources. Distant future defined as anything over 1000 years.

 

Nor is the amount of deuterium in natural waters sufficient even at maximum dose to have any biological effects at all. Neither of your two articles on biological effects of D2O actually stated how much heavy water they were using in their studies. I would guess, though, that it was massive doses compared to the amount of deuterium water there is in natural sources.

 

In the article referenced at :

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=433888&pageindex=2

the D2O was supplied as 25% of total drinking water to get a biological response. Such quantities, compared to a 'natural' level of less than 0.2% make the 'natural' impact of deuterium probably zero. ie they had to increase deuterium 100 fold above natural levels to get a measurable response.

[Sisyphus]

Bear

The percentage of deuterium in water is 0.015%. Since hydrogen is 11% of water, the deuterium is less than 0.2% of the hydrogen. If you think removal of this component is going to cause an ecological upset, your logic needs tweaking.

 

What logic is that he is missing? All I see is an appeal to incredulity. That's actually a fallacy. You cite actual evidence (or a lot closer to it) later on, but "it's only a little bit" is not evidence.

[SkepticLance]

Sisyphus

It is not evidence. it is lack of evidence. There is exactly zero evidence that the tiny trace of deuterium in the oceans has any biological value. A few studies have shown that megadoses of D2O can have a small biological effect, which is, at best, a curiosity. However, 0.015% of water being deuterium having a biological effect of any kind, much less one that is essential to the ecology???? That really begs credulity. Remember that the only difference between normal hydrogen and deuterium is atomic mass. There is little or no chemical difference, and it is the chemistry that counts.

 

In addition, even if humankind switched 100% to deuterium as its energy, and even if energy needs increased ten fold, the reduction in deuterium in the ocean over a full million years would be a mere 1%. To start raising ecological alarm over this is (not wanting to be insulting, so I am saying sorry in advance) just plain ridiculous.