Greening of cities / alternate energy

[Sisyphus]

Again, same fallacy. I'm not saying it would have any noticeable effect whatsoever, but I'm certainly not willing to say it won't just because "a small percentage of something couldn't possibly make any difference." That is a clear logical fallacy, made more annoying by the fact that it was part of an insult.

 

(BTW, the rest of your post was fine, IMO, and I actually agree with you.)

[SkepticLance]

Sisyphus

I am glad you agree with me. Can I ask you, what insult? I was not aware I had insulted anyone, and if so I apologise. Sometimes, when I suggest that a line of reasoning is not firm, it may be taken as an insult. But I am criticising the logic, not the person.

 

On small amounts, and their biological effects.

This is most clearly stated with regard to hazardous materials, in which the science of toxicology rules. The first principle of toxicology is stated as :

"The dose makes the poison." (as worded by Paracelsus, the founder of modern toxicology in the 16th Century.)

 

This principle says two things :

1. Everything is toxic at a high enough dose.

2. Nothing is toxic at a low enough dose.

 

In terms of a chemical affecting biology or ecology, the principle is exactly the same. If the dose is low enough, there is no effect.

[Sisyphus]

Right, but simply pointing to any particular dose without evidence for what dose is significant is meaningless (fallacious if it comes with an implication). You'll see almost exactly the same appeal to incredulity in the global warming debate (though not among scientists). "The amount of CO2 released by humans is very small compared to the total amount, therefore it can't have a significant effect." EPIC LOGIC FAIL.

[SkepticLance]

Sisyphus

The argument I put is that a reduction of deuterium in the world's oceans by 1% over one million years is seriously unlikely to have any significant or measurable ecological or biological effect.

 

Are you really, seriously, honestly, suggesting I am wrong????

[Sisyphus]

Nope.

[Mr Skeptic]

Perhaps this tangent should get a thread of its own. In any case, the kind of study that is needed here is one that uses water that has been depleted of deuterium and tritium, and seeing if there is any noticeable difference. I predict there will be no noticeable difference, at least for the vast majority of life. And given some time to adapt, even less difference. And further predict that no one would have done such a study, and that one would likely only be done to counter fears that depleting the deuterium would adversely affect life.

[The Bear's Key]

The percentage of deuterium in water is 0.015%.

Opening paragraph in Wikipedia

Deuterium thus accounts for approximately 0.015% (alternately, on a weight basis: 0.030%) of all naturally occurring hydrogen in the oceans on Earth

That might be incorrect (no citation), but it does say 0.015% of Hydrogen.

 

 

Since hydrogen is 11% of water

Ah. That makes the deuterium even less than I calculated. In 11% of the ocean, there's <0.02% deuterium. So basically: less than 0.02% of 11% of E18 tonnes is deuterium.

 

Regardless, you're correct that it's an incredibly large amount, even reduced to those numbers. A crucial variable to the scale of its mining is how efficient this will be. As you deplete one area, it's going to mix with previosuly unmined sections.

 

That will have a dilution effect. As you mine it large-scale, the percentage of deuterium in all water becomes less, translating into more work...to extract less...as time goes on.

 

The only way to avoid this is to section off every area of the ocean. But then ecological instability and harm would become a real issue.

 

There is no free lunch. Maybe a bargain lunch, overpriced lunch or even a donated lunch -- but none free, except....

 

[hide](actually, dinner or breakfast can be free).

 

/loophole [/hide]

 

Besides, an immense reserve of energy would allow the construction of mega technologies/infrastructures, which are unrealistic in our modern climate of limited energy.

 

The amount of technology built to make use of abundant energy tends to scale with the magnitude of that abundance.

 

Nanotechnology can explode. But their vast numbers and work done requires vast amounts of energy. Although....maybe they can get it by solar conversion, as travel to a fueling station by a microbot would be quite a long distance, and inefficient. Renewable energy has a superior advantage there.

 

Imagine however, several deuterium extraction facilities the size of Manhatten, or larger, in the oceans. Space elevators the world over. Fuel stations dotting the oceans for intercontinental lanes of flying vehicles. Subaquatic high-rise apartment complexes. An opportunistic business infrastructure growing around these. The creation of new governments, ocean boundaries, and subsequently: water-environment nations to organize/balance mass interactions of trade, daily living, and ecological systems.

 

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

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%.

Niether of us know what it'll be. You keep presenting your tenfold assumption as fact.

 

Even if it doesn't mean you're wrong, our progress in technology/infrastructure has been fairly consistent with regards to depletion of non-renewable energy (percentage-wise).

 

That's bound to change, however. Progress isn't limited to material achievments. Energy sustainability in a wise and logical manner that allows for enjoyment of both greatly advanced technology/infrastructure/living (conditions), and untouched natural resources in equal proportion, is still a long ways to go. That kind of progress is of mindset -- broad, educated and free thinking.

 

The argument I put is that a reduction of deuterium in the world's oceans by 1% over one million years is seriously unlikely to have any significant or measurable ecological or biological effect.

 

Are you really, seriously, honestly, suggesting I am wrong????

It's entirely possible that you're wrong.

 

But not about the 1% making a difference. Rather, your assumtion that it'll only go down by 1% in a million years can be off the mark -- by a lot.

 

In any case, the kind of study that is needed here is one that uses water that has been depleted of deuterium and tritium, and seeing if there is any noticeable difference. I predict there will be no noticeable difference, at least for the vast majority of life.

Possibly you're right. It's just as possible you're wrong. I'd like to see tests, more as a curiosity than to forecast ecological outcomes -- I'm sure precatutionary tests will be done as the fusion process takes off.

 

And further predict that no one would have done such a study, and that one would likely only be done to counter fears that depleting the deuterium would adversely affect life.

It's not about fear, rather it's being practical. Deuterium is too universally scattered in water, to just empty it and not first check what might happen.

 

But in any case, it really doesn't matter. The ability to extract too much is limited by the difficulty of its extraction. And if that process became ultra easy, I'm sure the necessary tests will be performed.

 

I'd like to return to your question from which this path of reasoning extended, below.

 

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 concept's interesting, maybe you can start a thread. We'll be able to detect if there's any logictical issues with the premise. Yet no matter the outcome, though, we're sure to learn new things and/or gain city-building insights from such a discussion.

Edited March 17, 2009 by The Bear's Key
grammatical errors

[SkepticLance]

To Bear

I have not asserted my statements about using deuterium as fact. There are assumptions built in, and the conclusions depend on the assumptions. Like when I said that there was enough deuterium in the world's oceans to supply humankind with energy for a billion years at todays rate of use. Can you see the assumptions?

 

Anyway, the point really is that there is more than enough deuterium for any reasonable projection into the future, if and when we learn to use it for energy. And any depletion over that reasonable projection time, will be so minimal that talking of ecological effects is kind of pointless.

 

On the idea of the perfect city. There is no such thing. There may be an optimal design for a specific spot, and a specific time, and a specific people. But that will be different to every other place, time and people.

 

I do not believe anything is ever 'perfect'. There is always room for improvement. Rather than tackling such a concept, it is much more practical to ask individual questions.

ie. How can we improve :

Paris

New York

London

Sydney

etc.

[The Bear's Key]

To Bear

I have not asserted my statements about using deuterium as fact.

Only the tenfold increase assumption.

 

Now back to our topic.

 

 

City floating on the sea could be just 3 years away

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/03/09/floating.cities.seasteading/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

 

Patri Friedman, a former Google engineer who now works for the Seasteading Institute, said floating cities are the perfect places to experiment with new forms of government.

 

Some of the new political ideas the group is tossing around include legalizing marijuana and making intellectual property communal -- so that everyone would take ownership in art produced on the city at sea.

 

"The idea isn't just about getting away from rules or getting rid of rules. It's about a system that encourages experimentation with different political systems," he said.

Quite awesome.

[Pangloss]

Rofl, what a nightmare that would be. Think I'll have to conveniently lose my invitation on that one.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_flies

[The Bear's Key]

Rofl, what a nightmare that would be. Think I'll have to conveniently lose my invitation on that one.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_flies

You have a point about dreamt-up cultures. I found another we better steer clear of.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire_economics

 

Doh! We already live here. Good thing the ideal "free" market exists nowhere in the world, it'd be Lord of the Flies nation-wide.

 

Plus, we might as well forget colonies on the moon, planets, wherever. Toss out the Constitution, it was also planned.

[SkepticLance]

Actually there is a lot in favour of laissez faire economics. The British learned this after WWII. They were in a sad way at the end of the war, and were unable to go back to Hong Kong for nearly a year after the Japanese walked out. For almost a year, Hong Kong was left on its own, with no army, government, police force, education or health system. Just a whole lot of people who had to make do.

 

When the first British governor got back into Hong Kong, the first thing he did was run a survey to find out the situation. To his utter surprise, he found that the Hong Kong people were doing very well, thank you. They were setting up small businesses. Some were growing food for sale. For police, they had local vigilante groups. For schools, they had entrepreneurs teaching kids for a fee. For health, they had nurses and doctors running their own clinics. The economy was not exactly thriving, since it was starting from a zero base, but it was growing at a staggering rate.

 

The British governor was a smart guy and established a policy of minimal interferance. Really just law and order and defense. The result was that, at the time Hong Kong was handed back to the Chinese, it was perhaps the wealthiest place in Asia. Anything that has happened since does not reflect laissez faire.

[The Bear's Key]

Oh, I've heard the story before. Not impressed, at least on laissez faire's side. The pulling together of the shattered city deserves recognition, but it just shows that humanity is able to coexist in a mostly peaceful way if given a chance. Meaning, it's hardly something new. And hardly attributable to an economic philosophy.

 

What other variables did they have missing to contribute to a healthy economy?

 

• No religious intrusion onto government, especially in covert ways. That should be the number one factor. But let's continue.
  
• No industry trampling over citizen rights, or monopolies killing the small business infrastructure. Perhaps that's due to the vigilantes, eh? Or maybe the time span wasn't enough for it.
  
• They might've not had special interests overiding citizens' basic rights, interfering in personal affairs, dictating how people should live.
  
• There wasn't much of a classified secrecy dividing people from its government.
  
• Even though Hong Kong was destroyed, the memories of its people weren't. Surely they knew how to set up business and put recent knowledge to use.
  
• Lastly, they were a major port. Of course they'd have business opportunites.
  

 

What's funny is not too soon after, in the 50s, a major public housing effort was underway, and now probably half of its citizens live in public housing. Yet the city thrives.

 

I'm not against free markets. But you have to understand, it's gotta mean free, not a bastardized, sheeps-clothed, politically implanted version of free. And so each business must follow the same rules as would free citizens: to not trample the rights of others.

 

Except, citizens would have more rights, period. At least under our Constitution. It's not We the Businesses, right? Got it? Excellent!

 

But just to be sure, let's review. Each business must follow the same rules as would free citizens: to not trample the rights of others.

 

I love business, and yet respect that position -- a great many business types do, in fact: owners, participants, entrepreneurs. And we recognize that it can be done badly.....very. A market with no rules is just asking for cheaters to thrive, at society's expense. Or at least in places where greed is promoted by unscrupulous ones in high positions, and/or where a religious establishment strongly influences government and operates in secrecy.

[SkepticLance]

To Bear

My own personal view always revolves around the need for balance. The Hong Kong example serves to show the potential of ordinary people when they are given a chance. The fact that the colony thrived under a liberal and understanding colonial government shows that freedom and limited restrictions is good for people. The example is even more extreme if you take into account the millions of refugees from China that fled to Hong Kong and had to be cared for. However, they tended to become contributors, not parasites.

 

What is the balance here? Well, maximum freedom balanced by such restrictions needed to prevent the nasty bastards from exploiting everyone else. It appears that the British colonial government managed to get it pretty much right.

 

Business also needs maximum freedom with enough restrictions to prevent cheating. This is not quite 'laissez faire', but can approach it. What needs to be avoided is excess bureaucracy, and the associated massive compliance costs to business, and any attempt at protectionism.

[Sisyphus]

The lesson from Hong Kong is not "anarcho-capitalism is the best," if only because it's the only such experiment that hasn't been disastrous. It could, however, be very instructive if we look at how Hong Kong apparently was relatively thriving with a shattered city and no government while so many other places, like Somalia or Afghanistan, are most definitely not.

[SkepticLance]

Sisyphus

We need to compare apples with apples. Somalia suffers from warlordism, and unceasing conflict. Afghanistan is essentially tribal with lots of inter-tribal conflict. Hong Kong was a single community with no immediate hostile neighbours, at the time. China wanted to re-absorb it, but was prepared to refrain due to its treaty obligations. Anyway, China had lots else on its plate at the time.

 

Obviously, for some form of laissez faire economics to work, we need to have it operate within an environment of peace and political stability. We need to have a balance so that it is not simply anarchy. We need to have some rules, well policed, to stop its relative freedom from becoming a vehicle for exploitation. Hong Kong, under Britain, achieved those conditions.

[The Bear's Key]

Other greening cities

 

 

(Two more from China)

 

1) Tianjin. In a joint venture with neighboring Taiwan.

 

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6492604.html

China and Singapore on Wednesday pledged a joint effort to build an eco-city here into an environmentally-friendly model of sustainable development.

........

The development, 40 km from downtown Tianjin and 150 km from Beijing, will be guided by Singapore's use of solar and wind power, and experience in rainwater recycling, as well as wastewater treatment and desalination of sea water.

 

 

2) Mianzhu. In eco-partnership with the Kansas town of Greensburg.

 

http://www.hutchnews.com/Greensburg/hewitttday

Hewitt, Greensburg school superintendent Darin Headrick and Greensburg/Kiowa County Chamber of Commerce President Steve Kirk will travel to Mianzhu, a small town in the Sichuan Province, to discuss an "Eco-partnership."

 

Both cities sustained major damage from natural disasters - Mianzhu experienced an earthquake in May - and have shown interest in sustainable rebuilding efforts.

 

The partnership will allow leaders from the two cities to share best practices, as well as obstacles.

 

 

http://www.ktka.com/news/2008/dec/12/greensburg_delegation_visits_china_earthquake_zone/

A delegation from Mianzhu City plans to visit Greensburg next summer.

 

Last year's news -- Greensburg already went, though Mianzhu City's people are to be visiting Greensburg this summer.

 

 

 

 

(One in an oil place)

 

Masdar City, within Abu Dhabi in the Middle East, is a planned city that'll house at least 45,000 people, and 1,500 businesses mostly dedicated to environmentally-friendly products, with over 60,000 workers commuting there.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/mnEnergy/idUS408327034920090601

Abu Dhabi-based solar integrator Enviromena Power System has completed the Masdar 10-megawatts (MW) Solar Power Plant, which is currently the largest grid connected system in the Middle East.

........

Masdar City, is planned to be the world's first carbon neutral, zero waste city fully powered by renewable energy. The city's development is part of the Masdar Initiative, a multi-faceted Abu Dhabi initiative wholly owned by the Mubadala Development Company (Mubadala) to advance the development, commercialization, and deployment of renewable energy.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1553106120090115?sp=true

Abu Dhabi's Masdar said on Thursday it is building the Middle East's largest solar power plant for the carbon-neutral Masdar City.

.....

The $22 billion Masdar City -- the green city in the desert -- will be home to 50,000 people and 1,500 businesses. No cars will be allowed.

 

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12673433

Masdar’s managers say they will create an academic institution on a par with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a global manufacturing hub for technologies such as solar power and desalination, and a city of 40,000 people with no greenhouse-gas emissions and no waste—all while turning a profit.

........

No cars will be allowed. Instead, people will have to walk, or take “personal rapid transit”—small pods that will zoom around the city on tracks, akin to metro cars for individuals. Goods will be moved in the same way. The city will be walled, to keep out the hot desert wind.

........

All this, it is hoped, will allow the city to produce more energy than it consumes and ensure that less than 2% of the waste it generates ends up in landfills.

Question is, how much will this offset the rest of Abu Dhabi's oily footprint? And though the city is planning to build the world's largest hydrogen power plant, maybe its eco-friendliness depends on what method they use to generate the hydrogen.

 

I'll take a wait-and-see approach on Masdar, however it's one step in the right direction for them. Hopefully it spreads further into their neighboring areas.

 

 

 

 

(And in Malmö, Sweden)

 

http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/turning-torso

Western Harbour is being promoted as a global leader in urban sustainability. For heating, Torso connects to power utility Sydkraft's system, which uses 100% locally renewable energy. This is obtained from a variety of sources, including solar power, wind, bedrock and water.

 

 

The Turning Torso Residential Tower.

...with organic waste from the building ground down in kitchen waste disposal units, then transported though separate pipes for decomposition and biogas production at Malmö's waste incinerator and heat plant.

 

 

http://www.turningtorso.com/html/faq_en.htm

Organic waste will be ground in the kitchen waste disposal unit and transported through separate pipes for decomposition and biogas production. The rest of the waste will be sorted as usual in glass, metal, paper, etc. and recycled. The remaining waste will become energy for Malmö's district heating.

 

 

Western Harbour (Bo01)

There are futuristic buildings sporting massive glass windows and glinting solar panels.

 

But turn a corner and you find a green courtyard with a little pond and some modest timber structures that remind you of Swedish villages.

 

"I really like the diversity of houses - and they've made it easy here to live in a sustainable way,"

........

A nearby 2MW wind turbine provides much of the electricity for Bo01, the rest coming from solar panels.

 

Solar collectors on 10 of the buildings provide 15% of the heating, but a more important source is a heat pump connected to aquifers 90m (297ft) underground.

 

The water in the limestone bedrock is used to provide heat in winter and cooling in summer.