Fallout Studios Forums

Integrating suburban towns and neighbourhoods as part of nearby larger cities.

AllStarZ, on 20 May 2008, 21:59, said:

Any idea is terrible if it requires the initiation of the use of force, as the above one probably would.

I sure hope not. The cities are full of Black and Latino gangs. Schools and public services(though we shouldn't have these in the first place) are much worse there. Traffic is terrible. Smog is really bad.

I lol'd imagining some family from Bel Aire living in downtown LA.

While putting everyone in a giant city might reduce the overall output of greenhouse gases because less distance needs to be travelled, you also have to wonder what it does for the quality of life. Not everyone would enjoy living in a world made of concrete with no real nature to speak of. And it would probably get pretty smoggy and dirty after a while.

Fun fact since this thread has proved my initial point that no one has any decent solutions and all the other solutions are just shit.

4000 people died in the Great London smog of 1952.

Hmm, not something we want. But then again, we need more tree's to coop with the increasing polution problem and deforestation.

Crazykenny, on 21 May 2008, 11:48, said:

Hey, here's a solution:

We clone trees in vats and just harvest those. That way natural forests need not be harmed. Very similar to what some people plan to do with beef.

Only thing we need is more knowledge on the subject.

I still think that as far as making the problem of global warming go away, it's all about actively reducing CO2, not just limiting and scaling back production; obviously the latter is highly preferable and theoretically at least much easier, but just isn't possible without truly fundamental changes to our entire economy and way of life, and while it has to happen eventually (one way or another), it's not realistic to expect it to happen in the short or even medium term. That said the more research into alternate energy the better. But anyway, what we really need is some way to remove CO2, right? And nothing does this better than plants. Given that this is the case, is it even remotely feasible that we could somehow create favourable conditions in a large ocean to sponsor the formation of massive algal blooms? At their current state, these convert as much CO2 to O2 as all the world's forests combined, so it seems to me like an avenue at least worth researching.

The problem with using a lifeform such as algae is that their life and te amount of CO2 is interconnected. If there are too many algae, they consume too much CO2. If there is too little CO2, they die. Creating the right balance for the algae to not prosper too much while having them consume the "right" amount of CO2 is very tricky.

And that's not counting the trouble "producing" all those algae (of which a suitable species has to be found) in the first place.

I think none of us here can declare a perfect solution. Such tasks require teams of scientists and years of work to complete. There are 2 phrases I can say howevar and that is Hydrogen fuel cells and Bio diesel.
Edited by Dregan, 27 May 2008 - 11:08.

How do you get the hydrogen?

Biofuels are only ok if you don't mind starving half the planet.

You get mass amounts of hydrogen through through a process called electrolysis. Can be done on a large scale. Its simply dividing the atoms of water.

Bio fuels are good in a sense that the releave the strain on the dwindling fossil fuels that we are coming close to using up in the next 50 years. But I'm sure we will overcome the problem of food shortages/Bio Diesel when the problem of dwindling resources becomes even more clear.

Quote

Hmm, true. Though they are at least somewhat 'self-regulating' in that the more CO2, the more algae, and once they've 'eaten' too much there becomes less 'food', so they die back again. Then again this is probably already happening (though not anywhere near the extent we need it to) so as you say it would probably be extremely difficult to try and interrupt nature's balance. Regarding algae 'production', as I know it would be a stupid idea to try and grow them all and then release them or something, I was wondering if it would be possible to tweak the biosphere of an area of ocean by introducing just enough extra nutrients and water flow (I know there are ridiculously mammoth challenges even here, but at least within the realms of possibility) to trigger mass algal blooms that would then die back once the conditions revert to normal. Like I said, I know this is a pretty sketchy idea with some huge flaws, but it's just a thought I had.
Edited by CommanderJB, 27 May 2008 - 11:22.

Its a good idea but Biomass as a whole system is incredibly fragile. In effect you speak of just one sub system that as a result will have a multitude of effects on other biospheres.
Edited by Dregan, 27 May 2008 - 11:35.

Dregan, on 27 May 2008, 12:16, said:

Conservation of energy not mean much to you?

The energy required to electrolyse water is equal to the energy released when you burn hydrogen in oxygen in a fuel cell, however every process loses energy either Kinetic energy of particles (heat) or not capturing all the hydrogen emitted by electrolysis.

What do you use to provide the electricity?

Unfortunatly for some, the only answer is that of nuclear power

Its clean, some what expensive and takes only a cave man to bury the waste produced to serve out the life threatening part of it's half life.

And we get back to my original solution.

Power required to do anything has to be produced cleanly, Nuclear is the answer.

Why not solar? The energy of the sun's heat on the earth's surface every day is enough to provide electricity for all humankind all year.

I know I know I know, we can't cover the whole earth with solar cells or even a sizeable portion. But the energy from the sun is free, endless and it doesn't require too much effort to obtain the materials to capture it.

IMO, until solar power is introduced globally, we should go nuclear.

Solar? Maybe 20-30 years from now. For now, what Dauth said.

Waris, on 27 May 2008, 14:18, said:

That's exactly what I said .

Waris, on 27 May 2008, 22:18, said:

Good. It's all dependent on the efficiency of the solar cells themselves, as well as the cost for producing said cells. Hopefully in 20 - 30 years this will be negligible.

I'd go for either; Nuclear, Geothermal(SP?) Windturbine, Solar and Hydroelectral

Nuclear may be safe to the enviroment under the right hands, if exposed then Nuclear is dangerous due to explosions like Chernobyl. If you look at Beijing/Tianjin today you'll see that most parts of it is covered with pollution and smog and China is one of worlds most pollution producer and countries, however they have plege to reduce amount of pollution but it could takes years for it's effect to be seen.

But tbqh I'd personally go for Windturbines...

Wind can help provide electricity, but will never be nearly enough to be a main source of electricity for mankind. It should help out as a backup or for additional power to main sources such as the sun, though.

The best bet we as humanity can do, is provide the cleanest sources of energy whilst maintaining its cost effectiveness. Replacing older solutions with newer cost effective plans.

Half the renewable stuff cannot be used as a base line power source.