The Future

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by the_cpl, Dec 14, 2008.

  1. alec

    alec White heterosexual male Orderite

    May 21, 2003
    My nick does not contain the word "Ego".
    I am not afraid to be challenged. If I were I would not post in this thread.

    I have not belittled anyone. All I have done so far is: I have posted my infallible arguments, my expert views and my superior opinions, and to close that off I have added some sane advice everyone could benefit from: "Think before you write."

    Why do you people always feel like I am attacking you when I write down my arguments? They don't contain any harsh words, do they? Take my previous post: where does that contain anything that would lead someone to believe that I am specifically trying to be offensive?

    No. You'll need farmland to grow these extra crops. Lots of extra farmland. And there is none.

    Stop doing this to yourself.

    No, I am not missing anything.

    No, it will not happen, not any time soon, not ever.
    The laws of nature won't have it. It's simply impossible.

    I manufacture electric cars. We spend billions studying this problem and our conclusions are very simple: it's not going to happen. Ever.

    :look:

    Books, man. I have tons of books on the subject of fossil fuels, alternative energy sources, Peak Oil, Olduvai theory, ... You can find these books in the library or the bookshop or you can probably order them via the internet. When you managed to obtain these books (or some of them), you need to read them and take in the data. I am not going to post numbers and graphs just to soothe other people's lack of knowledge on certain topics. Just look for books on the subject and become enlightened. :D

    Vertical living was a serious problem and very time-consuming to build. It was also very limited.
    If today's world population would be living in the same sorts of buildings we build pre-oil civilization, there would be not much land left to grow crops, to travel on, to have shops, schools, hospitals, ...

    Yes, I am. There's a couple right around my corner.

    No, it won't. It will not be cost-energy-effective.
    Those modern windmills are shaped like that for a reason: maximum profit. Otherwise, they would not be worth the effort of putting them there.

    Stop doing this to yourself.
     
  2. Chancellor Kremlin

    Chancellor Kremlin Mildly Dipped

    527
    Nov 17, 2008
    What? I can't possibly argue with someone with such narrow minded and firmly established misleading views.

    Sorry Alec, but I don't believe you. On both points. You do not manufacture cars, and its inevitable, hardly impossible.

    This is a pointless exercise. Being like you is like being a realist, you see the world for what it is, but do nothing to change it.
     
  3. alec

    alec White heterosexual male Orderite

    May 21, 2003
    Uhm... I like to think it was rather obvious that my saying that I manufacture electric cars was intended as a joke. Hence the :look: emoticon.

    In reality, I am the founder of Greenpeace, so yeah: I kinda sorta know these things I say to be true.
     
  4. Pablosdog

    Pablosdog Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    451
    Oct 30, 2007
    I always suspected alec was secretly canadian.

    I figure the future is that we are all amorphous ameoba like beings who absorb the fatty tissue of other similiar beings.

    Or we turn into pak protectors.
     
  5. Nullifidian

    Nullifidian First time out of the vault

    92
    Nov 4, 2008
    Everything dies out eventually. The universe is not forever. One word:

    entropy

    On a long enough timescale, even the smallest sub atomic particles will break down and all that will be left in the universe will be photons. It's called Heat Death, and it's probably the most depressing concept I've ever heard of.
     
  6. JohnnyEgo

    JohnnyEgo Mostly Harmless

    400
    Oct 22, 2007
    My nickname was actually my call-sign while I was serving in the US Military in the 1990s. It is based on my first and middle names, but was given added resonance by my associates at the time, who had to deal with a young man, straight out of high school, who thought he knew everything. So perhaps dealing with posters such as yourself is some sort of karmic payback.

    An excellent question. One that implies you find yourself in this situation often. So either most of the people with whom you wish to engage in argument are just 'thin-skinned', or perhaps you aren't as effective a communicator as you believe yourself to be.

    Reading a book on anatomy does not make one a surgeon. Reading a book on theology does not make one a god.
    I have many, many books on electricity. On it's generation, distribution, and application. Perhaps instead of discussing the topics therein, I should simply state that as I own these books and have read them, anything I say is correct. Any failure to understand or agree with me is due to your not owning and having read such books.

    Based on the above referenced reading list, my guess is that you appear to have been seduced by the theory and theology of Peak Oil, M. King Hubbert, Olduvai Gorge, et al. It is a theory that would be very popular with most Fallout fans, given it's focus on the apocalyptic collapse of the world economy. Here's something funny, though. It hasn't held up to real life. The peak prediction has been shuffling forward for years now. Junk financial products and the collapse of bubble markets have pushed oil prices, along with a vast array of other commodities, to record lows. Gas is $1.60 a gallon across the street from me. E85 is a buck. A year ago, I sat at a convention of engineers listening to a Peak Oiler telling me that oil prices were headed towards $500 a barrel. Funny how life is.

    Peak Oil has some things right. As populations increase and more nations approach the second and first world standards of production and living, we will have more competition for the limited resource pool. And we will adapt as we have always done. No Malthusian die off. We will simply make better use of the resources we have (efficiency gains), or find new ones that are cost competitive. Necessity will generate solutions, and economics will vet them.

    Today, I can drive 33 miles on one gallon of gas in my Honda Accord. I can do it in air-conditioned comfort while I listen to satellite radio and receive turn-by-turn navigation assistance. And I can get hit in the side by another vehicle at 30 mph, and chances are better then average that I will survive it. All of these things are market responses to legislation and consumer demand, mostly stemming from the 70s, which was the last time we had a major oil crisis. At the time, the auto industry, economists, and many others swore it could not be done. Yet here it all is today.

    Now, the big three US automakers are coming, hat in hand, for a bail-out from the government as a result of failing to respond to changes in the market. What appears to be coming out of it all is a plan to build more fuel-efficient vehicles that still meet consumer demand. It will be interesting to see where we end up in another 30 years.

    Back to the topic at hand: I am currently rooting for the LHC to create a black hole that destroys us all!
     
  7. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Aug 21, 2004
    Just a thought. If oil was as scarce as they say it is, why is it still so cheap? No, really, it is very cheap even if you are thinking it's expensive right now, if it was so scarce, or about to become so scarce, like we are completely going run out of it in 30 years from now like they say, it shouldn't be affordable or cost effective by the general public, by far.

    I mean, why do they let a consumer society like the US produce so many oil guzzlers and are so many automobile industries opposed to cars using new technology that doesn't require or use less oil?

    The oil consume, far from descending, its going up, don't you find that contradicting?

    Anyway, our atmosphere is far more fucked than our resources, the real deal is that by the time we are finished burning all the oil our atmosphere is going to be so fucked up that it won't matter.

    I honestly don't know who to believe anymore.
     
  8. Patton89

    Patton89 Vault Dweller

    727
    Nov 21, 2008
    Currently, the economic crisis is making oil seem cheap, but i assure you, before this crisis, fuel costs were rising. fuel cost 1,4+ euros, topping at 1,50 or 1,60 when it was worst. Even the Americans were feeling it. Now, fuel costs around 1,1 euros per litre.

    And why do you think american car industry is near bankrupcy ? They made fuel hogging, big cars that no one wanted.

    It pretty much a depression now, OPEC has cut down oil production more then EVER before in its history. Some say its a recession, i say they are optimists.
     
  9. ceacar99

    ceacar99 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    128
    Nov 11, 2008
    why cant people admit that electric cars are actually great town cars? its indeed true that they rarely have a limit more then 200-300 miles in a charge(which usually means 200-300 mile limit in a day) but they are great for getting to and from work in lots of cases and going to the store. they can even exhibit superior performance to combustion systems. there are electric cars that can out accelerate almost anything on the street, 800hp electric cars and because the dynamic way you can design the drive systems in those cars they can even be designed in such a way to have superior agility.

    sorry had to talk about that because a lot of people have been picking at electric cars in this thread when the fact is that other then range limits they are excellent machines and operate for less money then anything else on the road.

    its quite obvious that 99% of all the crops that produce fuel are impractical, however thats why there is such a sudden surge into algea. nothing on this earth can grow as fast as algea and so pretty much if we cant produce enough fuel with algea(which can be grown pretty much anywhere, not just in large open outdoor spaces) then its time to shift away from fossil like fuels and go for something else.

    it'd result in more power plants, not brownouts....

    how about hydrogen? it actually can be considered to be a battery. i mean you apply an electrical charge to a substance which causes a reaction, you collect the "charged" part and then later down the road you use another chemical reaction to release the energy. sounds like a battery to me....

    gasoline may not be an option, conventional batteries either, but you COULD use electricity to create hydrogen thus charging up a unconventional battery, and that battery could be used to power something in all manner of ways, it could even be used in a conventional style combustion engine.

    they could have collected the wood for my table by chopping down a tree with a hand axe, letting it float down a river to a mill and cutting it up with machinery powered by MUCH more efficient electricity, then it was put together by both hand and electric tools.

    i've allready posted a LOT of shit that demonstrates that PETROL IS NOT NEEDED TO RUN MACHINERY, its just the damn truth.

    but plenty of nuclear material, things to burn, sunlight and wind....

    as said before the machinery in the world is powered by petrol because its been practical till recently, however its not the only option......
     
  10. Nullifidian

    Nullifidian First time out of the vault

    92
    Nov 4, 2008
    Certainly better breaks that don't wear out easily. Dynamic breaking doesn't actually use break disks; it breaks by taking power form the engine and using it to recharge the batteries. Due to conservation of energy, this causes very rapid deceleration.

    Electric motors last longer and actually have a simpler design. They do not generate anywhere near the same kind of heat and thus can be oiled using vegetable oil instead of expensive motor oil. Because they don't really heat up, they don't need oil changes, or rather, they typically don't need an oil change for a good 50,000 miles or more. The drive system is completely different and doesn't require a transmission.

    When all is said and done, electric cars have almost no maintenance costs.

    QFT

    Ethanol from corn is simply a play to get votes from corn farmers. It was a play to the corn farming lobby and nothing more. Honestly, Obama supported it because he wanted Iowa. Since Iowa really is responsible for giving him a chance at the primary, I'd say his strategy worked.

    Ethanol from algae however is a good idea. You can grow the stuff in buildings.

    Again QFT.

    Supply and demand. Actually, while energy consumption would change, much of that energy would be at night, when people plug in their vehicles. Power plants run 24/7 and they don't magically store any excess power they produce. So increased consumption at night would really just result in more efficient usage of the power they are already generating that is simply going to waste.

    Any truly new requirements for additional energy would result in more power plants being built. The only roadblock to that would be legislation preventing them from being built at the state or local level. This includes cost prohibitive taxes and fees as well as pricing regulations like we have in Pennsylvania. Currently there is a hard cap on electricity generation billing prices. This cap has not been adjusted for inflation or increased costs on the part of the power companies. Thus if we do not let the rate cap expire, power companies will have no incentive to provide Pennsylvanians with electricity since it will cost more money to generate than they are being paid. The result is brownouts and blackouts.

    The issue with hydrogen is how to store it. Hydrogen is more rapidly combustible than gas is. We have the tech to use methane to recharge hydrogen fuel cells, but again, methane is highly combustible. Additionally, both methane and hydrogen are gases and difficult, expensive, and dangerous to keep under high pressure. The kind of pressure needed to be maintained in a gas tank for an automobile.

    However, there is research being done on Methane clathrate. It is basically a solid "sludge" form of methane. It's ice with methane trapped inside. This form of methane storage is EXTREMELY dense, and very very stable. It is the ideal form of storage for methane. Unfortunately, currently we don't have a very efficient way to extract the methane. Nonetheless, if we can discover an efficient way to extract methane from methane clathrate, we'd have a very good storage medium for material used to recharge hydrogen fuel cells.


    Besides hydrogen though, there is a take on an old technology that's seeing great possibilities: capacitors. Step capacitors specifically. In some ways they are far superior to batteries. One big example is charge speed. They recently developed a flashlight for example which uses a capacitor instead of batteries; it charges fully in 90 seconds and you get something like 30 minutes of charge or more. As capacitor technology improves, recharge time decreases, and usage time increases. Capacitors are also far less toxic.

    Then there's a new battery technology involving nano technology and genetics. IIRC MIT has developed a form of liquid nano battery. Why is this particularly good? Because it would allow a car to refuel in the same amount of time as they do currently. How? Instead of recharging their "batteries" (the nano batteries), they would swap them out for new ones. You'd go to a nano-battery station, pump out your old batteries, and then pump in new ones. The station then recharges those batteries, and once charged, sells them to someone else. The cost would be slightly more than standard electricity generation, but the speed and versatility would be far greater. Additionally, they could be recharged at your house like any other battery.

    It is however required to make most plastics. Many people forget that.

    Not to mention, Fast Breeder Reactors make their own fuel and can continue to do so for a good 500+ years straight without ever needing outside fuel. The spent fuel that is left over is inert and non-radioactive.


    There are newer and newer ways of transmitting power. You probably didn't know but currently, you can safely install outlets in your house that generate "wireless electricity" that can safely power quite a lot of stuff. You plug one module into an outlet and another module into the device you wish to power and the electricity is "beamed" to the device. There is a limit however to how much power can be drawn in this way safely currently. But it's enough to run a vacuum cleaner, a TV, a DVD, etc. Not enough to run a high powered desktop computer though. Not yet at least.

    Also, there has been new research into other wired forms of transmission. One particularly promising one has the potential to be able to convert light of a very specific frequency directly into electricity with almost 100% efficiency. No this isn't applicable to solar tech. It is however applicable to powerlines. Why? Because 90% of all power generated is lost over powerlines due to electrical resistance. No light however is lost over fiber optic cables. Thus, where we currently have transformers for high voltage lines, there could be boxes which convert that specific frequency of light into electricity. Thus we'd have the same effect as transmitting power over superconductors. It would also be safer and easier to maintain. Fiber is cheap; in fact with current rates it is cheaper than copper. Fiber is also safer; if a big fiber optic cable gets severed in a storm, you don't have to worry about it setting everything on fire like you do about electric lines.

    If you had powerlines converted to this type of system, you'd need one tenth the number of power plants we currently have.
     
  11. ceacar99

    ceacar99 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    128
    Nov 11, 2008
    that sort of technology has actually been around for a LONG time.... however so much energy is lost as its "transmitted" that its rediculous. further such high energy levels in the air can easily interfere with signals from all wireless devices.

    i think that almost 100% you got there means the amount of energy absorbed by the receiver. however if you try to transmit the kind of energy thats in a powerline down fiber optics cables you'll notice that a GREAT DEAL of energy is lost due to heat. we got wonderful technologies going for us but i dont believe that you could send that much energy via light source(which will likely be a form of a laser) and not have signifigant energy loss in the process.

    i told him a while back that if his arguments were based on the chemical industry then he'd have ground to stand on but obviously they aren't.

    further there is signifigant research in using bio catalysts to create the sort of chemicals found in petrol needed by the chemical industry. the hope is to end the need for petrol to make things like plastics.
     
  12. Nullifidian

    Nullifidian First time out of the vault

    92
    Nov 4, 2008
    Actually it had to do with a study into how plants operate. They now know the chemical properties necessary to have a die which will cause electrons to be bumped with as close to 100% efficiency as possible when a very specific frequency of light hits it. This isn't simple absorption. This is where nearly 100% of the energy in the photons hitting the die are translated into electrical energy.

    As for light source, yes it would of course be a laser since it would be a specific frequency of light. However lasers don't generate heat inside of fiber optics; they generate heat when they hit a substance that absorbs photons and transforms the absorbed photons' energy into heat. The endpoint for the laser would be a substance which transforms the energy from the photons into electrical energy, not heat.

    As for energy lost, the primary source of energy loss in this system would be the firing of the lasers themselves. However since these would be at a centralized location, we could take advantage of things like superconductors since the infrastructure could be in place at a single location such as a power plant to supercool them.

    [/quote]

    We can synthesize petrol. As I already said, it costs about $80 a barrel, but the source for it is mostly garbage. Things like turkey guts and plastic water bottles.

    Standard plastic recycling is more efficient, but we can actually turn virtually any petroleum based plastic back into petroleum.

    When oil goes up to over $100 a barrel again, this type of plant will make a killing and should theoretically prevent oil prices from going out of control. I say theoretically because in reality, prices are controlled by speculation, not supply and demand.
     
  13. GarfunkeL

    GarfunkeL First time out of the vault

    32
    Jul 3, 2008
    And even though most folks consider that oil costs much now, it's actually cheaper than it was during 60's. A study done in Finland proved that the percentage of a family's income which had to be put into transportation was huge when compared to a modern family. So even though fuel per litre costs more, wages have risen more rapidly than fuel prices.

    Every generation has doomsayers. Car was thought to bring down society, as was the train, phone, television. Coal was thought be ending during 19th century until different mining techniques were invented and surprise, no shortage of coal. Peak oil has been prophecied to happen several times already. There's huge loads of oil in Siberia but extracting them hasn't been very profitable before. There are oil- and gasfields in central-Asia which were abandoned during late Soviet-era since they were thought to be dry but thanks to the more modern horizontal-drilling techniques, those same fields are now producing shitload. And hydrogen-power isn't that far off, it's been researched now for quite a long time already.

    So there's no trouble about fossil fuels or energy. We will overcome possible shortages and adapt to new situations.

    Drinking water? There's enough clean water in Finland to sufficiently supply Syria completely, for example. Probably more. Problem is only how to transport that water there. Already Saudi's did a economical estimation about converting an oil tanker to water tanker. Was feasible but cost ended up being bit too pricey, when compared to a new desalination plant. But it shows that it can be done. Also, we have huge tonnes of drinkable water in both South- and Northpole, in the form of ice. True, it's quite expensive to use but possible. And recycling? It's already possible to recycle waste water into drinkable water (taste is pretty bad though), that just requires the correct systems and some energy (hellooo nuclear power!).

    So water is an bigger issue than energy but no apocalypse-level either.

    Overpopulation? Pfft, there's easily room for way, way more people on Earth. We only have to remove few priviledges that most western people have, like owning your own house and estate. Japanese are the pioneers here. Cities in US of A are pretty much the worst example - huge sprawls where you absolutely need a car to get from one place to another. More apartment-complexes (sky-scraper style), more public transports, more bikes (or E-bikes!). Maglev-trains connecting cities and towns, reducing the need for highways and trucks for logistics. It's much more efficient to transport goods by trains and ships than to use dozens of trucks. Too bad that currently trucks are so much more cheaper.

    Food? With genetic manipulation we can have crops that are more resistant to pests and weather, allowing bigger yields and farming in areas that haven't been used previously. Government just needs to carefully supervise the bio-companies and ensure that there's enough variety in the crops, to avoid any nasty situation where one company suddenly owns the rights to all crops farmed or that a new disease wipes out world's agriculture - another reason for those seed-banks that we have around the world. Artificial meat can be grown in vats, reducing the need for large amounts of cattle - we don't even have to convert to vegetarianism!

    Science-fiction? Hell no. Everything I've described above already exists, atleast in laboratories. Most of them exists in small quantities in some places around the world.
     
  14. Chancellor Kremlin

    Chancellor Kremlin Mildly Dipped

    527
    Nov 17, 2008
    Funny you should mention that, I had a bizarre apocalyptic dream about that. I was in a military base in China with a handful of Chinese generals, and something lead me to believe I was also a general. We were there because some new kind of devastating weapon would be unvealed to us.

    However, something went wrong and an amorpohus ameoba blob of what seemed like fatty, soap and soap bubbles fell from the ceiling and 'touched' a soldier. He promptly dissolved into an amorpohus ameoba blob of fat and soap and touched another soldier, starting a chain reaction, with nearly everybody in the base being infected and turned into these fat/soap aberrations.

    It grew into a pandemic and spread worldwide. The worst thing was they had a little smile and a childish giggle.

    Fucked up shit.

    Back to topic though.

    Its a shame plastic isn't more recycled right now. I fear by the time we get there it will be too late, or much will have already been lost and it will be harder to replace.

    Electric cars are probably the future. So what if the range isn't perfect? This can be tuned out. I bet the first petrol running cars were also pathetic, and many many people would have said the same.

    The end of the world will be due to either a pandemic, societal collapse resulting from food shortages (massive droughts, climate change, crop failure, etc) or a nuclear exchange. I long for the day a weapon just as powerful as the nuke (say anti-matter) is invented so at least we will not have to worry about fallout and radiation. Sadly, anti-matter production and storage on a large scale is probably hundreds of years away.
     
  15. ceacar99

    ceacar99 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    128
    Nov 11, 2008
    on petrol cars being pathetic.... originally the competition was between three types of cars. the rarer steam powered car, the petrol combustion car and the electric car, yes the electric car.

    because the practicality of petrol fuel that's what pulled to the lead but the electric car was a player from the beginning, and it has toughed it out because despite its range it has sooooo many practical advantages.

    the issue is keeping the flow going. we have enough water in the aquifer in colorado for all the work to be done now, however the question is how long we can keep that water up. really in my mind the issue is figuring out mass desalination and transportation of water.

    heat based power plants(coal, nuclear ect) that currently use steam as the main converter to kinetic energy produce a GREAT deal of steam. the system could produce clean drinking water from just about every source. thus desalination as a byproduct instead of using energy to make it the main product. still, the issue is transporting enough in an efficient method. i dont think a pipeline like that in alaska is gonna hold us over..... more like thousands of pipelines.
     
  16. Nullifidian

    Nullifidian First time out of the vault

    92
    Nov 4, 2008
    Well, I just read this in the news:

    http://gm-volt.com/2008/12/21/eesto...-extensive-detail-on-its-design-and-function/

    What is it? It's a patent on a technology that was kept very very very tightly under wraps until the patent was filed.

    What technology? A brand new capacitor. One that would get you 52kWh for a weight of about 280 pounds. That's the equivilent of a 750 pound Li-Ion battery. While the Li-Ion of that size charges in 6 hours, this new capacitor charges in 3-6 MINUTES. Why is 52kWh important? it's the battery capacity of the Lithium Ion battery in the Tesla Roadster. That battery happens to get the Tesla a cruising range of about 200-250 miles.

    With the ability to recharge that quickly, more breaking energy can be used to recharge it, thus even further improving distance you can go on a single charge. When I say breaking efficiency improved, we're talking over 10 fold. As in, it wouldn't be surprising to find one of these increasing the efficiency of the Tesla's breaking system to the point where you can travel upwards of 800 miles of city driving before having to recharge your batteries. Not to mention the fact that the reduced weight means either you don't have to haul around as much, or you can load up a whole other unit, doubling your electrical storage capacity. That means 400+ miles highway cruising range and likely 1600 or so city.

    Oh and 3-6 minutes is about the time it takes to fill an SUV's gas tank.


    But wait, there's more! No toxic materials are used to create these things.

    As you can see, it's understandable why they've kept a ridiculously tight lid on this project until they got the patent filed.
     
  17. Chancellor Kremlin

    Chancellor Kremlin Mildly Dipped

    527
    Nov 17, 2008
    If only the majority of these cars weren't so ridiculously expensive.

    But I like the direction the electric cars are heading. They are the way of the future! Hopefully we will have fully developed them before the oil runs out.
     
  18. Aaron

    Aaron It Wandered In From the Wastes

    140
    Jun 8, 2006
    We will. Every major car manufacturer has completed hybrid models ready to enter production. They are just waiting for their economists to say "okay, it's profitable to sell them no", and they will start to sell them at that instant. I bet that all the Middle Eastern oil companies have huge development programs on how to store energy more efficiently. When the oil runs out, they will have enormous solar cells, and lots of energy to sell. And by that time, fully electric cars will head out of the car salons around the world. And choosing from them won't be hard neither, as there will be like 5-6 car manufacturers left. Relax guys, the apocalypse won't happen. That would mean no more swimming pools and no more asses to tap for those guys in control, and they surely can't let that happen. Chances are high that we will be poor fuckers, if not slaves, but the rich will have it all, just as they have it today.
     
  19. Chancellor Kremlin

    Chancellor Kremlin Mildly Dipped

    527
    Nov 17, 2008
    So, i've been browing the net as usual, and found some interesting additions to this thread:

    Vertical Farming - An answer to food shortages?



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

    Interesting concept. This I think will be the easiest to implement out of all the next ones. It makes sense aswell.

    Shimizu MegaCity Pyramid - The solution to overcrowding?



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimizu_Mega-City_Pyramid

    Sadly, the material for this isn't even ready yet. Although I think the Saudi's are having a go at it aswell.

    Sky City 1000 - A less expensive option



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_City_1000

    Much more practical.

    X-Seed 400 - The much much much more expensive option



    Huge, impractical, expensive. When and if they become reality, I think I will be dead a long time.

    Dubai Carbon Neutral Pyramid 'Ziggurat' - The Arabic response





    http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/08/25/ziggurat-dubai-carbon-neutral-pyramid-will-house-1-million/

    Like I said, the Saudi's are giving it a go. This I actually trust may become a reality, because the Saudi's have this 'knack' for building gigantic, superfluous and luxurious building. An interesting fact is one of these can house half the population of the country. If it becomes a sucess, I have no doubt other countries will follow suit. Maybe it will be ready within the next 60 years or so?

    Crystal Island - Moscow Ballet at its best



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

    Pretty nice, I must say.

    Atlantropa - A damn through the Gilbrata Straight!?

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

    Old but interesting concept. Although I don't like the idea of draining the Mediterranean sea. The Italians apparently didn't either.
     
  20. alec

    alec White heterosexual male Orderite

    May 21, 2003
    Farmers growing crops on the 10th floor, milking cows on the 8th?
    Waking up, going to work and shopping - all in the same building? Never seeing sunlight again? Always breathing airconditioned air?

    If that is the future, I hope I won't be a part of it. Seriously.