It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Green Technologies

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I think it would be interesting to discuss and evaluate some of the new technologies that are becoming available that promote "sustainable" living and "green" technology.

Some of the new technologies are using recycled materials. Does this idea appeal to you? Do you think these ideas and projects will be more durable and energy efficient than what we have today?

One thing I see often is that the newer technologies are being used in Africa and areas of South America. Many of these items are not available in the USA and I really wonder why.
Is it because Americans are a 'hard sell' and people are much too used to luxuries and reluctant to change to new methods? Or is it because America is doomed and the third world nations are being built up in a more sustainable manner?

Tell me what you think of some of these items and their possible efficiency. Feel free to add new and unusual green items that you have found.

Here is an item currently being sent to Haiti called the Waterbrick.




Global Applications: Humanitarian - Civilian - Military Markets


WaterBrick is a unique container that can be used for water, food, medical or other emergency needs that can be palletized, then shipped and/or air-dropped anywhere worldwide quickly and economically. It's currently being considered as the container of choice for distribution of products to some African regions replacing non-recyclable bags and disposable containers.


WaterBrick is also a self-contained building block used to construct permanent housing and other facilities in third world nations at far less cost than conventional building methods. WaterBrick requires no foundation or mortar; just add dirt and stack like conventional building blocks.


WaterBrick is also ideal for bulk water storage for hurricanes, storm preparedness, camping, boating, and also fits the design model for sale and distribution in such stores as Home Depot or Lowes.

www.waterbrick.org...




At the website above it also demonstrates a house made of these waterbricks.
Perhaps some of the ATS experts will know how this compares to other materials that out gas VOC's as well as conventional materials that harbor molds. I would also be curious about the long range durability of this material in a tropical location. Would using sand as insulation keep the shelter at an optimum temperature year round?

Of course, it is a totally different style of living. And there would probably be no way to wire for electricity, but then, many areas of third world countries have no electricity anyway. What I really do not understand is why these nations have been kept in the dark for the past 100 years! It has only been in the past few years that they have been given solar powered lighting to replace their kerosene lamps.

I think this company deserves a mention for the wonderful things they are doing in Haiti to help with disaster relief.



Florida Company Donates Solar Lights to Haiti
Sol Inc., a Florida manufacturer of solar outdoor lighting, is helping relief efforts in Haiti, pledging more than $300,000 in equipment and aid. The company's product combines a small solar panel and a battery pack to provide power for a high-intensity lamp that uses light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

Workers have helped bring sun-powered illumination to hospitals, relief camps, and food distribution centers in the quake's epicenter of Port-au-Prince.

Sol has assisted with solar lighting in other disaster recoveries, including efforts for victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Hurricane Rita in 2005, Peruvian earthquakes in 2007, and tornadoes in Chapman, Kansas.




And how about the idea of combining your home gym with lawn chores? Will green technology change the way we do things?





I have seen some serious foot pedal pumps for watering. A few years ago, I tracked down a manufacturer. They were being made in the USA but were for export and were not being sold in this country.



If people separated their kitchen from the main house, perhaps there would be less house fires. Also, this could be done in a more fuel efficient way not requiring electricity. Operating an oven in the house also requires more output from your air conditioning unit.



You can find a variety of outdoor ovens that are simple, quick to build, and fuel efficient by searching "rocket oven". Some ovens are as simple as turning over a large unglazed terra cotta flower pot!

What to do with your old satellite dish after the EMP attack? Turn it into a solar cooker.

You have to admit that developed countries must sometimes have to experience great hardships before they are willing to change their lifestyles. Perhaps that is part of the growing pains this country must go through. Maybe the next generation will build better.

What do you think, ATSers?




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
A Warm Bench




A Quebec design student has created a concrete bench that heats by pumping water heated by warm sewage through the bench. In Montreal the sewer temperature stays at a toasty 60 degrees Fahrenheit most of the year. This bench uses pumps connected to the sewer pipe to pump water warmed by the sewage through the bench, therefore keeping your bum warm.





pic and video here: gizmodo.com...



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


Maybe it's a translation issue -- I got the impression the SEWAGE was pumped through the bench! haha. Nope -- tubes of water wrap around the sewer and those tubes go through the bench. YEP!

This would be very great in Minnesota where the homeless people die in the hundreds every year from hypothermia.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


Yeah so that satellite solar oven requires WELDING GOGGLES while cooking! holy smokes -- permanent blindness if you forget them... ooops!!

www.mineralarts.com...

[edit on 26-4-2010 by drew hempel]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


www.gotwind.org...

Seems like you could reverse engineer a rotor-stator motor?

www.ebikes.ca...

[edit on 26-4-2010 by drew hempel]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I feel that we should be using the technologies that are statistically the safest.


Figure 24.11. Death rates of electricity generation technologies. x: European Union estimates by the ExternE project. O: Paul Scherrer Institute.

www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk...


And also technologies that also introduce the fewest pollutants into the environment at the lowest cost while giving us energy independence.


Source: EPRI
NOTE:
NGCC = Natural Gas Combined Cycle
PC + CCS = Pulverized Coal + Carbon Capture and Storage
IGCC = Coal Gasification + Carbon Capture and Storage


And also technologies that have the least impact on land use:

PLoS ONE.

[edit on 27/4/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   
news.nationalgeographic.com...

This 'paint' lets you turn any surface into a solar cell, and not only that, but one that is powered by infrared light, so it works even on cloudy days. Unfortunately, while it is both green energy and can be put almost anywhere, it is still rather expensive.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Nuke Puke! Statistics of environmental cost of mining? NOT INCLUDED!! Statistics of environmental cost of emissions? NOT INCLUDED!! Statistics of environmental cost of construction? NOT INCLUDED! Statistics of environmental cost of waste storage? NOT INCLUDED. Statistics of environmental cost of transportation of waste? NOT INCLUDED.

It's easy to lie with statistics but then people want pretty pictures these days.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I'm wouldn't say I'm pro-nuclear, I'm pro arithmetic. Facts are facts. So why don't you go explain why the environmental damage from nuclear plants is extremely high compared to other sources of electricity despite all of the statistics I posted above. Until then you're just another increasingly marginalized anti-nuclear person who has no facts - why don't you some provide some evidence of your own. (Maybe it will be even more simple to debunk that way).


It's easy to lie with statistics but then people want pretty pictures these days.

It's easy for anti-nuclear treeple to yell out criticisms without bothering to read a single source of my information. You have no argument. You failed to provide one. How about not making every second word in upper case, maybe you will be more credible, and, how shall we say, less childish that way. Stop throwing a tantrum and provide evidence.









Statistics of environmental cost of mining?

Cost of mining what? The enormous amount of rare earths renewables need, coal, oil, fracking, or is somehow because it's Nuclear mean it's somehow different? Maybe if I had a study comparing them all, I would post it.


Statistics of environmental cost of emissions?

I posted emissions. Or are you talking about radiation emissions usually measured in picocuries, or 0.0000000000001 curies, which are by the way, far lower than coal by an order of magnitude?


Statistics of environmental cost of construction? NOT INCLUDED!

Needs least land of any form of electricity. And the least materials (excluding natural gas).


Statistics of environmental cost of waste storage?

There are no environmental costs included with waste storage.


Statistics of environmental cost of transportation of waste?

There are no environmental costs included with waste transportation. A truck is negligible.

[edit on 27/4/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Treeple and nuke heads are as bad as each other.

Overunity is the way we are going - you two can live in the dark ages.

google "race to zero point"



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Magzoid
Treeple and nuke heads are as bad as each other.

Overunity is the way we are going - you two can live in the dark ages.

google "race to zero point"


Good luck on your pursuit to free energy. Just don't expect most people to follow your logic until over-unity is demonstrated and verified.

[edit on 27/4/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


I also believe nuclear is the way to go, it is the only source of energy that combines low cost, high power production, safety, and is probably the most eco-friendly source of all. The only problem I see is not technological, but it is this irrational fear of everything nuclear. I am very pro-nuclear, and I have a nuclear plant a few kilometers behind my house.

Some interesting info:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


That's hilarious nuclear can't even get private insurance -- that's how HIGH the costs are!!

en.wikipedia.org...



At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability. In 1978, the Act survived a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court case Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group (see below). The Act was last renewed in 2005 for a 20-year period.


Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
Use snippets and links for external content.
Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.



[edit on 28/4/2010 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


I would say you're brainwashed:

investigativereportingworkshop.org...



These actions come after an extensive decade-long campaign in which companies and unions related to the industry have spent more than $600 million on lobbying and nearly $63 million on campaign contributions, according to an analysis by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.


www.youtube.com...

Obama OWNED by the nuclear power industry.

www.nukewatch.com...



There is an investment choice to be made. “The investment required to double global nuclear capacity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by less than 5 percent, would be between two and three trillion dollars. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute calculates, “Each dollar invested in electric efficiency displaces nearly seven times as much carbon dioxide as a dollar invested in nuclear power, without any nasty side effects.”3


[edit on 27-4-2010 by drew hempel]

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
Use snippets and links for external content.
Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.



[edit on 28/4/2010 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
Use snippets and links for external content.
Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.



[edit on 28/4/2010 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Here's a great new development that I posted previously but only received a few replies, although all positive:


www.abovetopsecret.com...



Hint: It's a new material, replacement for most types of plastic for those who don't want to read the post. On the raw chance that you are one of the 72% of Americans who did not know in on online survey conducted in 2007, that plastic is made from petroleum products, primarily oil, here's a link to same:

fakeplasticfish.com...

The potential use for this new product is incredible as 10% of our oil consumption is used to make plastic, and the new product is bio-degradable!



[edit on 27-4-2010 by manta78]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

Originally posted by Magzoid
Treeple and nuke heads are as bad as each other.

Overunity is the way we are going - you two can live in the dark ages.

google "race to zero point"


Good luck on your pursuit to free energy. Just don't expect most people to follow your logic until over-unity is demonstrated and verified.

[edit on 27/4/2010 by C0bzz]


It's not my logic - it's the logic of the universe upon which we have only scratched the surface.

This thread is really about divide and rule whereby there are two opposing arguments that nullify each other and the status quo remains.

I have no objection to you fitting into this paradigm if that is what you wish.
I know ZP energy exists from what quantum experts are saying. There is sea of energy out there in space waiting to be tapped. Particles of matter come into and out of existence through the quantum foam billions of times a second - hals of the particles have a positive charge and the other half have a negative chage meaning the net voltage is "zero".

Common electrical appliances already utilise this ZP energy field by creating a disparity between positive and negative charges - the charge comes fro the enviromnent but the dipole in the circuit is a closed look meaning the circuit itself destroys the dipole - unless there is a constant power source.

If you use an open system (see John Bedini, Tom Bearden, Moray) then you allow the ZP energy field to be utilised without having a chemical energy source such as a battery.

This is all in the public domain but conventional science is so dumbed down that they can't grasp the fact that the laws of the universe they use, just may not be the ones that nature uses because it will destroy a lifetimes work for them and their institutions not to mention stopping all forms of war over resources and land.

Bycycled irrigation could be replaced by desalination plants running for free - irrigate new lands and create forest, jungle or new marshland.

The big question is if TPTB allow this technology to manifest en-masse because there are also negative implications like producing new forms of WMD's that tesla spoke of.

For now I'll just potter about looking for the an answer on here overunity.com and maybe build one to satisfy my own curiosity.

Peace




[edit on 27-4-2010 by Magzoid]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

That's hilarious nuclear can't even get private insurance -- that's how HIGH the costs are!!


Capital costs are high which make it difficult to invest in. Capital cost is massively higher than fossil fuels without CCS, however operating costs are extremely low. I already provided a total levelised cost of electricity for Nuclear, projected to be slightly higher than new coal without CCS, cheaper than wind, and cheaper than coal with CCS. Other studies by institutions such as IER, and EIA come up with similar pictures. Price–Anderson Act has very little to do with Nuclear costs. If you're worried about nuclear getting 'subsidized' by the government, then I can show you studies comparing various energy sources and there respective amount of public support per unit of electrical generation. It doesn't come out top but as usual renewables are dead last by an order of magnitude.


These actions come after an extensive decade-long campaign in which companies and unions related to the industry have spent more than $600 million on lobbying and nearly $63 million on campaign contributions, according to an analysis by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.

I would say you're brainwashed, as other industries also spend large amounts of money in campaign contributions. My country does not have a Nuclear Industry. I don't even think a dollar of Nuclear campaigning money is spent here. Instead I am bombarded with COAL and NATURAL GAS advertisements.


www.youtube.com...

You call me brainwashed and then you link me to a video comparing modern PWR's with Chernobyl?


Obama OWNED by the nuclear power industry.

Lucky I get my information from the ExternE project, Paul Scherrer Institute, EPRI, IER & EIA, and not Obama? I suspect the (correct) decision to go nuclear was more based on what nobel prize winner and now Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu was saying.


There is an investment choice to be made. “The investment required to double global nuclear capacity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by less than 5 percent, would be between two and three trillion dollars. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute calculates, “Each dollar invested in electric efficiency displaces nearly seven times as much carbon dioxide as a dollar invested in nuclear power, without any nasty side effects.”3

And then Amory turns around and tells us we need to buy extremely expensive renewables, and of course, more resource depleting natural gas. Energy efficiency will only decrease CO2 emissions to a certain point - it's not going to somehow close coal plants. Replacing all coal in the US would require about 100 new nuclear reactors, at a total cost of 600 billion dollars. That would reduce carbon emissions in the electrical sector by about 80%. Or total carbon emissions by over 30%. We already have 104 reactors, so another 100 is technically feasible. The actual cost should be lower due to economies of scale. Nuking just the world's top twelve power plants would end more CO2 than all the wind turbines in the world.

I also see that you've failed to provide a fair comparison on uranium mining, fossil fuel drilling (or mining), and the land use of renewables. Nothing is perfect.


Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China

GAOLONG, China -- The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.

www.washingtonpost.com...




Solar Industry Divided Over EU Toxic Substances Law

Solar panel manufacturers are fighting for an exemption from EU legislation restricting the use of dangerous chemicals in electronic products.

www.energia.gr...


In conclusion, you have done nothing but whine about how biased Obama is, how brainwashed everyone who disagrees with you is despite listening to Amory Lovins and comparing PWR to RBMK, you have offered no fair comparisons, and lastly, you have not told us what is better than Nuclear. You have no argument.

[edit on 28/4/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


www.nirs.org...



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 21, 2010 CONTACT Mary Olson, NIRS 828-252-8409 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              828-252-8409      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              828-252-8409      end_of_the_skype_highlighting Arnold Gundersen, 802-865-9955 John Runkle, NC WARN 919-942-0600 Louis Zeller, BREDL (NC) 336-977-0852 Groups Urge Feds to Suspend Nuclear Licensing; Westinghouse Reactor Defect Was Missed By Regulators Today, twelve national and regional environmental organizations called upon U.S. nuclear regulators to launch an investigation into newly identified flaws in Westinghouse's new reactor design. The coalition asked three federal agencies to suspend the AP1000 reactor from licensing and taxpayer loan consideration. The newly discovered design flaw is tied to documentation of dozens of corrosion holes being found in existing U.S. reactor containments, which recently has raised concern at the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), an independent arm of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Containment buildings are vital barriers against radiation releases during nuclear accidents. "The proposed AP1000 containment design is inherently less safe than current reactors," said Arnold Gundersen, former senior vice-president at Nuclear Energy Services PCC.



[edit on 28-4-2010 by drew hempel]

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
Use snippets and links for external content.
Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.



[edit on 28/4/2010 by Mirthful Me]




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join