RE: [carfree_cities] Re: Powering a carfree city
- See replies inline below:
> >I'm sorry, but that link goes to a company selling juicers.
> Sure there is; www.greenpower.com
How is that indicative that there's anough gren power for sale on the
US grid to supply a full-on city of a million people? Even a very
> >Hydro and windmills would be ideal, but good luck getting a new
> >project past the eco-wackies. :)broadbased
> There is a hydro storage facility near my home; there was
> support for its construction.That was built 20 years ago. Today, opposition to hydropower is
widespread, and some existing dams have had to be dismantled due to
ecological concerns. (Remember the opposition to the Three Gorges
That said, I like hydropower (as I stated before) but I am also a
realist. Getting a hydropower project approved today, especially a
large one, is going to be a real chore.
Not to mention that there really aren't that many good large-scale
hydropower sites left in the USA... or the world, for that matter.
> >Heck, sadly enough, it's starting to look like windmills will be
> >facing the same sort of opposition. <sigh>
> There are tremendous amounts of wind power being added to the US
> market every year.The wind power industry in the US is basically at a standstill right
now, because the Energy Bill was filibustered. The Energy Bill
contained the extension for the tax credit for wind power. Without
that energy credit, wind power cannot compete, and no new windmills
Yes, this really sucks, and Congress should stop being silly and pass
the Energy Bill.
> >A week or two? Are you talking about using some kind of a storage
> >battery system? That would be...expensive. The carfree city
> >reference design is so compact you'd save a bundle on transmission
> >lines, but still.... Or are you counting on getting a hydro
> Hydrogen is an excellent storage medium as well, and large scale
> cells are an existing technology.Ah! I agree.
That said, this is not going to be inexpensive, though.
> >Also, combined-cycle gas turbines are far from ideal. They emit
> >NOx, and aren't exactly cheap to run. Gas is expensive rightAgain,
> >now. :)
> They emit very low amount of CO2 and NOX in comparison to coal.
> only used on a spot basis.Also true, but gas is still expensive and has a nasty habit of
blowing up. Plus, nuclear power emits fewer greenhouse gases than
gas turbines. So do windmills, and hydropower.
> >A more sensible alternative is to install a nuke or two and pipe
> >the "waste" heat out as district heating when the weather warrants
> >it. Maybe provide warm steam to heat pumps in the wintertime,
> >sort of deal.... Hrrrrm.near
> Now I see your spin. Sorry, can't say I'd like a terrorist target
> my home that would wipe out the entire city.Oh, good grief. Way to be alarmist! Nuclear power plants are
required to have hefty security forces onsite, and have solid
physical security. Not to mention that any new nuclear plant would
be built MUCH more safely than the current crop of plants. We can
build better cars now than in the 70's, why can't we build better
If you look at the facts, nuclear power has killed fewer people than
any other major source of power. This isn't spin, it's fact.
For a Carfree City, why not use the cleanest, safest power you can?
That means nuclear, wind, and hydro are your best choices.
As a matter of fact, nuclear power plants are small and easily tucked
out of sight, I could readily see you putting a couple of them a
hundred miles away from the city itself and running powerlines.
There, safety assured. :)
> >Which is easily rectified by recycling, geological storage, or both.
> You said 'clean power'; nukes have the pesky problem of dirty
> radioactive waste.
The perceived problems with nuclear are all old problems, and good
solutions to them are now readily achieved.
> >So, Victoria Island, anyone? :) Or maybe Baffin Island?
> Where the city is, of course.
- If you are going to reply, please read the entire post and make a good
faith effort to understand before you begin.
All this talk of electical generation source for a car free city is a
bit beside the point. A modern city does need electrical power, but
the issues of this group were originally building a city without cars
and the exclusion of cars from cities. For other people, the source
of power IS their issue and they are only interested in powering the
proposed city with or without nuclear, depending on their inclination.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing of worth to come from this
discussion is the reminder that there are a numerous necessary inputs
to a city and energy is one of them.
Electrical generation capacity already exists. I'm not moved by
advocacy for more electrical generation capacity when it comes from
someone who argues as though ever more energy for heating and for
running machinery is virtue itself.
How should society decide how much capacity to build? The market is a
pretty good guide. Building more capacity has costs, and if the costs
of building and operating aren't recovered from ratepayers over time,
the investors have to figure they made a mistake.
If a carfree city were built within this generation, its population
would immigrate from other areas. Some of those areas would be
supplied by the same grid that the city could tap into. It seems
that, while the car-free city's per-capita energy demand would be well
below the national average, the demand for electical power would
likely rise because of the mass-transit system. Even if overall
demand rises, that doesn't assure that the cost of building and
operating a new power unit would be justified by the market.
Of course since the building of domestic nuclear facilities in the US
ended some time back, conditioning a car-free city on a new nuclear
facility might be an assurance that no car-free city would happen for
many more years. I don't favor inviting more impediments.
As far as wind and hydro power, the unquestioning acceptance of these
is no better than an over-reaction against or for nuclear (no pun
intended). Not everyone believes that a unit of electricity
generation should take precedence over the wildlife by harmed by dams
and killed by windmills. Hopefully the environmental oversight
process won't be gutted for the sake of erecting someone's favorite
type of generating station.
- --- In email@example.com, "dubluth" <dubluth@y...> wrote:
> If you are going to reply, please read the entire post and make agood
> faith effort to understand before you begin.?? What do you think I am failing to understand?
> All this talk of electical generation source for a car free city isa
> bit beside the point. A modern city does need electrical power,but
> the issues of this group were originally building a city withoutcars
> and the exclusion of cars from cities.IE, using old-fashioned muscle to supply much of your people-moving
budget. This strikes me as an excellent idea, we're too fat
Plus, cars are dangerous, they isolate people, they dehumanize the
city in scale and attractiveness, etc, etc.
I get it.
But as I posted, cars are only a fraction of our total energy usage,
and continuing to use coal is, frankly, stupid. :)
> For other people, the sourcethe
> of power IS their issue and they are only interested in powering
> proposed city with or without nuclear, depending on theirinclination.
>The power source for a Carfree City is only one aspect I am
interested in. I am VERY intrigued by the possibilities of high-
bandwidth datalinks in such a city, embodied by fiber-to-the-home for
every building. The topology to do this could be interesting. More
importantly, the affects on life could be profound.
I am also intrigued by the way a Carfree City could affect Unions.
Would cottage industry become a major factor again? What about
protectionism? Since a Carfree City, at least as I understand the
model, has far fewer ingress points than a traditional city, would
entry fees become common? What about security checks to get in? If
the local unit of polity is currently the county/city within a state,
how would more or less independent Carfree Cities cause changes?
Would tax moneys flow into or out of Carfree Cities? Etc, etc.
> As far as I'm concerned, the only thing of worth to come from thisinputs
> discussion is the reminder that there are a numerous necessary
> to a city and energy is one of them.Yup! I will posit that it is a rather vital one, though. If the
lights are off and people are cold, it's not fun anymore. :)
> Electrical generation capacity already exists. I'm not moved byAre you at all familiar with history? In general, access to more
> advocacy for more electrical generation capacity when it comes from
> someone who argues as though ever more energy for heating and for
> running machinery is virtue itself.
energy = better quality of living. Do you expect this trend to
reverse? If so, why, and how?
More importantantly, existing generation capapcity is horribly dirty
stuff. Do you LIKE coal or something?
> How should society decide how much capacity to build? The marketis a
> pretty good guide. Building more capacity has costs, and if thecosts
> of building and operating aren't recovered from ratepayers overtime,
> the investors have to figure they made a mistake.well
> If a carfree city were built within this generation, its population
> would immigrate from other areas. Some of those areas would be
> supplied by the same grid that the city could tap into. It seems
> that, while the car-free city's per-capita energy demand would be
> below the national average, the demand for electical power wouldThe US population is rising nicely, driven by immigration. Honestly,
> likely rise because of the mass-transit system. Even if overall
> demand rises, that doesn't assure that the cost of building and
> operating a new power unit would be justified by the market.
though, I would expect a Carfree City to be built first in a place
with much less infrastructure than we have now. I have suggested the
far north of Canada already, I could also point at India as a likely
place, or perhaps China.
> Of course since the building of domestic nuclear facilities in theUS
> ended some time back, conditioning a car-free city on a new nuclearfor
> facility might be an assurance that no car-free city would happen
> many more years. I don't favor inviting more impediments.Okay, some more facts. I know they're pesky things, but I believe in
being informed. :)
The US nuclear power industry added the equivalent of 13 1000
megawatt plants of production between 1998 and 2002 alone.
It did this through becoming more efficient, and adding uprates to
The existing fleet of plants has about reached the limits of how much
can be gained through this process, so nuclear power utilties are
quietly starting the process of building new plants.
Add in the fact that there are 4 reactors with still-valid
construction permits, it becomes obvious that the US has been
building nuclear power without a pause for the last 30 years.
The industry has just been subtle about it. :)
> As far as wind and hydro power, the unquestioning acceptance of
> is no better than an over-reaction against or for nuclear (no punLOL! I like it, though! :)
> Not everyone believes that a unit of electricitydams
> generation should take precedence over the wildlife by harmed by
> and killed by windmills. Hopefully the environmental oversightOkay, let's look at this dispassionately for a moment.
> process won't be gutted for the sake of erecting someone's favorite
> type of generating station.
One of the reasons why I like Carfree Cities is because I have an
interest in high-density living for humans. It is a fact, that if we
could achieve a population density equal to that of Manhattan for the
entire human race, the current population of the world, all 6 billion-
plus of us, could live in Texas. (Yes, this requires overall
population densities quite a bit higher than the reference design,
but it is not THAT large of a stretch to get there.)
Carfree Cities are the best-realized scheme I have come upon to date
to make such high-density living not only palatable, but downright
attractive. I'd LIKE living in such a place!
If the human race all wanted to move into high-density environments,
we could, for example, move large numbers of us to less-valuable
territory (like Victoria Island) and leave the entire rest of the
world alone. Wouldn't it be nice to let the entire Eastern Seaboard
revert to temperate forest? If people treat the entire world as a
park, but maximally utilize small chunks of less-valuable land, the
damage done to those less-valuable pieces is more than offset by the
recovery of the rest of the place. Right?
Enticing people to live in high-density environments strikes me as a
darn good idea. :) If that means designing using every technology
available, so be it.
- "mauk_mcamuk" <mauk2@...> writes:
> Are you at all familiar with history? In general, access to moreCars consume more energy than walking, bicycles and mass transit,
> energy = better quality of living. Do you expect this trend to
> reverse? If so, why, and how?
therefore cars = better quality of living. Therefore this whole
carfree thing is a waste of time. We should make sure each person has
a personal jet aircraft. So that their quality of life can be even
Bijan Soleymani <bijan@...>