Forum Post: The Death of the Suburbs
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 27, 2012, 1:23 p.m. EST by DevilDog420
(133)
from Saratoga Springs, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The times they are a changing... We are at a crossroads for civil development. There are calls for government construction projects. The construction industry has not recovered and almost no new housing developments are being built. Some building of townhouses and apartments have started again, but only in affluent places. The servants of the rich, families that lost their homes, and college grads with low wages jobs, will need places to stay... The suburbs are dying. No longer can the middle class live in the quiet, safe, forested, neighborhoods far from the grimy urban centers they drive an hour to reach their employment. The gasoline they use, will soon out weigh the cost of using it to get to that employment... People, families have 20 or 30 year mortgages, this inflation taking place has not been matched by new job markets, cost of living increases, or alternative means of transportation. As a consequence people's net worth in the middle-class has been devalued, major things, bought with credit from the banks, are losing there value, autos and homes in those suburbs. Electric cars are in development, but well need more electricity to use them... And lets not forget that the food stores, shopping malls, and fuel stations all get there deliveries by trucks consuming more fuel to get it there... It does not bode well.
The solution lies in two directions colored spring green and steel blue. Go green head into the hills and pioneer forward into a homestead, or farming village. One will need to go green, live in a sustainable environmentally friendly way, a good bit above sea level,in a harmonic balance with nature. This is a communal lifestyle far from almost all corporations and there products. And it requires families, cooperation, a lot of hard work, during spring,summer, and harvest season. Head to the water, most major cities are located on a river, or on a harbor. The cities have factories, public housing, shipping ports, some manufacturing? maybe? public transportation, universities, and much more. There is a revitalization taking place as we speak. Find a community action group, in one of these cities and lobby other people and local leaders to do the right thing!
The suburbs will only grow, not shrink, and cities are less desirable than suburbs. Less space, overcrowding, cops and cameras everywhere, etc., hardly seems like a utopia. There's plenty of ways we can generate electricity. Thorium reactors would give us a virtually limitless supply of electricity (in a completely clean and safe way), and to the Presidents credit, Thorium is suddenly becoming a prevalent idea within his administration. So science will generate real solutions to these problems, and the burbs will live on (although I hope Jersey Shore dies a quick death) :)
[Removed]
I looked into the thorium reactors. Not bad, next step fission reactors safer and smaller, with a billion tones of it, thorium sand, in the USA, India, and Australia, combined. I saw that Germany has one operating, India is building one, and the USA and China are working on it. Electric cars sound a little better now.
I'll look into the thorium, I'm more interested in He3 and deposits in the moon regolith, and fusion reactors. But more nuclear power in the eastern US 's major cities sounds like a no brain er to me also. Why didn't you really advocate anything, you made a very PC statement. Its okay I guess, I like to be provocative and confrontational, and most times politically incorrect. Maybe from going to high-school in NYC or being a hard-charger.
He3 and fusion are "very far" in the future, and the technical challenges cannot be underestimated (so I personally don't have very much hope in either of these alternatives, at least not short to intermediate term, although maybe in a century). Thorium, on the other hand, is tested, well understood, safe, abundant, clean, and most importantly, we can do it now (and start building thorium reactors, at least to replace nuclear plants we need to decommission, and then hopefully to replace natural gas and coal, as confidence builds in the technology).
We also need an alternative liquid transportation fuel. I think electric cars are fine, but I think their application will be somewhat limited. Alcohol fuels like butanol (or even methanol) are great alternatives (methanol would obviously be much easier, as we could refine it from syngas produced through gasification, using just about anything as feedstock, including municipal garbage). I guess there's the toxicity issue with methanol (ingesting 10 mL can cause blindness), but as long as we don't drink it ... we should be fine (I mean, it's not like there's a problem with people drinking gasoline today, which is also toxic if ingested, so I don't see this as a big deal). There's also some interesting new processes for producing ethanol from syngas (and fermentation). Hydrogen would be awesome, but it would require an entirely new infrastructure to support it (and the economics aren't ideal at the moment).
Nevertheless, fast charge technology (electric cars) looks very attractive (basically, it just pumps more amps into the battery, reducing recharge time). It can provide an 80% charge in 30 minutes (which is pretty remarkable, considering a normal charge can take up to 8 hours). I think ultimately it will be a mix of different technologies. Thorium, wind, natural gas, alcohol fuels, improved efficiency in conventional gasoline vehicles, electric, etc.Conceivably, we could be energy independent in under a decade (although if history is any predictor, I'm sure it will take us longer).
the helium 3 fusion is like 20-50 out and its the real deal, thats why nasa is going back to the moon, the thorium sounds great except that one little thing you can use it to make weapons grade U232...
I'm not a physicist, but according to everything I've read about Thorium, one of its benefits is its extremely low proliferation risk (and relative safety when compared to uranium). Plus, no need to go to the moon :)
Here you go a start from my post against fossil fuel:
Combine the Hopewell project: http://www.hopewellproject.org/
WITH:
I'll give ya a bump and raise you an E CAT and an LFTR.
http://ecat.com/
Sorry, I have miss quoted this as LFNR. the T stands for thorium. It's a "clean fission" option.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1 - This was in reference to clean fusion generators. Thanks again shooz.
That's as close to a full circle support system for driving energy independence as I have ever seen.
[Removed]
Im not worried about appearances, Im worried about the truth. And you say nothing about our gasoline addiction, and inflation. How will we make a difference?
[Removed]
Cut the tax rate really man, are you serious? that's a republican thing to say. I also noticed your not from anywhere? like a multi- national corporation... Basically it comes down over and over again this one issue you can't legislate ethics. Some people just don't give a shit about anything or anyone but themselves.
[Removed]
Im not into state run anything, government power companies, government healthcare, government 2 year colleges yes im for that. National socailism doesn't work. Im into capitalism for sure, but im more into unions,, and I hate multinational corporations, hate hate. Something has been lost over time in our society.
Henry Ford paid his employees well why? Wallmart pays their employees poorly why? Products used advertise on their merits, quality, and demonstrated usage. Now McDonald's is for black folks having a good time,Coca Cola is polar bears.
predictions are difficult to make, especially about when they are about the future.