Stupid Questions About Stuff I'm Ignorant About...

scottspfd82

scottspfd82

New member
Dec 29, 2006
1,496
68
0
So, the court decision today regarding net neutrality left me thinking about some things - but I'm pretty clueless when it comes to existing/future technology - so I've decided to turn to the geniuses here at WF to enlighten me.

Many of the world's problems today are a direct result of the centralization of power. For example, if the internet was somehow decentralized we wouldn't have to worry about ISP's/States trying to impose their will on it. It would be impossible to shut down.

The same goes for energy. Imagine that a new battery was invented, it could store enough energy from a day of sunlight to power a house for a year or drive car for 200,000 miles - and it was cheap enough that everyone could afford one.

Oil companies would be irrelevant as far as energy production is concerned. Utility companies would disappear. Most wars would end. It'd be a pretty huge deal.

So my questions are about the technology of decentralization...

1. The Internet.

I'm pretty surprised that we still have the internet as we know it. You can put a website up and start selling goods and collecting payments in like an hour. No licensing fees to own a domian, or collect payments. Sure there's some red tape if you become successful - but right now the barrier to entry is zero, and I'd like to keep it that way.

Is it or could it be possible to have an internet free from ISP's?

Mesh networks come to mind. So do cell phones. Hell I can video conference with zero lag on 4G. Cell phones rely on antennas/towers. I'm clueless about the technology, but how far fetched would it be to have cell phones that act as both receivers and transmitters?

The whole network could be completely decentralized. Everyone carrying a phone would act as the "ISP". You could tether that data to larger computers for internet access on desktops. Everything could be completely self-powered by the network - no centralized authority needed.

And you wouldn't even have to pay for network access - maybe it could work like a P2P network, where you earn data for transmitting it?

Beyond bureaucracy and state intervention is that not possible with current technology? The near future?

If it's not possible, why? Other ideas?

2. Energy.

We are ridiculously dependant on energy, and again, the means of production are extremely centralized. You can't choose your utility company. I remember reading an article that said "in the event of an EMP attack on America, 9 out of 10 people would be dead within a year".

I don't remember the source but I do believe that it'd be devastating.

It could be an EMP. It could be someone flipping the switch on the grid, or an act of nature. Doesn't matter - we're relying on a centralized system that could be taken down at anytime and hurting/killing a lot of people as a result.

So why the hell do we still rely on it? Windmills and watermills have been around forever. And energy is all around us. Sun, wind, currents, tides, geothermal, gravity, magnets, polarization, rain, lighting, static electricity - hell we can split freakin' atoms.

So why are we tied into a system where if a transformer blows 200 miles away you're out of power? Why do we rely so heavily on oil?

Why can't we have a system where every house could be more than self-sustainable, and the excess energy could be fed back to the neighborhood, which is in turn connected to a city, and then to larger communities if people choose to join? When there's a breakdown in the system these decentralized power grids can back each other up. One part breaks, it doesn't effect the entire system.

Energy is all around us, how have we not reached the point where we can easily harness it? It's abundant - so why is it that we're forced to pay prices for it like it's a scarce commodity? And why do we rely on a centralized system that can be taken down in a split second?

3. Screw it...

I had a longer list of topics, from food and water to money, defense and medicine. But this is already getting to the point of TLDR - and I'm interested in hearing some informed opinions on these subjects.
 


In regard to your energy question, its extremely difficult and costly to store engery, which is why power companys just generate enough that they need, any excess energy is sold on the market
 
In general, the reason why a lot of the stuff you are proposing hasn't happened is that it's a more expensive than the current solutions, if you want the same capabilities.
 
#putoutthatblunt
#specialinterestgroups
#verydeepjackhandy
#yesvirginia

Honestly, all trolling aside, I agree with you, but what you propose is pretty utopian and couldn't happen without a huge shift in human mindset and a massive investment in infrastructure. Never happen. See hashtag #2.
 
scottspfd82 said:
Windmills and watermills have been around forever. And energy is all around us. Sun, wind, currents, tides, geothermal, gravity, magnets, polarization, rain, lighting, static electricity - hell we can split freakin' atoms.
Click to expand...
Splitting freaking atoms is what they do at nuclear power plants. Splitting atoms generates freaking radioactive waste that has to be buried in the desert for thousands of years. People don't like it when utilities want to build nuclear power plants in their community. I think anybody who's heard the name "Chernobyl" will relate.

Power generated from the sun, wind, currents, tides, etc. have to be captured and stored using batteries. These systems are complex and expensive to install. Batteries that store power generated by renewable energy systems (and hybrid and electric cars) cost thousands. Wind farms require huge tracts of open space in windy areas to be useful. Communities resist the building of wind farms because it spoils their view.

Solar power panels cost tens of thousands to install, and few homeowners can afford to rip out their heating system to pay for it. Solar power isn't a good fit for homeowners in northern areas with limited sunshine.

WF will have to field the rest of your questions. I'm done.
 
SHGDigitalMedia said:
In regard to your energy question, its extremely difficult and costly to store engery, which is why power companys just generate enough that they need, any excess energy is sold on the market
Click to expand...

Energy can't be created or destroyed, only harnessed and converted, right? (I could very well be wrong - and really, so could Einstein). If so, it seems that the storage of energy would come naturally. Maybe not without converting it - but it doesn't seem like a real roadblock to me.

Also, not antagonizing, I'm interested to hear opinions on this stuff. But last I checked, power companies are in the business of selling power. They have incentives much stronger than storage problems for selling it IMO. It's kind of why they exist.

mattseh said:
In general, the reason why a lot of the stuff you are proposing hasn't happened is that it's a more expensive than the current solutions, if you want the same capabilities.
Click to expand...

More expensive for consumers? Or more expensive for companies attempting to develope new technologies and attempting to compete with monopolies whose interests are protected by the violence of the state? (Serious question).

galacon said:
#putoutthatblunt
#specialinterestgroups
#verydeepjackhandy
#yesvirginia

Honestly, all trolling aside, I agree with you, but what you propose is pretty utopian and couldn't happen without a huge shift in human mindset and a massive investment in infrastructure. Never happen. See hashtag #2.
Click to expand...

I disagree with never happen, although I reserve the right to change that opinion. I agree 100% with #2. I guess the answers I'm digging for would be are these solutions not possible because of technology or because of bureaucracy?

I get the feeling it's the latter. But I'm curious about what others have to say about it.
 
BlueYonder said:
Splitting freaking atoms is what they do at nuclear power plants. Splitting atoms generates freaking radioactive waste that has to be buried in the desert for thousands of years. People don't like it when utilities want to build nuclear power plants in their community. I think anybody who's heard the name "Chernobyl" will relate.

Power generated from the sun, wind, currents, tides, etc. have to be captured and stored using batteries. These systems are complex and expensive to install. Batteries that store power generated by renewable energy systems (and hybrid and electric cars) cost thousands.

Solar power panels cost tens of thousands to install, and few homeowners can afford to rip out their heating system to pay for it. Solar power isn't a good fit for homeowners in northern areas with limited sunshine.

WF will have to field the rest of your questions. I'm done.
Click to expand...

Lol... Knee jerk much?

Where did he propose we build more nuke plants? I didn't see that. It looked like he was saying that due to the fact that we "Could" we should have the technical sophistication to be able to handle the preceding. That was my take-away.

Maybe proofread better before you hit submit, sweetie. Or better yet, STFU and fix me a sammich.
 
scottspfd82 said:
Energy can't be created or destroyed, only harnessed and converted, right? (I could very well be wrong - and really, so could Einstein). If so, it seems that the storage of energy would come naturally. Maybe not without converting it - but it doesn't seem like a real roadblock to me.

Also, not antagonizing, I'm interested to hear opinions on this stuff. But last I checked, power companies are in the business of selling power. They have incentives much stronger than storage problems for selling it IMO. It's kind of why they exist.



More expensive for consumers? Or more expensive for companies attempting to develope new technologies and attempting to compete with monopolies whose interests are protected by the violence of the state? (Serious question).



I disagree with never happen, although I reserve the right to change that opinion. I agree 100% with #2. I guess the answers I'm digging for would be are these solutions not possible because of technology or because of bureaucracy?

I get the feeling it's the latter. But I'm curious about what others have to say about it.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, I know for a fact that it's almost entirely SIG and Bureaucracy- I make my main living as an electrical pro, and I will tell you, it's not as costly to build self-sustaining homes & communities as you think it is. ;)
 
mattseh said:
In general, the reason why a lot of the stuff you are proposing hasn't happened is that it's a more expensive than the current solutions, if you want the same capabilities.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Perhaps you meant "one of the reasons".

You can have your dick harder with certain herbs than you can with Viagra. A lot of the pharmaceutical products have much cheaper natural alternatives

Sustainable and low cost renewable energy tech is probably already out there but some fat oil company is sitting on all the patents. Renewable technology is also less costly than oil or coal if you take into account the cost of environmental damage. This cost is just passed on to you and me

The system is designed (or manipulated) in such a way that the rich can make more profit by fucking over everyone else. The cheaper/low profit alternatives either never get the publicity or get trapped inside regulatory mess.
 
BlueYonder said:
Splitting freaking atoms is what they do at nuclear power plants. Splitting atoms generates freaking radioactive waste that has to be buried in the desert for thousands of years. People don't like it when utilities want to build nuclear power plants in their community. I think anybody who's heard the name "Chernobyl" will relate.
Click to expand...

I kind of view nuclear energy as a Pandora's box. I wouldn't want anyone to have that power if it didn't exist. But it does, so we have to live with it.

It's here to stay - there's no putting it back in the box. I used it to illustrate human ingenuity, not necessarily as the solution to energy problems - I could have clarified that a little better.

Power generated from the sun, wind, currents, tides, etc. have to be captured and stored using batteries. These systems are complex and expensive to install. Batteries that store power generated by renewable energy systems (and hybrid and electric cars) cost thousands. Wind farms require huge tracts of open space in windy areas to be useful. Communities resist the building of wind farms because it spoils their view.

Solar power panels cost tens of thousands to install, and few homeowners can afford to rip out their heating system to pay for it. Solar power isn't a good fit for homeowners in northern areas with limited sunshine.

WF will have to field the rest of your questions. I'm done.
Click to expand...

I get ya. And I carry more technology in my pocket today than you could fit in a skyscraper when I was born. I wasn't trying to zero in on any single technology as the solution - but asking out of all available options, why are we still dependent on a centralized power grid - and if we don't have the technology to change that today, how far away are we?

I appreciate you chiming in!
 
"I eat breakfast 15 miles from 48,000 megawatts that was made to kill me. So don't think for a second you can come down here, split some atoms, and make me nervous."

Colonel Nathan Efeezy - San Onofre Power Plant.
 
Courts are trying to even out and maintain world balance.

eFISqJ2.jpg



America!
 
Regarding your first point, there is a company I remember reading about a while back that was trying to do this.

I did a little research and I think this is the same company:
Peep Wireless Technology
 
Many people use cell phones and make sure to get the latest/best device even if it means they re-sign for another two years of over priced service.

On-demand hot water heating, solar water heating, photovoltaic energy all reduce monthly costs, but they come with an upfront cost. Just like most everything else in life, it takes money to make money(or save money in this example).
 
galacon said:
..and I will tell you, it's not as costly to build self-sustaining homes & communities as you think it is. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, watched this documentary recently:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNYFlcV9R1w]Garbage Warrior - Full Length Documentary - YouTube[/ame]
 
I agree with Galacon that many of the things we think are "too expensive" alternatives, are actually about here.
Moore's Law is accelerating quicker now and batteries and storing energy is getting close to breaking down the entry price barrier.

Below is an interesting concept
How SBSP_Works
There is a couple of TED videos on the subject as well.
It involves putting up solar panels in the atmosphere on satellites so the sun can give them sunlight 24 hours a day. Then the energy is transmitted back down to earth via radio waves. Then the energy is beamed down to a thing called a "rectenna."
Actually I know a couple of guys here with huge rectennas, maybe they could help out.

They have ALL the technology to do this currently...just need for it come down a bit more in price so it is more profitable than coal, etc.

On a different note, I have been pilfering around this site open source ecology.
All the items are made from items that are easily found and with full instruction on how to make them. Tractors, wind turbines, bakery ovens, back hoe's, hydraulic motors, etc.
Open Source Ecology
This would be perfect for small communities to set these all up and use them as needed and then return them or use them on site, like a library.

So utopia, much zeitgeist
 
scottspfd82 said:
More expensive for consumers? Or more expensive for companies attempting to develope new technologies and attempting to compete with monopolies whose interests are protected by the violence of the state? (Serious question).
Click to expand...

More expensive for consumers, because there are higher costs. Sure, the state can increase costs for new entrants, or subsidise existing technologies / companies, but a lot of the time new stuff isn't a slam-dunk replacement for existing stuff, everything has its pros and cons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom