A Trillion-Dollar Idea that Could Save the Planet
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 10. 2014
- Danielle Fong (Co-founder and Chief Scientist of LightSail Energy, Inc.) spoke at the 2014 Nantucket Project.
About The Nantucket Project
The Nantucket Project is one of the world’s great gatherings, each year hosting preeminent thinkers, leaders and innovators in a wide range of fields.
We focus on the intersection of art and commerce - one fueled by passion, the other by reason. In every organization - whether it’s a business, a philanthropy or a creative endeavor - those two forces jostle to achieve the right balance.
In the process, values are determined. We believe TNP is the only event of its kind that rigorously examines those values.
The discovery will probably come out of someone garage not industry. Industry is all about $$$$$. They don't care about anything else. We just need some momentum forward.
I HAVE THE TRILLION DOLLAR IDEA !!! IM FOR REAL
That doesn't matter if you don't work on it.
The idea is very good but for a vehicle you would need to take along a vessel with water warmed during compression? This asks a lot of extra space and weight so I wonder if it's already tried to combine a small "eco-engine"with waste heat with a small, simple and robust CA or LA engine that uses then this heat to become much more efficient, perhaps some exothermic proces like sodium hydroxide + water could be used as easily recyclable heat source?
I put it at about 50 years to replace, fossil fuels and nuclear power, that is if we can find a sustainable alternative, storing energy is not the answer, and will lose about 10 to 20% of the energy in the process (energy we cannot afford to lose). A total rethink on how we make energy is the answer. I personally work to this end. If I do not succeed then I will have to back Nuclear ,so I have a good incentive to keep going.
We have 2,1 billion fat people on Earth how many will that be when we have solved our energy problem? And does its prevent the earth from being stolen from its elements and depleted in biodiversity ?
Hello, In these conditions you can't obtain the double of efficency with the reverse system.. is phisically impossible.. you lost energy during the process.. compressed air is just an medium and must be treated as an fuel .. you can't use DIRECTLY!! You need to change the vision .. COMPRESSED AIR can be an ENERGY BATTERY JUST if you make an system for produce an REAL efficency..
reducing our numbers doesn't cost a thing !
Yes it does.
+Patternicity not compared to other solutions that will prove not to work in the end .
Solar is already cost effective in some places. Tesla sold $800 million worth of batteries in the first week after they launched their energy division, most of which were large commercial solutions, not rich liberals throwing away money, for profit companies. The world's fertility rate is down to 2.33 and the downward trend is predicted to continue. What would your 'cheap' population reduction solution be exactly?
+Patternicity Energy Council highly critical of Energiewende www.energypost.eu/experts-world-energy-council-highly-critical-energiewende/ Now there is energy poverty in Germany
treasureinvessel I agree with the criticisms about reducing nuclear energy, that was a mistake. I agree that it's unreasonable to assume energy consumption will go anywhere but up, improved efficiency might slow it down. However I don't know the details of this particular plan.
If I had a trillion dollars to invest in a world changing project, I would devote it to ending world hunger permanently. To do this, I would build skyscraper-sized (at least 1000th tall) vertical farms in every major city. This has a number of advantages over obsolete 'traditional' agriculture:
-Food being grown indoors means they are protected from insects, animals, weather and season. Vertical farms can grow food all year round
-The food grown could be much healthier since being protected indoors greatly reduces the need for pesticides
-If managed properly, resources such as water, fertilizer, seeds can be collected and recycled continuously
-A 1000ft tall vertical farm with a base the size of a building block can grow the same amount of food in a year as more than 7200 acres of traditional farmland; that could also allows that amount of land to return to its natural state
-Vertical farms can meet their own power needs using solar panels or methane digestors
-Being much closer to the food source in a city would cut down the costs for transportation and reduce the amount of food lost due to spoilage
The key to solving world hunger is cities. Cities now house the majority of the global population and are only getting bigger. By making cities much more self-sufficient in their own food production, these problems can be solved. The best way to achieve this is vertical farms and urban agriculture.
One last thing, I would invest in the production of in vitro meat. People like meat. That is a fact but the growing of livestock takes up huge amounts of land and resources. And once that is over, only a certain amount of the animal ends up being used. Through in vitro production, all of these problems can be solved:
-No animals ever have to be slaughtered
-The grown meat was never a part of a living breathing animal
-The huge amounts of land and resources that were needed for livestock can be redirected somewhere else
So this is my vision of a $1 trillion project. 1000ft tall skyscraper farms in every skyline of every city. Both crops and (in vitro) meat can be grown and processed within the building. Finally when food products are ready to be sold to the public, there is a grocery store on the first floor of every farm tower. Food can be grown, processed, packaged and sold all on one site.
+jordan monolo (chance Freedom) wow. that's a long time for a comment. I completely forgot about this
Governments have over $1 trillion you don't think they would've done this by now?
if
Big old HINT: As long as Isis don't blow us up first!!!
Thankyou! Thankyou Danielle. Re added value. The technolgy for using energy to break water into hydrogen and oxygen is commercially successful. With the added value of superheated steam at high pressures this process may be made more efficient with a better catalyst. The sale of these by-products will make the process more attractive to entrepreneurs, the setup costs may be reduced or not, simplication may or may not occur....It is all subjecture really.
There are so many issues here and one that is overlooked is, if energy prices rise to high then the CO2 levels will rocket, because people will start to burn everything they can lay there hands on, to keep warm, cook, and even make their on electricity. We have seen the UK sales of log burner increase even at the price of energy as it is. Bio fuels and using fields for solar panels seem immoral to me with millions of starving people.
Using fields in rich countries for solar panels won't affect people in poor countries. Also the area required for solar panels is relatively small. Also you can use roof area for solar...
+Patternicity Is the UK self sufficient for food then, so we can turn our fields into solar farms? What sort of area would we need for solar panels to replace fossil fuel? How much is the true cost of solar per mega watt hour? Solar is not the answer. The best place for them is on buildings and waste land though,, but they are not cheap, as you will find out when you look into it a bit more.
Trevor Lyn Whatford The initial investment is higher, but they last a long time. Let's say you have a choice between a product that costs $100 and will only last a year before it breaks because it's low quality, or a product that costs $300 and will last 10 years. The second one is cheaper in the long run. The cost of solar is going down on an exponential curve, similar to transistors. Also it may be better for the uk (especially in the north) to use wind or tidal. The use of renewables has also gone up significantly in the last few years
+Patternicity
Hi
To make one megawatt hour of energy using house roof solar panels, would require
about 2,577 roofs. If selling back to the grid at the wholesale price it would
take over 30 years for a pay back. If the house used all the solar energy the
payback could take about over 8 years, at 3,400 kwh a year per roof, it would not
be enough, and would have to buy electricity in. This is without heating and
hot water. One question, do you have solar panels on your roof? Solar power
does cut down CO2 Emissions, though at a cost to all energy consumers.
Trevor Lyn Whatford The price of electricity varies by location and time of year. The energy per sq meter of panel depends on the type of panel, the better the more expensive, but fewer panels are less expensive to install, so labor costs are also a factor. As for payback/break even point, you already have some companies that install panels and then you share the savings in electricity cost over the next x-years.
cold fusion dr. Melvin Miles US Navy, Michaelson Lab, China Lake Navy Base Dr. Eugene Mallove M.I.T. yuuuup sorry daniel you way behind the curve
sssccccaaaaammmmmmmm..........
Solution starts at 10:38
Gee, what Fox News viewers are doing at Nantucket videos?:)
Why when talking alot of Huh! Huh! Huh! sighing OMG
Arrogant guy in a dress