[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 79 KB, 403x450, cool.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2749516 No.2749516 [Reply] [Original]

ITT, we post and discuss emerging tech or tech that is just being adopted by the mainstream that we are excited about.

For me, its vertical farms and green roofs. If we can ever get an efficient lighting design for vertical farms, that is.

>> No.2749521

I was excited for about 2 seconds until I read the wiki page.

They have too much light pollution and use too much energy. They aren't worth it.

>> No.2749518

>efficient lighting design
>vertical farm

>sunrise and sunset

>> No.2749525

Nanotechnology

/thread

>> No.2749529

>>2749521
I know, its a mood killer but what if we found an efficient powersource?

>> No.2749533

I love how "Green" architecture is basically the most literal movement, ever. It doesn't even try to hide its lack of imagination with facade treatment nor abstraction.

>> No.2749536
File: 29 KB, 400x266, spaceshipone-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2749536

I'm stoked for commercial spaceflight.

>> No.2749543

>>2749533
My uni just recently got a building with a green roof, it honestly looked very good, especially if you pick ferns and other green plants to grow on it.

>> No.2749547

Electric cars.

I'm 28 years old and have been expecting those fuckers for about 16 years since I first saw the EV1.

>> No.2749548

Green roofs are a good idea. Vertical farms seem pretty stupid.

>> No.2749564

>>2749529

Well, if all the problems of vertical farming are fixed, then the technique would be a worthwhile endeavor. Plus, it looks really cool/futuristic.

However, taking into account plumbing, heating, cooling, and light, the idea doesn't seem worthwhile right now.

>> No.2749592

>>2749521
They aren't worth it today. But in the year 2200 when the human population is 25 billion and we've mastered fusion, it'll be the norm.

>> No.2749604

>>2749547
So would you be taking the Leaf or the Volt?

>> No.2749632

>>2749516
Green roofs and vertical farms, huh?

>spend at least twice as much on architecture.
>high maintenance plant life on building causes problems with the corrosive of water and leaking in general, pests with insects living all over the structure, and plants destroying the structure in general with their roots and growing where they're not supposed to.

Sounds pretty fucking stupid Op. It sounds like flashy bullshit that makes people feel like they are saving the world while jerking themselves off.

>> No.2749638

This can only get as far as people growing shit on the rooves of apartment buildings. You are a total retard.

>> No.2749642

>>2749533
It's overly expensive bullshit architecture that eventually destroys itself.

There have been many "green" buildings that have failed (all of the plant life died) and left the structure ugly and infested with rodents, birds and insects.

>> No.2749655

>>2749547
electric cars do dick. It's not like electricity is magic, you still need fossil fuels and really toxic batteries to run it. Not to mention there will be never be an electric "muscle car".

>> No.2749660

>>2749548
flat roofs leak and need regular maintenance (re-roofing every 10-25 years). Putting plants that need constant watering on top of it makes it so much worse.

>> No.2749663

>>2749655

>there will be never be an electric "muscle car".

Challenge accepted.

>> No.2749672

>>2749564
>Plus, it looks really cool/futuristic.

How are all of the problems with "vertical farms" supposed to go away?

Farming via digging right into the ground and planting plants works because it's extremely simple.

Also you act like people will want to eat tomatoes and other shit grown in the "fresh" air of Los Angeles and Detroit.

>> No.2749688

>>2749672

AIR-CONDITIONED air!

Nah. You misunderstood me or didn't bother reading. I said the idea didn't look feasible.

>> No.2749691

With fusion power, all problems will go away. Every. Last. Problem. Ever. In-city farming is just the start.

>> No.2749716

>>2749691
Except that we're nowhere close to being able to use fusion power. The first working fusion reactor is most likely over a century away.

>> No.2749791

>>2749691
Funny how so-called "fusion scientists" say that fusion is "50 years away" meaning they have absolute shit in making it work. When you say some technology is half a century away that means you've given up because it's not feasible. According to them, they won't be alive and certainly won't be working on the project by the time it's supposedly achieved. It's passing the buck because they'd be fucked if THEY had to make a breakthrough.

>> No.2750018

>>2749791
They can make breakthroughs. In fact, they have made breakthroughs. The problem is that creating a fusion reactor is simply too difficult for our modern technology. Making a fusion reactor now is about as infeasible as landing a man on the moon in 1910.

>> No.2750039

>>2749791
exactly. fusion power is so horribly difficult. the layman hears what fusion can do, its possibilities, and says, "why the fuck isn't everybody spending billions on this!" well, we have. for the past forty years. you can't solve the massive engineering difficulties by throwing money at it.

>> No.2751923
File: 79 KB, 394x428, wtfreadingahhh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2751923

>>2750039

>you can't solve the massive engineering difficulties by throwing money at it.

>You can't do research if you provide loads of money!

>> No.2751929

>>2750039
>well, we have. for the past forty years.
Yeah, we actually haven't. Funding for new sources of energy is laughably low.

>> No.2751963

>>2751923
You idiot. He obviously means that just throwing money at a problem isn't going to solve it.

>> No.2751992

>>2751963
That's what he means. But spending nothing or too little also doesn't solve it.

>> No.2751997

>>2751929
Euro austerity cunts can't seem to refrain from cutting fundings to ITER.

>> No.2752004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor#Accident_potential

You guys know nothing of fusion power and its progress, we are doing just fine.

>> No.2752007

Modern nuclear reactors in the planning stage

>But a 40 year old derp reactor got hit by a earthquake and a Tsunami and the resulting herp means nuclear flerp de doo so super dangerous

And just like that we're back to setting fire to coal

>> No.2752088

>>2752007
>ohboyherewego.jpg
Almost 70 nuclear reactors around the world being built.
I've read nothing about one of dem programs being cancelled.

>> No.2752122
File: 23 KB, 257x264, Le_Voyage_dans_la_lune.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2752122

>>2750018

Challenge accepted.

>> No.2752128

>>2752088

Problem is that they're all in China and India.

>> No.2752164

>>2752128
IV Generation ones. Its ok, they're good at engineering.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html
>In all, over 155 power reactors with a total net capacity of some 175,000 MWe are planned and over 320 more are proposed.

From the list at the bottom of the page:
>mfw only a couple of them are PHWR
>i have no face.

>> No.2752226

>>2749516
>If we can ever get an efficient lighting design for vertical farms, that is.
Long, large and vertical 'light pillars', is what's on my mind. Think of the solar bulb and you'll get what I mean.

>>2749533
>I love how "Green" architecture is basically the most literal movement, ever. It doesn't even try to hide its lack of imagination with facade treatment nor abstraction.
I don't think you have the slightest idea what sustainable design or green architecture is.

>>2749548
>Vertical farms seem pretty stupid.
It's the only way to go when it comes to housing AND farming. It brings the goods to the cities, making them self-sustaining.

>> No.2752231

>>2749642
>There have been many "green" buildings that have failed
Like?

>left the structure ugly and infested with rodents, birds and insects
There's this thing called hydroponic gardening.