Design for the New Climate

Recently, I saw The Ideas Economy's website and posted 2 ideas that I thought it would be useful. One was to design modular mobile smart housing that acts as a self sustainable unit; and the other a kind of 'lead net' that covers the entire nuclear plant in several layers before it actually explodes.

It just came to me after reading and following up the number of natural and man-made disasters that seems to erupt in a short span of 3 years. Regardless if the Mayans had been right about 2012,  we have to prepare for a definite real climate that is today and the near future.Highly populated areas, usually in cities, do not have much open space for escape. As such, I am thinking of the many possibilities of designing the units and the 'safety net'.

Climate change does not confine to the natural environment, about melting ice caps and the rise of sea levels. We are now facing another impending problem that is more instaneous and dire: terrorism. While we can add in rows of CCTVs, sending police and guard dogs to patrol at stations, airports, and sub stations; we must first eliminate any possible attack inland. For that reason alone, nuclear plants, oil rigs in danger points should be seriously considered for a permanent removal.The energy that we should use must be some form that we can contain in a much higher possibility. With the recent Fukushima Nuclear accident, signs are begining to show that the spread of radioactive pollution is going world wide. I think that is itself an expensive lesson to take and we have yet to see the full impact of the disaster.

I particularly liked the idea of solar energy. Many may not for the actual costs of producing them as compared to nuclear energy. But recently I have accidentally stumbled upon a paper by the late John O Blackburn, who wrote 'The Historic Crossover:Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy'.(see reference below)

I really wouldn't want to try nuclear in the long term given the change of climates now where there appears to be a rise in the number of earthquakes.Naturally people may doubt about statistics. Despite the nature of hard core research stats, we live under the sky to know what is really happening. Sometimes, a better trust is within us. Within me, myself, I do not believe that nuclear is the solution. It has never been. With the Fukushima Nuclear incident, I am more than adament to vote against nuclear energy. You know how the Japanese work. They are very merticulous and responsible people. If this could happen, I think its serious enough to make a resolution. -- Karen Fu, adapted from my own post to PhD forum.

Reference:
(A) The late John O. Blackburn, Duke University’s Professor Emeritus of
Economics and former Chancellor,
Solar and Nuclear Costs—The Historic Crossover: Solar Energy is Now
the Better Buy’ http://www.azocleantech.com/details.asp?newsID=11407
Obituary of  Dr John Blackburn, which reflects his personality:
http://news.duke.edu/2011/01/blackburn.html
Prof Blackburn's paper:
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf
(B)  Nuclear waste recycling problems:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling
http://www.nuclearwasterecycling.com/
(C) Nuclear reactors in quake zones: http://tinyurl.com/4kxux8u

Posted via email from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Land Use Design - World Population in a 1000 Singapores...

The line in the Straits Times a couple of days ago caught my eye: 'By 2050, 70% of the world's population will be living in cities in the developing world'. This caught my attention as I was travelling on the train home. Honestly I have been dreading the idea of increasing the poputlation to 5.5 million in the near future. Surely, this piece of news citing Singapore's land use to house some 6+ billion people on just 0.5 % of our planet's land must be scary, if not petrifying.

Singapore, which has only a land size of  710 square kilometers, is aiming to house some 6 million inhabitants on land. As a citizen and resident of this tiny dot, I must admit it was an eye popper news. I have been squeezing through trains, and replaning my time around peak hours. But when I start to recall  spaces around places on this tiny dot,  this seemingly daunting aim appears to be achievable from mainly 3 aspects:

1. surprisingly, there is still good amount of green spaces that could be utilized.; 
2. the way these designs of flatted properties with underground system planning of spaces could effectively save a lot of land space for a growing population. 
3. there is very little crime, and people are generally at peace, making this concept of urban planning feasible.

We are currently undergoing the pace of change where lots of spaces are still undergoing constructional change, which is why the crowded packs. Complementing this undergoing this space change would be the enlarged network of the Mass Rapid Transit points, which will see extended links in the central parts of the country. Mass Rapid Transits' undergrounds are also built with retailing outlets apart from linking them directly to office, recreational and residential spaces. For a tiny dot to remain as a livable urban city, the living spaces must grow along the rising population (both expats and local).

Checking this illustration on Straits Times [Aug 2010]

The above illustration shows the size comparison with Texas, in the US and with China. If this were the way the land is used, theoretically it would take up very little piece of land, leaving a huge remainder of the earth's surface for other uses. Though theoretically ideal, there are a few worries off hand:

1. Would everyone agree with such land use? Different cultures of different peoples around the world would not agree to the kind of living depending on one's idea of what is comfortable and even 'prestigious' living. Some may consider this as a packed up living life style where you cannot enjoy the spaciousness of greens and enjoy the big airy skies around you. 
2. Social economically, and more importantly politically; this idea of land use may not be palatable to all. It would need the sacrifice of space where grandeur may have to be taken away in architectural designs of monumental buildings. This could impact social uproar when national identity and pride is taken away via a reduction of space for these historically important venues.
3. The price of land would peak unless we have an economics system where this cost could be cut from earnings from other areas. This could possibly be achievable if we would use other land spaces for other economic activity, provided if we could keep greed in....

Space is often seen as a sign of power. Else histrorically, countries and people wouldn't want to wage wars to conquer more space for increasing political and economic might. To take away living spaces has a lot of conflicts of interests that we have to overcome. Cutting population growth is often seen as a way to solve overcrowding and many other human problems. But is a large population the main cause for depletion of natural resources? I doubt it. It could often be touted that the vice of misusing technology and knowhow is the main cause for unsustainable living. I often think that this is the most fundamental reason for our impending demise.

Don't you think so?

Time for bed...as usual..

--- Karen Fu....


Reference:

1. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore 
2. Straits Times article 17 August 2010