|
WTC Replacement (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I suppose the "freedom" tower sounds somewhat better than the "french" tower :D |
Would you like fries with that?
:toothless
For some reason that picture reminds me of the skyline in the movie Freejack. Is there going to be that funky room at the top with the "spiritual switchboard" in it? :crazy:
God I am old...that was Renee Russo's first film appearance and I was not even old enough to drive when I saw that. Sigh.
I digress....as usual.
MrS |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| ive decided no new design can match the appeal of the old. They should just rebuild the old towers, but 30 floors or something higher. |
|
|
| Dopey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
ive decided no new design can match the appeal of the old. They should just rebuild the old towers, but 30 floors or something higher. |
ryyyyyyttt!!!
wtf? 1700+ feet is nothing these days. they were saying how it would make it mroe of a terror threat if it was higher. but is it really going to be more of a threat if it's 300 feet taller. pisses me off. the coulda built a monster. like a 2500 foot fuking monster to say FOOK YOU to all the hairy bin ladens. but nooooooo, they gotta make a city (south park pronounciation) freedom blob.
and the original was better. fook childs. old fook. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dopey
ryyyyyyttt!!!
wtf? 1700+ feet is nothing these days. they were saying how it would make it mroe of a terror threat if it was higher. but is it really going to be more of a threat if it's 300 feet taller. pisses me off. the coulda built a monster. like a 2500 foot fuking monster to say FOOK YOU to all the hairy bin ladens. but nooooooo, they gotta make a city (south park pronounciation) freedom blob.
and the original was better. fook childs. old fook. |
ya what he said... after I understand it..
might be a few days guys:( |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| I'm surprised nobody has whined about the hippie wind tubrines at the top that will power the building.:toothless |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
I'm surprised nobody has whined about the hippie wind tubrines at the top that will power the building.:toothless |
neat.  |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
I'm surprised nobody has whined about the hippie wind tubrines at the top that will power the building.:toothless |
Bah, damn hippies, they shoud've had a small nuclear power generator installed on top instead. It would give out enough power for the whole complex instead of just 20% for the main building. This hippification of power industry is scary to say the least. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Bah, damn hippies, they shoud've had a small nuclear power generator installed on top instead. It would give out enough power for the whole complex instead of just 20% for the main building. This hippification of power industry is scary to say the least. |
I agree ... or better yet, why can't they just build a good old coal plant at the top? The stats speak for themeselves:
Coal Power Plant
Year Available: 1900
Price: §5,000
Output: 6,000 MW-h
Price per MW-h: §0.83
Lifespan: 70 years
Total Value: 1.19
Comments Creates extremely high amounts of pollution.
Wind Power Plant
Year Available: 1980
Price: §250
Output: 200 MW-h
Price per MW-h: §1.25
Lifespan: 120 years
Total Value: 1.04
Comments Must be placed at high elevations for full output.
There's no way in hell I'm paying an extra .42 sim-bucks for my electricity. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Bah, damn hippies, they shoud've had a small nuclear power generator installed on top instead. It would give out enough power for the whole complex instead of just 20% for the main building. This hippification of power industry is scary to say the least. |
only if we may stick the waste in your backyard :p
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I agree ... or better yet, why can't they just build a good old coal plant at the top? The stats speak for themeselves:
Coal Power Plant
Year Available: 1900
Price: §5,000
Output: 6,000 MW-h
Price per MW-h: §0.83
Lifespan: 70 years
Total Value: 1.19
Comments Creates extremely high amounts of pollution.
Wind Power Plant
Year Available: 1980
Price: §250
Output: 200 MW-h
Price per MW-h: §1.25
Lifespan: 120 years
Total Value: 1.04
Comments Must be placed at high elevations for full output.
There's no way in hell I'm paying an extra .42 sim-bucks for my electricity. |
why not take an example from our friends downunder and spain. maybe even start placing new cheaper solar panels on every building. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
only if we may stick the waste in your backyard :p |
No problem, as long as you put it in safe containers. Besides, I'm sure some middle eastern governments or terrorist networks might be interested in it.
Although solar power is gay and hippieish, the tower is really big and made up from lots of concrete and steel, so I guess that's not such a bad thing after all. On a more serious note, it's an interesting and clean, but somewhat inefficient project that can work only in countries with a lot of sunshine.
Now, the problem with solar panels is that you need sunny weather to operate them. Same works for the solar tower mentioned above. So it's a technology that can well be used in places like Australia, Nevada, or Sahara, but not in many other places. The biggest problem with solar panels is that they're fairly inefficient. They use up only 15-20% of the radiation they receive. Now, considering that the solar constant is 1.37kW/m^2 (but because of the atmosphere on the earth it's about 900W/m^2), a 1m^2 solar panel gives us only about 135-180W on a sunny day. Now, an average home needs several kW of power. Let's say you need the average power of 4kW to have all the electrical appliances and lightbulbs function perfectly. For everything to function properly, we need to take into consideration the worst case scenario, and that is the winter period. Let's take an average country, like Germany or Japan, where we can assume that most of the winter months are cloudy. Cloudy weather reduces the solar panel output by around 50%. Now, we must also assume that about half of the 24 hour period is night. So the effective power output during winter from a solar panel is a quarter of the power output that panel makes on a sunny day, and it's about 34W/m^2. The proposed solar panels convert only 10% of solar power to electricity, so their power output would be about 22.5W/m^2. Now, to get to our desired 4kW average, we'd need 178m^2 of those solar panels. Not to mention that you need to have some pretty powerful batteries installed which store the energy collected during the day to be able to use the electric current during the night. All things considered, the technology is good if you live on a huge farm with 2km^2 of land, but it's useless in cities and towns. |
|
|
| Dopey |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I agree ... or better yet, why can't they just build a good old coal plant at the top? The stats speak for themeselves:
Coal Power Plant
Year Available: 1900
Price: §5,000
Output: 6,000 MW-h
Price per MW-h: §0.83
Lifespan: 70 years
Total Value: 1.19
Comments Creates extremely high amounts of pollution.
Wind Power Plant
Year Available: 1980
Price: §250
Output: 200 MW-h
Price per MW-h: §1.25
Lifespan: 120 years
Total Value: 1.04
Comments Must be placed at high elevations for full output.
There's no way in hell I'm paying an extra .42 sim-bucks for my electricity. |
are those simcity stats?? :D |
|
|
| rizen |
DrUg_Tit0 you dont need a full sunny day to get power, i know of some cloudy and foggy areas that have solar panels and produce electricity, of course not at its full potential.
i know you were kiding but building a nuclear power plant up there would be a bad idea if another 911 happens and the buildings collapse. |
|
|
|
|
