Toastie

LEGO expressing a sustainable world

Recommended Posts

I am ready to get shitstorm-like replies on this.

And I have long - very long - though about this. And now, as I have had a couple of beers for other reasons ...

There are so many ingenious people here in this forum. I have >no clue< how you guys do it. None what so ever. But what I am missing is: Machines, mechanisms, vehicles, ideas, proposals ... aiding the youngsters as well as the old farts and everyone in between - to think along ... the future. About serious change. The car industry - folks - the car industry - is doing it. They go electric. For sure. I happen to be loosely involved in all that - it is happening as of now. Everything is changing. There are people like DonaldT, people of the past, of the ages passing by without much notice ... in the long run ...

But here, on EB, "we" (don't count me in) have all the creativity I can possibly think of.

So ... how about taking the alternative, sustainable, green, future routes?

How about models of the new age?

How about new mechanisms, cool cars for individuals, cool public transportation vehicles, and so on and so forth?

Supercars, supercranes, the Liebherr whatever, the Chiron, the supertrucks, and what not are all fine(!!!). But they are ... either already from the past or - possibly - or hopefully - will be in the near future.

What we need is creativity for novel designs. New radical ideas. And LEGO is the one source in this world to educate us as well as our kids.

And please don't tell me to go to the SciFi forum. I am talking engineering.

That's it. I am a bit afraid of what is currently happening on this planet.

With best regards,
Thorsten

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LEGO is a toy. I think many people that create MoCs are already involved in automotive industry (like myself) or have a technical affinity to it.
The automotive industry is a very complex topic from raw material suppliers, compounders, engineers, designers, article manufacturers etc. until the end product on the road. And then add legislation to it.
People that create MoCs are generally not in management where the decisions are made on every level concerning the above echelons.

That said, I think that there are many MoC creators / creative minds that already had some kind of influence, but all contributions are small. Rome was not build in one day.

Edited by Berthil
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the point here, and recalling the days when I was a young child (now my child is growing up :blush:) I see that all my ideas were ugly, half-backed, imperfect... But the feelings, I remember that all these things have never stopped me making and inventing: I never know the "gears ratio" term but realized that "this and this gears make the fan wings spinning faster... Hey, I like the wind that it makes , how can I make it spinning even faster?". That was amazing and now, yeah, "it's just a transmission, just a gearbox".

So, it was all about the child inside us and we shouldn't stop the other's "children", whatever old or young they are. Just don't say "don't waste time on that, it won't work anyways" but watch how the magic works and the things you have never realized come true and make our world better. I believe :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my take and I know I am not going in the same direction as you, sorry.  

We can all agree EB members make incredible things, if we all listed our top 5 creators I think we would see a lot of repeats.  They make new and exciting models all the time!  Sometimes we get to see the progression of the build, including the failures along the way.   Engineering design is bound to have failure, but from those failures you find solutions and move on.  We see this a lot with LEGO building.  

Where my gripe starts is with TLG, the models are not what they used to be.  LEGO is a creative toy, so when a model is released without a B-model, it (to me) tells a kid that you can only build one thing with this collection of parts and pieces, have fun with your new crane (42108).  It does not push that creative thinking into the kids.  But as always we can rely on our amazing EB members to come up with some fantastic C-models that most of the time look 100 times better than the A-model.  Another thing with TLG that bugs me is the constant repeat of models.  I know cranes are very popular, but I think they have done enough of them, lets move onto something new and exciting.  Just in 8 years, we have had 6 cranes; 42108, 42097, 42082, 42042, 42009, 9391.  TLG themselves are lacking in the looking ahead at some new creative ideas. 

Sorry I did not really go along with your topic, but I thought it may add to the conversation.  I have been keeping quiet in the 2020 2H discussion, but at this point TLG will just disappoint with another version of an old model, just like a lot of movies lately.  No creativity anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many ways, i believe the reason we see a lot of models of real things is that they capture peoples interests and lead to a desire to recreate it. In terms of new ideas, shapes, techniques and even mechanisms, you've only got to look at the competitions entries to see all of this new stuff. And then there are people like JK(brickworks) coming up with all sorts of new sculpture mechanisms and the GBC creators tend to be good at it too.

If i'm honest, I think many of the cool mechanisms we see won't have a need in the future. You mention electric vehicles - well those work very well at a huge range of speeds from nothing to flat out just connected straight to the load - no need for 8/10 speed gearboxes or even the holy grail of infinitely variable transmissions are required for example.

 

A future of simpler (mechanical) engineering is entirely possible by technology disruptors.

And if someone comes up with a beam-me-up transporter, who's going to be interested in whiz bang cars with heavy mechanisms to make scissor doors any more?

After all, the reason a geneva mechanism was invented was because they only mechanical control and no electronics or other means of incremental but non physical movement of source data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is not really thought through as i have to go to work but:

Engineering is hard. Inventing something is orders of magnitude harder. I am a mechanical engineer (MSC Degree), I am passionate about my profession, I did pretty well in school without much effort. One thing I learnt: engineering is very hard. 99% of engineers are doing easy stuff, like me. We rarely design anything important, and we rarely see the whole picture, where our work fits. Many or must of us won't even be able to comprehend it... Maybe it's just me, and I simply don't put enough work into it, but there are other factors in life. I have a family, I have to relax, etc.

As technology develops, it inevitably becomes harder to invent new things. Material science becomes much more important, and also computing. Invention is not really about mechanisms now. So all I can say, don't expect much invention with a plastic toy. All we can do is to impress kids with interesting machines (and good old mechanical machines are much more interesting).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, aminnich said:

TLG themselves are lacking in the looking ahead at some new creative ideas

Cannot disagree more with this. In recent years TLG has ventured into models that have never been done before in Technic. 42055, 42078 B, 42080, 42097, 42098, 42112.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just my take on this...

I dislike where new cars go. Some are fine, but others are the uglyest things I have ever seen. I dont want to build a Renault Twizzy. I want awesome, timeless designs, cool engines that make a hell lot of power, flamespitting exhausts...So I'll keep building my favorite cars from the past. I am not here to change the world, I am here to recreate my automotive goddeses from the past, that changed  the car world forever. And I am doing it for myself, and myself only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Toastie said:

About serious change. The car industry - folks - the car industry - is doing it. They go electric.

What if I told You, that this electric thing is just hype, some trend. Most of current electric cars are more like from Chiron shelf or similar. There are so few nice, cheap electrical cars, most of them are closer to something exclusive. To produce them, there are lot of natural resources needed. At the moment even more harmfull to environment than some conventional internal combustion car. 

It is not solution, to make all transportation electrical, it is not possible, I would say, only solution is to minimise transportation as much as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, aminnich said:

Where my gripe starts is with TLG, the models are not what they used to be.  LEGO is a creative toy, so when a model is released without a B-model, it (to me) tells a kid that you can only build one thing with this collection of parts and pieces, have fun with your new crane (42108).  It does not push that creative thinking into the kids.  But as always we can rely on our amazing EB members to come up with some fantastic C-models that most of the time look 100 times better than the A-model.  Another thing with TLG that bugs me is the constant repeat of models.  I know cranes are very popular, but I think they have done enough of them, lets move onto something new and exciting.  Just in 8 years, we have had 6 cranes; 42108, 42097, 42082, 42042, 42009, 9391.  TLG themselves are lacking in the looking ahead at some new creative ideas.

Yes, there is not much variety, but that's nothing new. Something goes out of the "cranes-cars-trucks-excavators-line" every few years - like the 8852 :D, but these things are not really liked afterwards by most people.

Maybe the models have become too good/complex. The models in the 80s/early 90s were simple and the surrounding design was only implied. As a result, the own models looked basically like the ones from Lego. But today... as a beginner it's almost impossible to achive the looks of a higher class technic model.So maybe there is an inhibition threshold for destroying the well designed models.

And I'm not sure a B-model is enough to encourage kids. I think Lego knows that and they are trying new methods, like the 42099 (please don't hit me :D). If you want to complete all challanges in the Control+ App you either have to build a parkour or go outside. And in both cases it is very likely you have to change the transmission for more torque - and the car is designed to do exactly that without much effort. Maybe it would be better to reduce the quality of lego-models x).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning, long environmental, not very Lego related post ahead!

Well I do agree that climate change is an important issue, and if the chance of future climate catastrophe is only small, that's still enough to do something about it, why take the chance on such devastating consequences. But where I disagree with many of the green activists is pretty much everything else, such as who is to blame and what to do about it and so on.

For as long as Earth has had a climate there has been climate change. The climate is a dynamic thing and looking at long term numbers (overs millions of years) we have actually been very lucky to have had a few thousand years of climate stability. No real hot regions (the climate was hotter when we had dinosaurs) and no ice ages. If we get climate change now, is it really a surprise? Is it mans fault? And does that even matter? To me what matters is what we can do about it.

To me the biggest, most important thing is to get everyone on board, and so far many green initiatives have done a pretty poor job of doing that IMHO. Take tax cuts for electric vehicles for example. New electric cars are pretty expensive and can only be afforded by the well off. But tax cuts aren't free, everyone else has to make up the difference by raising taxes across the board or cutting services. So now everyone, including the less well off masses pays to help more well off people buy a new electric car. Wealthy land owners get paid more government money to have wind turbines and fuel and energy prices increase for us less well off to pay for more wind turbines. All this giving to the rich by taking from the poor seems to be the norm when it comes to green initiatives. They now also have these clean air zones where they charge you money to drive into the city centre, so now only the well off can afford to work there. They are also talking about car sharing, so you wouldn't own your own car but you just hop into which ever one is free and drive off! That is surely not the way to get everyone on board the green electric band wagon.

So I say, lets do this in a way that mutually beneficial to both the planet and our wallets. Get rid of tax incentives for electric cars and instead make electricity so abundant and cheap that people really want to go electric, forcing car manufactures into putting more research into better and cheaper battery tech, enabling us to continue to own our own cars with the range and freedom to go wherever we want, heat our homes with electricity rather than by burning natural gas while also reducing our energy bills. This I believe is best done right now by building more nuclear. It's green, one of the safest forms of energy (believe it or not!) and most importantly, both massively powerful and consistent. The problem with wind and solar is that you need backup energy sources when there's no wind or sun. Back up energy sources need to be able to come online quickly which limits you to those energy sources that burn fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal, etc). Which means wind and solar comes with those types of energy generation and all the problems and pollution that comes with them, and not many people seems to realise that.

In the long term there is a lot of research being done into cold fusion tech (you know, that tech that gets enough energy to power a city from a glass of water type of thing). They have done it but on a very small scale and needs more power putting in than you get out but it is possible. Once they figure out how to make the reaction self sustaining they are pretty much there. All the benefits of nuclear power without the waste. It might take 50 years but which ever country cracks that will likely be the next biggest super power, so worth the investment? Pretty much yeah.

So far I've only talked about electricity, but there's so much more, for example there is an Idea I first heard from Hugh Ross about incentivising those nations that boarder the Sahara desert into replanting it (shrinking it so to speak, maybe even getting rid of it entirely and creating one of the largest forests on Earth) in return for us helping to boost their economy. Again, this will take generations to do, but that just means we better get started!

The thing is, I'm really quite annoyed with much of the current green movement (extinction rebellion, Greta and so on). They speak with a belief and perceived authority that to disagree with anything they say is to be an intellectually and morally inferior climate change denialist, and that we should be shamed into following everything they say. I'm sorry but such arrogance just doesn't work on most people. Just like blaming Trump for everything doesn't work either. Besides, you know those controlled burns that they used to have in Australia? Those are burns that are deliberate and are done to prevent the spread of wildfires. Well it was the green "experts" that banned those. Now the Australian wild fires have released an estimated 900 million tons of CO2, doubling Australia's CO2 output for the entire year.

But what can Lego do? I'm not really sure. Their plastic bricks are as for from single use as you can get, their instructions and boxes are recyclable and sourced from forests that probably wouldn't exist if they wasn't planted to be cut down and used as paper in the first place, and the bags the bricks come in seem so insignificant, it's not like we see scenes of plastic pollution like shopping bags, plastic single use straws intermingled with millions of those little bags that Lego bricks come in. Maybe they could invest in relatively small very local green energy infrastructure projects like hydro power in return for not having any electricity bills for their production facilities. Or they could have green energy educational sets that really do educate children about all the positives and the negatives of various forms of green energy (remember the fact that wind and solar need fossil fuel back up) and nuclear should be included in that.

Yes we can heal the world but we need to pull together. Just like the false dichotomy they tried to invent between science and faith, I don't see this happening when the climate agenda is held hostage by those so arrogant as to not accept, and even be offended by the very existence of an opposing point of view. 

 

Edited by allanp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, allanp said:

Well I do agree that climate change is an important issue

Ohh, it was not so much about climate change - that is something simply happening pretty swiftly as of now. And I completely agree with much of what you wrote, for sure!!!

 

It is more about the overall challenges homo sapiens sapiens is facing on this planet. Climate change for sure. BTW there was climate change as long as this planet exists, again, I completely agree, but there were as many mass extinctions going along with it, particularly when it became a little more bumpy. The same argument applies to the "warmer is better" line of thinking (nature is never as active as in warm periods so two degrees more is not a bad thing at all - this is how it goes); it will simply lead to a very good number of species disappearing, including homo sapiens. But the world will for sure continue to spin with about one revolution per 24 hours with light on and off! No doubt at all. But there is more. Overuse of resources - in fully developed countries that is; overpopulation; right now more species become extinct on this planet every day at the pace of mass extinctions during the past five big ones; the dynamics of closely coupled non-linear functions; closed-loop responses; (mass) migration in response to changes on the planet; the global economic system still depending solely on growth (in a per definition resource limited world, as it is one world with defined dimensions) and so on and so forth. There is no need to name people, I agree. But maybe there are things to think about. TLG made already wind power station for us. IMHO there could be more ...   

But again, that was not the point. It was just about crazy creative technical ideas in a world we are living in now. That is all.

And lastly but most importantly::
Thank you all for your input. It is a pleasure and honor to read all the different very educated and wisely reflected replies and comments.

All the best
Thorsten       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLG has moved in this direction slightly, what with the ZEUX (which is electric) and 42094 (also electric) - though both are loaders, which are also an overdone subject in Technic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, allanp said:

Well it was the green "experts" that banned those. Now the Australian wild fires have released an estimated 900 million tons of CO2, doubling Australia's CO2 output for the entire year. 

I'm an Australian, so I'm going to weigh in here. I acknowledge that this comment will be extremely political in nature, but I feel it's SO important to the discussion at hand, because real people will read your comment, and some of them may just accept it. So while yours still exists, I must argue that this comment does too.

Your accusation here could not be more incorrect.

The rural fire service (RFS) in New South Wales was unable to perform enough hazard reduction burns during the off-season. Hazard reduction burning (or fuel reduction) is a very meticulous process that involves burning off excess dry bark and leaves on the forest floor, and the conditions must be just right for it to happen. If it's too wet you can't even start the burns. If it's too hot and windy, you can't risk not being able to put it out. Furthermore, once a bushfire is so bad that it reaches the tree canopies, no amount of hazard reduction or back burning will prevent areas from going up in flames. The fires got this bad because of drought, both natural and due to federal mismanagement of the Murray Darling Basin, a primary water source for Victoria and New South Wales. All those koalas that got burnt alive were in areas that should have never been dry enough to ignite. There's also suspicion over the RFS not adequately spending its budget on fire fighting equipment (trucks, gear, etc.), suspicion over cuts to the RFS budget, as well as suspicion for long term cuts to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Regardless, things are very heated here, which wasn't helped by our prime minister saying volunteer fire fighters wanted to be there fighting fires (over Christmas, no less), refusing to compensate volunteers, then leaving for an unannounced family holiday in Hawaii after the fires already started, lying about coming back, and finally coming back only to be a total PR nightmare by offering a very shitty compensation with so many disqualifiers, trying to forcefully shake victims' hands (you can find footage on YouTube, it's hard to watch), as well as saying he was glad that nobody died in one of the bushfires, then being corrected that two people actually died, saying he meant firefighters, then again being corrected that that's what was meant. So as you can tell, there's a lot of bad juju and emotions running rampant.

Whatever greenie blame you've been reading is almost guaranteed to be because of the majority conservative media owned by Darth Murdoch (who lives in the US), as well as other Australian media giants, who almost always have heavy ties to the fossil fuel industry, and as such will try paint greenies in a negative light because it maintains their power in the country, and diverts attention from climate change (our media laws truly are pathetic).

There's also blame towards the Greens party going around, claiming that they're stopping hazard reduction burning and back burning (trying to burn ahead of the fire as to stall it). This is also false, as the Greens support both of these, as well as the Greens leader Richard Di Natale having donated a bunch of straw/hay/blah from his home farm to help with the relief effort. The Greens have never been in federal or state power, so do not have any political leverage to prevent hazard reduction burning.

So while there have been occasional protests over certain areas in the past because of an endangered species of animal or plant, these are rare. Almost all of the hazard reduction burns that are cancelled are so due to unsafe/unsuitable conditions.

As to the rest of your comment, I ask for the following to also not be removed, because this is not a political issue, but a humanitarian one:

3 hours ago, allanp said:

For as long as Earth has had a climate there has been climate change. The climate is a dynamic thing and looking at long term numbers (overs millions of years) we have actually been very lucky to have had a few thousand years of climate stability. No real hot regions (the climate was hotter when we had dinosaurs) and no ice ages. If we get climate change now, is it really a surprise? Is it mans fault? And does that even matter? To me what matters is what we can do about it.

99% of climate scientists (smart, educated, passionate people devoting their lives to studying and teaching, careers that don't even necessarily pay well) around the world are saying that climate change is due to CO2 emissions by humans. The professionals are all saying that climate change is VERY MUCH a human-caused problem. The climate has always been changing, yes, but what's happening now directly coincides with human industrialisation, and is only getting worse.

3 hours ago, allanp said:

The thing is, I'm really quite annoyed with much of the current green movement (extinction rebellion, Greta and so on).

Greta's message has always been "listen to the experts". Her disappointment towards world leaders is extremely well deserved, because there just hasn't been enough meaningful action to prevent human climate change. And if she's done anything else suss, then it's important to remember that she's just a 17 year old teenager. There are grown adults expressing utter vitriol towards a child because she demands a future hospitable to future generations (our children, grandchildren, etc). A few of my friends think she's not being helpful. Think about that for a second - a child has become the face of a movement to prevent suffering on a global scale, has raised awareness across the western hemisphere about preventing this suffering, doing countless talks about how things need to change and we need to listen to expert opinion, and in their eyes she's not doing enough. They sit there and mock her, one editing Hitler fringes and moustaches on photos of her.

I can't speak much for Extinction Rebellion, but my experience with them was at university, when they staged a silent rally where they all lay down dead on the floor in the campus centre. Innocuous and yet difficult stuff to put yourself out like that, and yet many students berated them online, entirely ignoring the message. As to their disruptive protests, I say good - it's not a proper protest if you're not attracting attention. There need to be more people protesting, disrupting the flow of money so that the elite will finally listen.

When we express distaste towards greenies, we have to remember that what they are fighting for is for a better world. They're our fellow humans, and as such they aren't perfect, and should not be expected to be. Their "arrogance" and "elitism" is a symptom of frustration. It's something we're all guilty of. Remember that when greenies do stupid stuff, the root cause is almost always just and noble - climate change, animal rights, body positivity, equal rights, etc.

All that said and done, back to Lego :wub:

I'm not too fussy about what models they put out, as long as they're functionally dense. The more complexity the better. I do like an RC mining shovel, but I also like forest harvesters and futuristic concept loaders. With cars, I don't really care, because imo they aren't as cool and don't offer as much visual technical complexity (I would gladly take a trophy truck with accurate suspension and a gearbox though!). I'm a huge fan of cranes and robot stuff, really anything that uses pneumatics or linear actuators.

Edited by Bartybum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

many things!

As much as I disagree with many of your points I am still grateful to be able to read a considered response, but I won't be turning this topic into the comments section of youtube! So with much respect we shall agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, allanp said:

As much as I disagree with many of your points I am still grateful to be able to read a considered response, but I won't be turning this topic into the comments section of youtube! So with much respect we shall agree to disagree.

I'm very interested as to what you disagree with, but yeah debating it here is just gonna be noisy, and it's past midnight, and I can't really be stuffed lol

Edited by Bartybum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, suffocation said:

Electric cars aren't gonna help much until a proper IoE is developed.

True. No doubt at all. But it may not be too shortsighted to begin with what is possible today, and that are as only one example electric cars. There is no doubt - zero - that this route will never be reasonable with fossil energy supply.

The IoE is required, as well as much more efforts establishing renewable energy production routes and energy storage. Which in turn don't work without IoE.

I believe it is smart to begin with something, even when it temporarily doesn't make much sense. But then: There were many and very smart people back in the apparently so good'ol days, who said that the internal combustion engine propelled automobile will never ever replace the horse as transportation means. Well. That was not a very good prediction, which one would call today model calculation.

In contrast to that today's model calculations regarding the development of earths surface temperature, sea levels, polar ice cap coverage, shift of "permanent" tropospheric pressure systems, to name a few, are spot on for more than three decades now. Within these three decades the computing power has gone nuts but the predictions of the IPCC from 1990/1991 (1st assessment report) and the measurements from worldwide distributed stations are in very good agreement with each other, when taking the 1990 worst case scenario as basis. Unfortunately the crazy computing power of today comes to the same result. I happen to do research and teaching in that area; at least I have some access to the primary literature and know a good number of colleagues directly involved in climate research.

Believe me, they don't toss any of the tax payers money around, nor would I regard them as very rich people doing nothing else than predicting the apocalypse to arrive soon. In contrast, they desperately want it to go the other way around. In Germany, I would not even know a legal route for the average researcher in this area to make more money through research grants. No idea.    

I sometimes wonder what "we" are waiting for. Another decade or two to be "sure"? Or better five? Should we wait with technological changes until 100% renewable energy is available - everywhere? That won't happen - in many areas of this planet, people will be extremely happy to have electricity more than 2 hours a day. And they will for sure not care from what kind of primary energy carrier that electricity was generated. But in the "developed" world that is different. We barely survive a power outage of one hour - per year. And it is in this developed world, where we can initiate changes. Be it marginal or not. The automobile is a very good example how such a marginal change can change the world. And that is only one example.

Best
Thorsten   

Edited by Toastie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The terms "sustainable" and "radical ideas" are very contradicting IMO. The comfort and many other achievements we are living in today, at least in the countries where real Lego is available and payable for average people, is in danger if people are being empowered who want to save the whole galaxy, but aren´t able to take on responsibility of their own life. Means first organize your psyche, clean your room, pay your bills, raise children, build a home for your family and perhaps then move beyond that environment.

Please keep out Donald T and Greta out of this forum along with politics as a whole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brunojj1 said:

The terms "sustainable" and "radical ideas" are very contradicting IMO. The comfort and many other achievements we are living in today, at least in the countries where real Lego is available and payable for average people, is in danger if people are being empowered who want to save the whole galaxy, but aren´t able to take on responsibility of their own life. Means first organize your psyche, clean your room, pay your bills, raise children, build a home for your family and perhaps then move beyond that environment.

Please keep out Donald T and Greta out of this forum along with politics as a whole!

Nicely put, couldn't agree more.

...back to my MadMax competition entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brunojj1 said:

The terms "sustainable" and "radical ideas" are very contradicting

No they are not.

And never have been. For one, to me "sustainable" means "for everyone" - and not for the ones who can afford to build houses and so on and so forth. I am absolutely fine when you see it that way, please believe me. Secondly, only radical ideas have made an impact on evolution. All the "lets do it as they show on the Discovery Channel ideas" did not. LEGO is radical per definition in itself, as I can go radically nuts - by putting a radiation hazmat girl/guy on ... whatever ... a beach, not knowing what he or she is doing there. And that is what I do. Radical was also to claim that renewable energy will - some day in the future - deliver more than 30% to the power supply in the country where I live. You know what they called me back then? Thirty years ago? Dreamer, idiot, extremist, greenie, and yes, megablock (see below, in the reason for edit section:laugh:); rendering the future apocalyptic. And you know what? Mission accomplished. Simply done. It is not only reality, it is even better. Some 30 years later. It makes me very happy. Right now, I am travelling around and keep telling people we can make it up-to 75%; you know what they call me? Dreamer. Destructor of our wealth. Dreamer. Idiot. I am used to it. And old enough to cope with that. I have at max 30 more years - but will not cool down.     

5 hours ago, brunojj1 said:

people are being empowered who want to save the whole galaxy, but aren´t able to take on responsibility of their own life

Never ever anyone said here to be empowered, nor save an entire galaxy, nor this planet, nor a region on this planet. Never. No "saving" at all. I don't like way of arguing that way at all. It is the classical straw man's argument. And believe me: I built a house (not only once), raised a family, and I am - for sure - taking my responsibility of my own, and my families life. And my family is doing that as well. It is give and take. At least where I grew up, moved to, and live right now.

And lastly: "Whatever". Heard that too many times, got over it.

And my original post was not intended to go to that direction at all. It was about to ask very skilled people to think outside the box. No more.

It did not work out - that is how it is - and without being bitter: Whatever.

As @Didumos69 phrased:

... back to my train layout. I just added a deep sea section to it; next to a switch yard populated by of 4.5/9/12V trains. Senseless. But cool.

(This thread should be locked as it goes wrong ...)

 

 

 

Edited by Toastie
the "megablock" thing should read "as*hole". Lets see if the catch it here ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the recent Mars eurobricks Technic competition I had this idea for a worm like robot that could be sent to Mars. The fake story/concept is that it would be able to just dig and dig and dig and just keep going and eventually find liquid water under the surface. Because the pressure would be high underground all that water would be jetted out of the hole dug by the mechanical worm generating a new atmosphere over thousands of years and we would then make it a second Earth. But it didn't get beyond an idea. Is that more of the kind of idea or discussion you was after? But instead of colonising other planets, using our combined engineering minds and imaginations to come up with radical machines and concepts that would help improve this planet?

Edited by allanp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, allanp said:

using our combined engineering minds and imaginations to come up with radical machines and concepts that would help improve this planet?

Yes. That.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Toastie said:

[...] Some 30 years later. It makes me very happy. Right now, I am travelling around and keep telling people we can make it up-to 75% [...]

Seems sensible to me, were it only because Geidco's GEI roadmap has set a target of 90% of energy from renewables and 80% from clean technologies by 2050.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, suffocation said:

by 2050

Yes. But chances are I will be dead by then, looking at the mortality rate in my family. No problem here! It is as it is. But I don't like to paint things onto a canvas not in my life's reach. That is for next generations. So for me, it is 75%. Which I would judge "completely nuts" from where I came from.

Thing is: I truly believe it is possible. Only with the full suite of "everything"; new means of intelligent power distribution, new means of energy storage, new avenues of making it happen, and most importantly - learning to live together on this rather small planet without believing that homo sapiens on the Northern Hemisphere are any better than folks on the "far" East. 

But hey, what do I know. I just live here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.