Is anyone interested in rebuilding the US economy?


Off-Topic Discussions

The Exchange

Build a million wind turbines


yellowdingo wrote:

Build a million wind turbines

Why stop there? Lets put solar panels on the top of every building?


You can't rebuild it into what it was: the circumstances that enabled it to become the worlds only large manufacturing power are no longer there, you'll have to make it into something new.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You can't rebuild it into what it was: the circumstances that enabled it to become the worlds only large manufacturing power are no longer there, you'll have to make it into something new.

It isn't about being the world's only manufacturing power...its about producing energy on a scale that it is impossible to produce cheaper energy.

Massive Maglev Space launch System becomes viable with that level of energy and income
The USA could use those funds to build a city for all its citizens and give every family a home.


Solor panels on every home is more viable solution than a million wind turbines.


Grey Lensman wrote:
Solor panels on every home is more viable solution than a million wind turbines.

No, because wind turbines can pay for themselves over the long run, small solar panels not so much in many areas.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What's the problem with the economy?

From the view of the one percenters, they're doing great and the answer to our problems is more resources diverted to their hands. Most of what you see in the news is intended diversions from basic economic reality.

As to the other 99 percent..... they're not real Americans anyway.

It boils down to what it always has, cycles in the ongoing struggle between the Haves and the Have-Nots.

Sczarni

Why not just a dozen nuke plants or so?

Actually, we'd probably have to build the nukes first to power the construction of the turbines and panels.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Trinite wrote:

Why not just a dozen nuke plants or so?

Actually, we'd probably have to build the nukes first to power the construction of the turbines and panels.

You don't build up the economy by throwing simply throwing money at sinkholes. You build it by infrastructure projects that both provide alot of employment and actually stimulate the ecnomomy. Nuke plants do neither for the same amount of money thrown at them.


LazarX wrote:
Trinite wrote:

Why not just a dozen nuke plants or so?

Actually, we'd probably have to build the nukes first to power the construction of the turbines and panels.

You don't build up the economy by throwing simply throwing money at sinkholes. You build it by infrastructure projects that both provide alot of employment and actually stimulate the ecnomomy. Nuke plants do neither for the same amount of money thrown at them.

QFT. Nuclear power is a huge, inefficient money hole that couldn't exist without government welfare.

The science exists, and the studies are in. Renewable energy can do it all. What's needed now is the political will to defy big energy. They've squashed renewables for decades, because it's hard to charge for sunlight and wind.


Vive le Galt!

The Exchange

Grey Lensman wrote:
Solor panels on every home is more viable solution than a million wind turbines.

Not if you are using the energy to turn sea water into hydrogen and oxygen so it can power your SUV and gas turbine powerstations.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Is anyone interested in rebuilding the US economy?

Yes, but the bank denied my loan for it.

The Exchange

TOZ wrote:
Quote:
Is anyone interested in rebuilding the US economy?
Yes, but the bank denied my loan for it.

And the US government are fools for rejecting that 'lets build a Death Star' petition simply because big rocks from the sky are now an issue.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
No, because wind turbines can pay for themselves over the long run, small solar panels not so much in many areas.

Wind power isn't as unlimited as people think. While I think it's certainly part of a solution to the world's energy needs, it isn't capable by itself. It certainly won't be enough to turn the U.S. into an energy exporter all by itself.

Wind Shadows

I also question how Germany can produce 6 times the solar energy as the U.S. even though they get less sunlight.

Sunlight Map

Well, actually, I don't question it. Inertia is a pretty powerful force.


Germany does solar intelligently. Between that and wind (both of which will become better and cheaper with enough investment), we'd all be better off. Do you really wonder why America's dragging its heels?


Grey Lensman wrote:


Wind Shadows

This is nonsense. Of course you can't pack windfarms accross the entire country. No one says you can, no one thinks you can, no one is trying it or suggesting it. You'll hit the limits of what someone can own far, far, FAR before you'll hit this limit.

Quote:
I also question how Germany can produce 6 times the solar energy as the U.S. even though they get less sunlight.

7 times the solar panels.

Sczarni

A highly regarded expert wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Trinite wrote:

Why not just a dozen nuke plants or so?

Actually, we'd probably have to build the nukes first to power the construction of the turbines and panels.

You don't build up the economy by throwing simply throwing money at sinkholes. You build it by infrastructure projects that both provide alot of employment and actually stimulate the ecnomomy. Nuke plants do neither for the same amount of money thrown at them.

QFT. Nuclear power is a huge, inefficient money hole that couldn't exist without government welfare.

The science exists, and the studies are in. Renewable energy can do it all. What's needed now is the political will to defy big energy. They've squashed renewables for decades, because it's hard to charge for sunlight and wind.

I'd like to see your math, please.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
A highly regarded expert wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Trinite wrote:

Why not just a dozen nuke plants or so?

Actually, we'd probably have to build the nukes first to power the construction of the turbines and panels.

You don't build up the economy by throwing simply throwing money at sinkholes. You build it by infrastructure projects that both provide alot of employment and actually stimulate the ecnomomy. Nuke plants do neither for the same amount of money thrown at them.

QFT. Nuclear power is a huge, inefficient money hole that couldn't exist without government welfare.

The science exists, and the studies are in. Renewable energy can do it all. What's needed now is the political will to defy big energy. They've squashed renewables for decades, because it's hard to charge for sunlight and wind.

You should have stopped at your first part because you were right in that and pie in the sky in the second. Right now... renewable can't do it all... because the tech simply isn't there. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be researching it more than we have, but we have to be honest about what can be delivered TODAY. On the other hand nuclear power has proven to be an extremely expensive boondoggle. What it totally failed to do is deliver on it's promise of "energy to cheap to meter." It is at this point the most expensive way to produce a kilowatt. And that's not even counting the costs of long-term waste storage.


LazarX wrote:

You should have stopped at your first part because you were right in that and pie in the sky in the second. Right now... renewable can't do it all... because the tech simply isn't there. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be researching it more than we have, but we have to be honest about what can be delivered TODAY. On the other hand nuclear power has proven to be an extremely expensive boondoggle. What it totally failed to do is deliver on it's promise of "energy to cheap to meter." It is at this point the most expensive way to produce a kilowatt. And that's not even counting the costs of long-term waste storage.

The problem with energy is not about TODAY...it is about TOMORROW. With the world's population growing as it is the demand for energy will continue to grow. We need not just one alternate energy souce we need serveral. Wind, Solar, Hydro, I have heard intersting things about natural gas lately. Even nuclear power should not be thrown out because what it is today, instead we should continue to work with it. We should not be afraid of any of it. Especialy because of the past...probably the cleanest and most fuel effiecent cars out there are disels...why because we advanced the tech.

The only energy souce I think is a bad idea is the bio-diesel(I think that is what it is called it is the one that turns grain into fuels.) The problem with that is with the population growing I think we are going to need all the food souces to keep people fed.


The harsh truth is that you can't provide enough food to feed a population comfortably, because the population will grow to match the food produced and then some. Repeat for as long as you like.


Sissyl wrote:
The harsh truth is that you can't provide enough food to feed a population comfortably, because the population will grow to match the food produced and then some. Repeat for as long as you like.

That's arguably not true for people. The evidence seems to show that given education and opportunity (particularly for women) and access to birth control, population growth slows, generally to just below replacement levels.

Current world population growth is largely driven by areas without or with lower levels of those things.

Obviously in the long run, below replacement population growth is bad, but given our current numbers it'll be a long time before that's a valid concern.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Right now... renewable can't do it all... because the tech simply isn't there.

Actually, you are a little out of date. Ten years ago renewable power sources couldn't do it all. Today they can.

There have been several studies over the past few years showing affordable ways to cover all power needs via renewable sources at the national, continental, and global levels.

The best of the global studies is probably this one in two parts

Indeed, we have now delayed renewable power so long that not only is it economically feasible... it would actually be cheaper. Solar is already at 'grid parity' with fossil fuel power for over 20% of the global population. By the end of 2015 that will have grown to around 50%, and by 2020 nearly the entire planet. Yes, there are large infrastructure costs involved in changing over from a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy economy, but those would be offset by no longer having to pay to prop up the fossil fuel economy.

At this point I don't think the lack of political support for renewable power matters. Private investors have already noticed that wind is profitable in many places and that solar soon will be nearly everywhere. By 2020 I suspect there will have been such a sea change in new power development that it will be obvious to everyone that the fossil fuel era is on its way out.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
The harsh truth is that you can't provide enough food to feed a population comfortably, because the population will grow to match the food produced and then some. Repeat for as long as you like.

Malthus only applies to unmanaged populations. There's absolutely no reason that we can't bypass him. What we have to do is to engage a war ON poverty, instead of on the poor themselves.


Whether renewables can "do it all" or not isn't really the important question right now. Whether they can or not, they can do a lot more than they are now, so developing them should be a priority. There's plenty of low-hanging fruit here.

If it turns out they can only supply 75% of our needs or we need other sources for backup for fluctuating renewables, does that mean we shouldn't have built any? Of course not.


YAY! War on poverty! Like, when the War on Drugs started, people just couldn't find drugs anymore?


I say we declare war on Sweden.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Come at us. Unbeaten since 1809. ;)


[Removes gloves and slaps KJ]

I propose a Winter Goblin vs. Ulfen Raiders module (Adventure Path?) to settle the matter!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That would barely fill an organized play scenario, let alone an AP...

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

[Removes gloves and slaps KJ]

I propose a Winter Goblin vs. Ulfen Raiders module (Adventure Path?) to settle the matter!

Just don't slap the guy with your 'gloves' while wearing plate mail gauntlets...I killed a PC Ranger with one blow and his player spent the day looking at me like I had murdered his puppy. We were no longer friends after that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Volume 1: Anklebiters from Galt kill all the Ulfens
Volume 2: Anklebiters from Galt kill all the Eagle Knights
Volume 3: Anklebiters from Galt meet all the girls from Cheliax, have a very nice time
Volume 4: Anklebiters from Galt overthrow the Thrunes
etc., etc.

It writes itself.


yellowdingo wrote:
Just don't slap the guy with your 'gloves' while wearing plate mail gauntlets...I killed a PC Ranger with one blow and his player spent the day looking at me like I had murdered his puppy. We were no longer friends after that.

Honor has yet to be satisfied!

Scarab Sages

yellowdingo wrote:

Build a million wind turbines

Certain areas of West Virginia and Virginia changed zoning laws to prevent construction of wind turbines after a company purchased land for that purpose.

The grass roots movement was remarkably well funded by the coal industry.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
The harsh truth is that you can't provide enough food to feed a population comfortably, because the population will grow to match the food produced and then some. Repeat for as long as you like.

An extremely reliable form of voluntary birth control has been developed. It is so effective that some countries are facing natural population decreases. This extends to nearly 1/3 of the counties in the United States.

Education of Women. The better educated, the smaller the average family size.


Artanthos wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
The harsh truth is that you can't provide enough food to feed a population comfortably, because the population will grow to match the food produced and then some. Repeat for as long as you like.

An extremely reliable form of voluntary birth control has been developed. It is so effective that some countries are facing natural population decreases. This extends to nearly 1/3 of the counties in the United States.

Education of Women. The better educated, the smaller the average family size.

Easy access to birth control helps too. Though the educated women will fight for it. If they have any power in society. Which they probably do, or why would they be educated. It's all tied together.

The reverse argument is tied together too: Why bother to educate them, since all they need to do is stay home and have babies. They shouldn't have any say, since they aren't educated.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
If it turns out they can only supply 75% of our needs or we need other sources for backup for fluctuating renewables, does that mean we shouldn't have built any? Of course not.

Quite so. If renewable energy could reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels to 50% of their current level that would be enough to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 level and put a 'cap' on how bad global warming will get. That should be a relatively easy goal to attain and would provide tremendous advantages.


Trinite wrote:
I'd like to see your math, please.

Sorry, missed this thread, recently. Some people have posted some answers, but I can offer you this.

If big energy didn't rely on government welfare, and had to compete in a "free market," renewables would be much more attractive.

If the billions of tax dollars gifted to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries were instead invested in renewables, we could finance research and infrastructure that would eventually make fossil fuels fade into relative insignificance.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Is anyone interested in rebuilding the US economy? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions