Declare War for Solar Energy

[Jethro Tull]

Glad to be a part of this community; the conversations are very interesting from what I have read thus far. I am highly interested in discussion clean energy sources that work in harmony with nature, and so I thought I'd start out my posting in the science section of the forum by sharing a little section on solar energy from a book that I am currently reading.

 

-----

The following plan would solve all our energy, economic and pollution problems within a few years.

 

Declare war for solar energy: The President would make an executive order to build and install enough solar cells to supply all of the US energy needs in two years and we would probably end up doing it in one year. We were the people that even with millions of men out of the country fighting made one B-17 bomber every hour on an assembly line a mile long. Before the war, the factory that did it made cars with a few thousand parts. The four engine flying fortress that was ruling the skies over Europe had over a million parts. We were the guys that made a complete ship from start of finish in four days at just one shipyard. Women were doing a lot of the work. Imagine what we could do now?

 

We mobilize our manufacturing as we did for World War II to build a new free clean energy system. If we could do it during a war, we can do it in peacetime even faster. We form a war department to build it.

Mobilize for peace and prosperity: We build the mile long factories like we used to build planes and ships fast in Would War ll. We built the factories to build the planes and ships in just a few months and we could do it even faster now. We build them in different parts of the country that have high unemployment. These factories would be able to spit out miles of inexpensive solar panels everyday. Other companies would transport and install them in our counties deserts and on both sides of our interstate freeways, railroad tracks and on roofs. Putting them next to railroad tracks makes installing and cleaning easy.

 

Like laying track: We have competitions between companies and give bonuses to the companies that make the most and lay the most solar panels in a day. When we were building the transcontinental railroad, the companies were getting bonuses for every mile of track they laid. This motivated them to build many miles of track a day. We just do something similar for laying solar panels.

 

We get our defense contractors involved in making it happen.

 

Pentagon: We get our pentagon involved in the war for free energy, just as we would do for a war. They have the organization skills we will need. It is why it was really created. The pentagon will be used to create a heaven on earth. We handle the whole thing like a military operation. If we do, we can do it fast.

 

We form thousands of companies to work on different parts of the system in different locations. We start with the thousands of miles of tracks we have in our deserts and other high sunshine locations and just go from there. At the same time, we install solar panels on every home and factory. Money will not be an issue. The government will supply the hardware and labor. We would be adding millions of watts of free clean electricity to the power grid everyday by installing miles of solar panels everyday. We would just keep doing this until the solar panels supply all Americas energy needs.

 

At the same time, our automotive industry starts mass-producing inexpensive electric cars to use the inexpensive electricity we will be creating. They will also make natural gas and hydrogen cell vehicles. This will make the struggling auto industry start booming. When we wake up we will not spend billions retooling to make a different new car every year, we will just make minor improvements to a proven design. This will cut waste and costs related to vehicles in half. It will create more jobs, not less. Our total economy will start booming and so will the world’s economy, because they will starts doing the same thing with our help.

 

On a smaller scale, we start developing and building the towers, geothermal, windmill and any other promising technology and down the road after we see what is most economical, we gradually replace the less efficient technologies. The government will provide large grants to any company developing promising energy technology and more efficient solar cells, such as nano cell technology.

We go full out on the solar cells, because we know we can do it now.

 

We just put less proven technologies on the back burner until after we have built a solar cell system using the current proven technology.

-----

 

From pages 194-195 of The Present

You can read the full-text here: (Website deleted by mod)

 

I think this book brings up some legit points about what is going to be important technologically in the next few years. It is interesting to note that the Democrats just got a clear majority in the senate, so now we can make some big changes, and I expect we will. The energy thing explained in this book is the "big one," and I expect it to start happening in the next year. IMO, it will solve all or economic problems.

 

Share your thoughts please!

Edited July 4, 2009 by Mokele

[CaptainPanic]

I think that the general idea is possible. It's radical, but possible.

 

I have some remarks:

 

1. The war economy of the 1940's was producing individual fighting units, which needed some support (fuel, ammo and food). This time, you propose to make one giant integrated system. That will require a little more planning and designing. 1-2 years might be a little short to complete the entire project. Don't underestimate the problem of energy storage.

 

2. People are scared of changes. In WWII, the changes were started by other powers (In a simplified version of the start of WWII, we can say that the Germans, Italians and Japanese were the initial agressors). Now, you ask a population to give up their comfortable and safe lives to settle for a little less luxury, and to develop clean energy. While a really good propaganda machine might be able to pull it off, I don't see it happen.

You need an enormous work-force. You need to dedicate a lot of resources and power to build all this clean energy. That means less production of everything else.

 

3. Hydro power should be maximized. And you really don't plan on having enough windpower. Hydro and wind are currently the cheapest options in many parts of the world (except for fossil fuels).

 

4. The USA cannot afford any more war expenses on such a scale... unless you scrap the capitalist economy, and go for the plan-economy (Soviet style).

 

But I kinda like the general idea of a war-economy for clean energy. Not because I am a revolutionary or a commie... but simply because it's the only way to get clean energy fast.

[Jethro Tull]

Thank for your thoughts friend; you make some good points. There is, of course, a lot more to it than what is mentioned in the original posts. Energy storage, funding, and one important thing that you didn't mention; all the jobs that exist in non-renewables. I see this endeavor as the single-most important thing we need to do to fix the economy and help us work in harmony with nature. As you say, people fear change, but change starts with us. If we want to survive and give our children a decent world to live in, we need to start working together on things like this that will help us build a world that works in harmony with nature. Yet, we must become the change we want to see in this world, as our world is a reflection of us. We must be in harmony with nature, or we will continue to fear change.

[Pericles]

2. People are scared of changes. In WWII, the changes were started by other powers (In a simplified version of the start of WWII, we can say that the Germans, Italians and Japanese were the initial agressors). Now, you ask a population to give up their comfortable and safe lives to settle for a little less luxury, and to develop clean energy. While a really good propaganda machine might be able to pull it off, I don't see it happen.

You need an enormous work-force. You need to dedicate a lot of resources and power to build all this clean energy. That means less production of everything else.

I'm not from America so I haven't a clue on the thoughts of the average American but I do think that a great number of people now realise how important it is to implement clean energy sources.

It's gained mass attention in the past few years and alot of people have already altered their lifestyles to promote a greener society.

 

You would need a massive amount of human resources in order for this to work. Isn't America in its worst unemployment slump in years? Setting up factories in the parts worst affected could partially solve the problem.

[CaptainPanic]

I'm not from America so I haven't a clue on the thoughts of the average American but I do think that a great number of people now realise how important it is to implement clean energy sources.

It's gained mass attention in the past few years and alot of people have already altered their lifestyles to promote a greener society.

 

You would need a massive amount of human resources in order for this to work. Isn't America in its worst unemployment slump in years? Setting up factories in the parts worst affected could partially solve the problem.

 

You're right that the workforce is available.

 

However, under the capitalist system, you need to find money to make an investment. The entire sustainable business is struggling to get loans for investments.

So, the workfoce can't wait to get a job, but it's really hard to create jobs. Creating jobs isn't just a matter of motivation. It's a lot about convincing investors that it will make profit.

 

So, yes, the population wants to work. Yes, it wants to be green. No, investors don't care, they just want profit. No, people won't work for free.

 

That's why I said (point 4) that you'd have to scrap the capitalist system and go to some Soviet plan economy where you simply tell people to do this, do that. Change the flow of resources (causing scarcity somewhere else)... But I am not sure that I would like that. A revolution probably isn't the solution either.

[Pericles]

I suppose Capitalism is fine for now but a growth economy cannot be maintained with a limited environment.

 

It might be an inevitablity that capitalism will have to end if we are to survive... one day.

[CaptainPanic]

I suppose Capitalism is fine for now but a growth economy cannot be maintained with a limited environment.

 

It might be an inevitablity that capitalism will have to end if we are to survive... one day.

 

Yep.

So now we need an idiot who is not afraid to bring that message to the masses.

But it sure as hell isn't going to be me.

[Pericles]

Bush was an idiot??? but you guys got rid of him haha.

[iNow]

So, the workfoce can't wait to get a job, but it's really hard to create jobs. Creating jobs isn't just a matter of motivation. It's a lot about convincing investors that it will make profit.

 

So, yes, the population wants to work. Yes, it wants to be green. No, investors don't care, they just want profit. No, people won't work for free.

 

That's why I said (point 4) that you'd have to scrap the capitalist system and go to some Soviet plan economy where you simply tell people to do this, do that. Change the flow of resources (causing scarcity somewhere else)... But I am not sure that I would like that. A revolution probably isn't the solution either.

I tend to disagree with your overall tone, here. Investors know FULL well right now that the good money is in the green renovations of the energy system. That's where bucket loads of money are flowing right now.

 

The larger challenge is that those companies who wish to engage in manufacturing and job creation to get this done can't get credit to open up their fabs and purchase the materials and the equipment to get the needed tools and panels out into the system.

 

Instead of "scrapping" the capitalist system, we need to support it... Specifically, by opening up lines of credit again. We don't need a soviet economy to get these jobs rolling and create millions of new manufacturing and installation jobs... what we need is for the banks to start loaning money to those huge companies willing to be part of it and hire people. Opening a manufacturing plant takes a large cash investment, and these investments are fed from bank loans. There are literally billions and billions of dollars in contracts out there ready to be executed. The only thing AFAIK holding them back is the lack of funds available from our financial institutions to turn the key and get the production lines running.

[CaptainPanic]

iNow,

I was not saying that no investments in sustainable energy will be made at all with our capitalist system.

We're discussing some kind of a war-economy. I was saying that if you want to turn the country upside down into a war-economy for sustainable energy, you need a different system.

 

The investments in sustainable energy are now approaching a point where a payback time can be reached within the life time of the application (wind power already has that for a number of years, solar is getting there soon). That does not mean that existing production lines that build other items will now change their product to sustainable energy.

Boeing is not going to build blades for turbines in their 747 factory. That's only possible if you ignore profit, and turn the place upside down... and that won't work in a capitalist system, because Boeing would be bankrupt within the year.

 

I agree with your last paragraph as the best way forward in the "real world" that we live in right now.

[iNow]

Thanks for clarifying, mate.

[bascule]

Declare war for solar energy: The President would make an executive order to build and install enough solar cells to supply all of the US energy needs in two years and we would probably end up doing it in one year.

 

Let me just go ahead and say this sounds, umm, excessively ambitious.

 

Also: why exclusively solar as opposed to wind, nuclear, or a combination thereof?

[Jethro Tull]

 

Also: why exclusively solar as opposed to wind, nuclear, or a combination thereof?

 

 

I think we should try a combination and figure out what is most cost efficient and effective, but we really need to tap the abundant energy that nature gives us. It is ridiculous that people still believe that energy is scarce. We have an overwhelming abundance, and the sun, in my opinion, would be the most reliable option. It is a fail-proof option, and we have the technology to build it now. What are we waiting for? The non-renewables to be depleted? What a waste of valuable resources, literally burning them away.

[Psycho]

Let me just go ahead and say this sounds, umm, excessively ambitious.

 

Also: why exclusively solar as opposed to wind, nuclear, or a combination thereof?

Indeed, does seem like it would be most effective to create a good solution to the nuclear waste problem then you can just use that until it runs out.

 

I never got why African countries close to Europe haven't fill there useless desert areas with solar panels and then sold the power back to Europe or used it themselves.

[iNow]

I never got why African countries close to Europe haven't fill there useless desert areas with solar panels and then sold the power back to Europe or used it themselves.

 

Because it takes a significant up front capital investment to get this going. There may also be challenges with tribal territories, but my first comment is the primary reason. Up front cost/financing.

[bascule]

I never got why African countries close to Europe haven't fill there useless desert areas with solar panels and then sold the power back to Europe or used it themselves.

 

Building an intercontentinental power grid is also a difficult technical challenge.

[Einstein]

I'm just wondering how cities built to burn fossil fuels will be able to change to clean energy. It could be impossible to change all those street lights, subways, homes, etc. from major cities across the globe to being non-polluting. If the people of Earth could do it, it would take a while. Look at us. Growth of human population and construction is really high now, and both need a lot of fossil fuels, which is only adding to the time to change them to using clean energy. If people don't change soon, by the time oil runs out, we'll be stuck in a tight spot.

[insane_alien]

einstein, all you need to do is change the powerstations. streetlights will run on electricity whether its from fossil fuels, nuclear or solar power. it doesn't matter as long as the frequency and voltage are within tolerances.

[Einstein]

I never got why African countries close to Europe haven't fill there useless desert areas with solar panels and then sold the power back to Europe or used it themselves.

 

I agree with him, but I think that Saudi Arabia could and should be the next huge world energy supplier of energy. Also, not all African land is desert area, but desertification is another big problem. Nuclear energy isn't a very smart idea, because I see so many poor, severely deformed babies whose parents worked in a nuclear energy factory. The Himalayas are an exellent place to put wind energy farms in, from what I think. Vermont's Green Mountains are a good place too, since they have the highest wind speeds on Earth sometimes. Who knows, Antarctica could become a huge wind energy factory.

Edited August 4, 2009 by swansont
add quote tags

[insane_alien]

people who work in nuclear power stations actually tend to get less radiation than people who don't.

 

i think you are going to have to back that up.

 

are you maybe talking about children born to parents who were affected by chernobyl

[Einstein]

Originally posted by insane_alien

are you maybe talking about children born to parents who were affected by chernobyl

 

I've never heard of chernobyl before, but I'm pretty sure that nuclear energy is a big factor of deformities on Earth. I saw a picture of a girl on the Discovery Channel about a girl with 8 limbs. Her parents worked in a nuclear energy factory. There are many very similar cases on the news.

[Einstein]

But one day the oil will run out. So will the uranium for nuclear energy. We will have to change to power lines, because I don't think that power stations fitted for fossil fuels will make do very well with distributing clean energy.

[swansont]

Originally posted

 

Please learn to use the "quote" function

 

Blah, blah, blah

 

shows up as

 

Blah, blah, blah

[Psycho]

Also, not all African land is desert area, but desertification is another big problem.

It really is, move inland about 20 miles from the sea unless you are on a river delta and african country near Europe just has desert.

 

The Himalayas are an exellent place to put wind energy farms in, from what I think.

Why, no one lives there, plus it is extremely cold and hard to get the energy to where anyone does live.

Who knows, Antarctica could become a huge wind energy factory.

No. That is an even worse suggestion than the Himalayas.

 

But one day the oil will run out. So will the uranium for nuclear energy. We will have to change to power lines, because I don't think that power stations fitted for fossil fuels will make do very well with distributing clean energy.

Why will you have to change the power lines, energy from solar or wind is exactly the same thing as if it came from a carbon source.

 

I saw a picture of a girl on the Discovery Channel about a girl with 8 limbs. Her parents worked in a nuclear energy factory.

I can see this easily being untrue, and considering you have never heard of Chernobyl, I would like a source.

[insane_alien]

It really is, move inland about 20 miles from the sea unless you are on a river delta and african country near Europe just has desert.

 

this is actually wrong. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Africa_satellite_orthographic.jpg

 

all the green bits are areas of vegetation. while the sahara is the dominant image of africa there is a lot of vegetation there.