- 26 Jun 2020 04:43
#15102897
#4 That would be a great idea IF we had an elevator up into orbit. We don't so the CO2 cost to launch millions of tons into orbit makes it a dumb idea. But, you were comparing my idea that that idea. Your comparison is way off, solar panels are useful.
#3 How do you know what "impact" I want the plan to have? If it provides 50% of the world's energy needs that that would be useful, right? Right?!
. . Paying with debt is what we did in WWII. Look it up. I pointed the way for you in the OP. That was when the world assumed the gold standard would return. Now we have had close to 50 years off of the gold standard, and Repubs and Repuds have added $24T to the US national debt. The US can never get back onto the gold standard. With a full fiat currency the US can roll the debt over forever or pay it as the bond IUOs come due with newly created IOUs called dollars.
. . I know that politically the world is committed to doing nothing until we are all dead. So, I assumed that this political mind set would change. I also assumed that the MMT theory of economics would be adopted by the world's leaders, and especially by the US's leaders. See my many threads in "Political Circus" and "Credit and Debt".
. . The alternative is Civilization comes to an end and maybe we all die. YMMV.
#1 You missed the word I thought I used. I said buy the world's production of solar panels. This was based on past experience where food was flooded into an earthquake devastated area and that bankrupted the small farmers who's corn could not be sold at a profit. Also, the nations can buy their own fittings, batteries, and labor to install. My OP in this thread assumed that batteries would not be possible or would provide less overnight energy than needed for a full Western life style.
#2 I didn't imply that solar would be the sole source of energy. I said do R&D, and then (obviously) fund the building of what you have invented.
XogGyux wrote: All of the above.
1 It is neither politically palatable nor economically feasible for the US to "buy" the whole world solar panels, and it is not just solar panels, it is infrastructure, installation, maintenance, batteries for storage, training of in-ground technicians, and my other issues.
2 I gave you a pretty long explanation with many reasons why solar power (or wind power) cannot be the sole source of energy, it cannot even reasonably make for 50%, not unless somehow you find some sort of extremely cheap to make, maintain and transport "batteries", such technology simply doesn't exist.
3 So paying with debt a politically and economically questionable "project" that has zero chances of having the impact that you want (decoupling from fossil fuels) is cuckoo as far as I am concerned.
4 I mean, if we are going to talk about unfeasible projects, maybe you should start with sending a massive array of solar panels into space and beaming the energy via lasers to every country in the world (wouldn't have to worry about nighttime, in space, you can make it so that it is daytime all the time ).
But again, if you want to seriously tackle our problem, and we do have a problem, you have to deal with reasonable solutions.
#4 That would be a great idea IF we had an elevator up into orbit. We don't so the CO2 cost to launch millions of tons into orbit makes it a dumb idea. But, you were comparing my idea that that idea. Your comparison is way off, solar panels are useful.
#3 How do you know what "impact" I want the plan to have? If it provides 50% of the world's energy needs that that would be useful, right? Right?!
. . Paying with debt is what we did in WWII. Look it up. I pointed the way for you in the OP. That was when the world assumed the gold standard would return. Now we have had close to 50 years off of the gold standard, and Repubs and Repuds have added $24T to the US national debt. The US can never get back onto the gold standard. With a full fiat currency the US can roll the debt over forever or pay it as the bond IUOs come due with newly created IOUs called dollars.
. . I know that politically the world is committed to doing nothing until we are all dead. So, I assumed that this political mind set would change. I also assumed that the MMT theory of economics would be adopted by the world's leaders, and especially by the US's leaders. See my many threads in "Political Circus" and "Credit and Debt".
. . The alternative is Civilization comes to an end and maybe we all die. YMMV.
#1 You missed the word I thought I used. I said buy the world's production of solar panels. This was based on past experience where food was flooded into an earthquake devastated area and that bankrupted the small farmers who's corn could not be sold at a profit. Also, the nations can buy their own fittings, batteries, and labor to install. My OP in this thread assumed that batteries would not be possible or would provide less overnight energy than needed for a full Western life style.
#2 I didn't imply that solar would be the sole source of energy. I said do R&D, and then (obviously) fund the building of what you have invented.