Free Electricity = Moneyless Economy

[loveme4whoiam]

This could perhaps go in Theory, or possibly in Science and Environment, but since this topic hasn't been thought through much it's probably best to stick it here for the time being.

I have been thinking (as I am wont to do) about a moneyless economy, and why it is we actually need money. Just work through the system for a minute and figure it out. A bloke working on a production line needs money (basically, of course) to pay for food, water and electricity (and gas). The food store needs to sell the food for money so it can buy the food from the farmer, and to pay for the electricity bills for the shop. The farmer needs to sell his crops so he has money to pay for the electricity, food, water, gas for his house.... You see where I'm going with this.

So my theory is this: create a source of free electical power and you eliminate the need for money. Sweeping simplification? Of course; but hear me out.

If you remove the need for the farmer to pay bills, he doesn't need to sell his crops (obviously, this isn't nearly half the truth, but bear with me), which means the supermarket gets the food free, so they in turn can give the food free to the worker. And this applies to everything, not just food. Even consumer products can, eventually, be reduced to this "equation" (I can't think of a more accurate word for it).

I had thought, prior to beginning to write this post, that the problem with my theory was that raw materials are required for things. But if you follow the process through acquiring these materials, you are again brought back to the workers who get the materials, who work because they need to pay the bills...

So, that's my crazy theory. Feel free to flame, nit-pick and generally destory my random thought. I don't care, I'm going back to my bong :redstar2000:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sounds about right. Since it's possible to substitute petrochemical power for electric power in nearly all the cases I can think of, it's a self-sustaining system.

The only real problem I can think of with your plan is implementation. Obviously we would need something along the lines of a sustainable fusion reaction before we can even begin to set up such a system as you described.

[loveme4whoiam]

:o You mean I am actually on to something? :lol: I'm not sure that I understand what you mean about petrochemical power replacing electrical power - how can relying on petrochemicals be self-sustaining, since you need a continuous supply of the chemicals. However, this is probably my ignorance of what you mean rather than you being wrong.

You are indeed right about implemenation, although couldn't nuclear power be considered such a power source?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:01 AM
:o You mean I am actually on to something? :lol: I'm not sure that I understand what you mean about petrochemical power replacing electrical power - how can relying on petrochemicals be self-sustaining, since you need a continuous supply of the chemicals. However, this is probably my ignorance of what you mean rather than you being wrong.

You are indeed right about implemenation, although couldn't nuclear power be considered such a power source?

You got me backwards. I meant that processes that rely on petrochemical power could be replaced by electrically powered processes.



You are indeed right about implemenation, although couldn't nuclear power be considered such a power source?

Nuclear fission, while a great deal more effecient than fossil fuels, is still a non-renewable resource. Although it would concievably ease the transition to a free-energy system such as fusion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Does no one else have any thoughts?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

There's no point in saying having a free and renewable source of energy would help in creating a moneyless society, of course it would, the problem is we don't have such a source.

[loveme4whoiam]

What about when solar power reaches 100% efficiency? (I say when because as far as I understand it is is just a matter of time). Stick a solar cell on the roof of every house, shop, and other building and boom! No more electricity bill. I'm not saying it couldn't work now, but in the fairly near future it would. of course, this would require the oil companies to roll over, which just wouldn't happen. Bastards.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What about when solar power reaches 100% efficiency? (I say when because as far as I understand it is is just a matter of time).

Solar power will never reach 100% effeciency. The laws of physics forbid it. Also, solar power will never be a particularly effecient power source because of the way it is generated - a significant amount of energy will be dissipated in the form of unusable heat. Also factor in the fact that on most of the earth's surface there is significant cloud cover a lot of the time. You would also need to cover large areas with solar cells.


Stick a solar cell on the roof of every house, shop, and other building and boom! No more electricity bill.

Not true. 50% of all the world's buildings will be under cover of night at any given time. Also those pesky clouds will get in the way. It would provide some power, but would most people and factories outside of the desert would need to draw power off a grid to make up for the shortfall.

[Janus]

Not true. 50% of all the world's buildings will be under cover of night at any given time. Also those pesky clouds will get in the way. It would provide some power, but would most people and factories outside of the desert would need to draw power off a grid to make up for the shortfall.
There's always solar batteries that can store up energy when there's no sunlight. Massive use of solar energy isn't feasible since many parts of the world don't get nearly enough sunlight as Noxion.

As for unlimited energy, I don't think that can occur until nuclear fusion is feasible.

I think that this thread should be moved to Science and Environment. NoXion?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:08 AM

Not true. 50% of all the world's buildings will be under cover of night at any given time. Also those pesky clouds will get in the way. It would provide some power, but would most people and factories outside of the desert would need to draw power off a grid to make up for the shortfall.
There's always solar batteries that can store up energy when there's no sunlight. Massive use of solar energy isn't feasible since many parts of the world don't get nearly enough sunlight as Noxion.

As for unlimited energy, I don't think that can occur until nuclear fusion is feasible.

I think that this thread should be moved to Science and Environment. NoXion?
Done.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:01 PM

What about when solar power reaches 100% efficiency? (I say when because as far as I understand it is is just a matter of time).

Solar power will never reach 100% effeciency. The laws of physics forbid it.
On this point, someone once brought up the possiblility that nanotechnology could be used to improve the efficiency of solar panels.

Do you think its possible?

[encephalon]

you should probably consider the fact that money is also used for economic calculation. At the very least, a substitute of some sort that serves the same mathematic function needs to be in place.

Also, I've read somewhere in my free time (couldn't tell you where; perhaps someone else has the source?) that the world could feasibly be powered by a grid of solar panels spanning across the equator, at least at the same rate of energy consumption we have today (which is unfortunate, because that doesn't leave much room for growth). It would be a hell of an undertaking though (and would require massive amounts of energy in and of itself), and I'm guessing that something else would necessarily have to be in place in tandem with it.

But solar energy panels would have to be much more effective than they are today. Even in space, they rarely last beyond 20 years, and they aren't very efficient.

[Commie Rat]

Is Cold Fisson(or Fusion i forget?) physically possible?

[JKP]

Electricity is only a small part of manufacturing. You still need raw materials and workers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Commie Rat+Mar 22 2006, 08:20 AM--> (Commie Rat @ Mar 22 2006, 08:20 AM) Is Cold Fisson(or Fusion i forget?) physically possible? [/b]
Both Cold Fission and Cold Fusion are impossible according to our current understanding of physics.


JKP
Electricity is only a small part of manufacturing. You still need raw materials and workers.

But you still need energy to extract and recycle raw materials, and to feed, house, and transport the workers, and human labour can in most cases be replaced by machines. It costs less in terms of human labour to maintain a machine than to do the job of the machine. I would venture to say that human labour is becoming less and less relevant to the production of goods and services.

[norwegian commie]

QUOTE (NoXion @ Mar 21 2006, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE
What about when solar power reaches 100% efficiency? (I say when because as far as I understand it is is just a matter of time).



Solar power will never reach 100% effeciency. The laws of physics forbid it.


True enough, but we must not underestimate its possibilities. Today in a sunny day, a solar panel can sopport your house with 75% of its energy needs. (my parents are old hippies so we got a panel on our roof, to save the enviroment :D :P ) And that was built for 15 years agoe so imagine in ten years we can exploit even moore and get one step closer our beloved dream.
But relying only on solar-power is unlikely or impossible.



you should probably consider the fact that money is also used for economic calculation. At the very least, a substitute of some sort that serves the same mathematic function needs to be in place.

Yes, as Noxian in a way implyed, in our society we rely on money, currency. After the revolution and the moalding of a red society the society would be extremely different, then the need of such a matematic item to measure values falls away.
And our classless society is a few steps away.

When you head to get your food in the storage room (store) or whatever call it what you like, would you need a bill to show your earnings and get a lifestyle accordingly? Then we would do nothing but have a little reformed capitalism, for social, eqonomic eqiallity to succseed we (in my opinion) CAN not have money (or something like it) as it functions as a tag of your efforts to society, and you will be rewarded singly accordingly to that.

[SmithSmith]

Wouldn't you still need an exchange medium?

[loveme4whoiam]

No. In a gift economy money is irrelevant. Until such time as that is possible the idea of time labour vouchers (or labour time vouchers, depending on who you talk to) would serve as a means of exchange, if by that you mean what you give to a shop in order to have something. TLVs are not (and you'll have to ask the guys over in the TLV thread about this to make sure, it's way over my head) used for exchange between private citizens.

[norwegian commie]

Wouldn't you still need an exchange medium?

Money is and can only be used as a way to mesure welth and possible living standard compared to your position in society, the competetive society is not for the commies, we want a world where ALL men, whymen are equal. With money this is not possible. Money is not nessesary.

But however the use of something to show the amount of goods you can use/have/get is an completely other issue. If everyone got everything for free then the entire capitalist system had no point as it is enough of everything to everyone, unfortunatly that is not the truth. We cant all get everything, in our "new" society, the western world (mainly, pretty much all the rich) society must sink lower for the society to function and not collapse.

Everyone can obviusly not get all they want, so then we may need something to show for to get what we need, A standard quotage to all people (varying as to their needs) but not so different that we get a new class. Today (in a way) this could be called civils pay- everyne despite everythig gets a OK standard pay, careless of work. Workers that exseed this number gets the pay above the civils pay along with thair money. But i feel this too would create a class society and i personnaly dont belive the norvegian left partie on that chase. But it is a start

<I am not sure how to deal with this, but it is not the worst problem we have to work out

[Zak]

It&#39;s an interesting idea. The only problem I see is human greed. In a society that is allready getting close to socialism this could be a final kick.

Fussion might do the trick. Also if we found a way to convert heat into electricity.

[dislatino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:18 PM
It&#39;s an interesting idea. The only problem I see is human greed. In a society that is allready getting close to socialism this could be a final kick.

Oh man, you hit the nail right on the head, it was what i was about to post until i saw you post it. Human Greed is a Severe problem, this a subject of discussion on its own, since it requires one to analyse humanity as a whole, but if anyone has a ny suggestions go ahead.

As for the points made by most comrades here, are well stated, i agree with many.

[norwegian commie]

It&#39;s an interesting idea. The only problem I see is human greed. In a society that is allready getting close to socialism this could be a final kick.


In what way does what i said conflict with ths probem?
i said that we could not get what we wanted for free because people would exadurate and get greedy. that is why we need to regulate peoples use of goods in some way. this then would have to be independent of social-position work ect...

greed is indeed a suvere problem&#33; even to the ones embrasing the communist idea. we doo have enough food to fee the world, even sevral times, so that is not where the problem lies. water and materialistic shit is a problem, there is not enouh of this to go around.

[Zak]

Originally posted by norwegian [email protected] 29 2006, 02:11 PM

It&#39;s an interesting idea. The only problem I see is human greed. In a society that is allready getting close to socialism this could be a final kick.


In what way does what i said conflict with ths probem?
i said that we could not get what we wanted for free because people would exadurate and get greedy. that is why we need to regulate peoples use of goods in some way. this then would have to be independent of social-position work ect...

greed is indeed a suvere problem&#33; even to the ones embrasing the communist idea. we doo have enough food to fee the world, even sevral times, so that is not where the problem lies. water and materialistic shit is a problem, there is not enouh of this to go around.
I&#39;m sorry I wasn&#39;t saying that what you said conflicted with anything. I&#39;m not sure I understand what you&#39;r talking about.

[norwegian commie]

i wondered why you replyed the whay you did on my post. I replyed then to show i had taken human greed along with the theory.

If you still dont understand.... The post prewius too your post was about money as an exchange medium where i stated my oppinion about how money is a capitalistic, tool to keep every man and whomen in the class where they belong.

THEN after that post you said this:


It&#39;s an interesting idea. The only problem I see is human greed. In a society that is allready getting close to socialism this could be a final kick.

so i replyed on this and then you said


I&#39;m sorry I wasn&#39;t saying that what you said conflicted with anything. I&#39;m not sure I understand what you&#39;r talking about.

whel in reality you where saying that...
is this a misunderstanding? or is it simply you misenterperating me and/or wise versa...

[Zak]

ohhhh i see, my post was directed at the idea of the thread&#39;s author, not to your post. It dosen&#39;t conflict with wht you said. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

[TomRK1089]

Getting back to solar applications, am I the only one who thinks you could have a massive solar satellite in tandem orbit with the Earth and Sun? Beam power back down to the planet. There&#39;s no surface area to run out of in space, so....

Obviously initial costs are far too prohibitive now, but eventually I&#39;d say it could be done.

Another possibility on the microwave idea: fission plants on the Moon. It&#39;s uninhabited, so no one can ***** about living near them. Have automated maintenance, and beam power back down.

Both of these are extremely restricted by initial costs now, but that doesn&#39;t make them physically impossible.