Renewable Energy

[Omega]

I think we can all agree that renewable energy (solar, wind, biomass…etc) is the cleanest and safest way to produce the energy that society uses.

I really have not heard anyone speak out against it and all seem to give it the nod of approval. However, it has not come into being as one of the major contributors in power production. More capacity is coming online but not at a very fast pace.

Given the various ideologies here, what are some of your ideas for accelerating the process of getting more of the renewable generating capacity online?

[MrDoom]

Throw the bourgeoisie into the furnaces.

More energy-efficient machinery needs to be designed and implemented, that simply uses less energy.

[Demogorgon]

Wind power is quite controversial here because people don't want wind turbines next to their house. And of course solar energy isn't exactly an option in Scotland. Its still not that widely agreed on sadly.

They want to build more nuclear power stations, which I think is mad given our track record with them. Domeray is still leaking all sorts of gunk out into the Irish sea.

[Omega]

Thanks for the input fellows but it was not what I was exactly looking for. This is my fault for not wording the question better. I will try again.

How would one go about accelerating the implementation of alternative energy in a Communist system when there is no central government? The bigger the society under the system, the more resources need to be organized to realize this goal.

If it was Stalin it would be simple…put the solar cells on the roof…or else. But I keep hearing arguments that the system in Russia was not true communism.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:21 pm
Thanks for the input fellows but it was not what I was exactly looking for. This is my fault for not wording the question better. I will try again.

How would one go about accelerating the implementation of alternative energy in a Communist system when there is no central government? The bigger the society under the system, the more resources need to be organized to realize this goal.

If it was Stalin it would be simple…put the solar cells on the roof…or else. But I keep hearing arguments that the system in Russia was not true communism.
Well you have to co-operate to plan an energy grid. I suppose in a completely de-centralised society you would have to have diferent sectors of society form some kind of an energy board to come to an agreement.

For the time being though, I am not sure if a completely de-centralised society is possible. it is the goal of course, but a small central government would be needed for a while and energy policy is exatly the sort of thing that ought to fall under its mandate.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:32 pm
Throw the bourgeoisie into the furnaces.

That would be a good first step. The process is being held back because everything is a private enterprise now and all they give a fuck about is the goverment handouts and big profits. Capitalism is holding back a process that could have/should have strarted seriously years ago. There is also the nimbyist tory scumbags that would see the planets average temperature rise 20 degrees before they would allow a windfarm ruin their 10,000 acre holiday homes in Scotland.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 24, 2007 02:48 am
e a good first step. The process is being held back because everything is a private enterprise now and all they give a fuck about is the goverment handouts and big profits.
Think about it for six seconds.

You are a private company that feeds on profits.

In your company vault, you have new and improved energy technology that is easy and inexpensive to produce. If you unleashed it, you could provide energy at a much lower price than the competition, which would mean more market share and therefore more money for you.

But right now, you are using the same technology everyone else is using, meaning lots of competition and therefore a very thin operating margin.



Which one do you put on the market?



I bet even you can pick the right one, if you turn off the computer, sit on the curb and think about it really, really, really hard.

[Omega]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 24, 2007 02:48 am

Capitalism is holding back a process that could have/should have strarted seriously years ago.
Could you explain that further please?

Also, given a decentralized political system, how would you organize the implimentation of a renewable energy power generating system?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:01 am

Think about it for six seconds.

You are a private company that feeds on profits.

In your company vault, you have new and improved energy technology that is easy and inexpensive to produce. If you unleashed it, you could provide energy at a much lower price than the competition, which would mean more market share and therefore more money for you.

But right now, you are using the same technology everyone else is using, meaning lots of competition and therefore a very thin operating margin.



Which one do you put on the market?



I bet even you can pick the right one, if you turn off the computer, sit on the curb and think about it really, really, really hard.
Think about this one, and I'll double your time limit for this one, you get twelve seconds. You are running a large profitable energy company with high profit margins and a large market share. Things are going rather nicely. You can try investing a large amunt of money in alternative energy sources which may not even yield results, and even if it does, may be opening Pandorra's Box placing you in a completely new and untried market, or you can continue to stay in the nice comfortable position you are in now?

[RNK]

Also, given a decentralized political system, how would you organize the implimentation of a renewable energy power generating system?

This would take place at the same time as industrial growth. It would be done in the socialist phase of the revolution, before centralized government slowly dissolves itself, when the democratic state is able to centralize economic planning (and does so according to the demands of society, etc etc).


Could you explain that further please?

As Demog touched on, corporate interests trump society's needs 100% of the time, and under a capitalist framework, technological advancement takes place selectively.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:32 pm
Throw the bourgeoisie into the furnaces.

More energy-efficient machinery needs to be designed and implemented, that simply uses less energy.
This doesnt remove the question of (harmful) waste by-produce. Besides, the beourgiouse are so few in numbers you'd barely get a camp fire going in the grand scale of things.
Nuclear fusion is the holy grail of thermal physics. The key is continued scientific investment until we unlock it. Unfortunatley the beourgiouse are afraid of rocking the boat when it comes to renewables as it would definitely harm the oil industry, as T wolves fan convieniently ignores.

[Brekisonphilous]

In post-revolutionary society, obviously new planning would take place. In my mind, sustainable energy and renewable resources play a big role in my revolutionary politics.

Not only would we hopefully see a workers revolution, but also an environmental revolution along the way, where people begin to acknowledge and then curtail the destruction we are doing to our home, planet earth.
It is IMPORTANT that we keep our environment as healthy as possible, because it promotes healthy people, and ultimately a healthier lifestyle. We can't have revolutionary politics without a planet to sustain them!

[RebelDog]

In your company vault, you have new and improved energy technology that is easy and inexpensive to produce. If you unleashed it, you could provide energy at a much lower price than the competition, which would mean more market share and therefore more money for you.

Typically you don't find anything wrong with such technology being locked away until it serves the capitalists purpose, instead of it being shared with everyone and therefore precipitate a more efficient and effective counter to climate change. Whilst rational people wish to use all the resources we have to stop a global catastrophe, you are concerned with 'market share'.
Anyway, you have made a false argument. You have used this crude example to try and demonstrate that the capitalist interest is the same as the interests of the human race as a whole. Thats incorrect, but I'm not sure whether you are actually aware of that or are genuinely deluded.


Which one do you put on the market?

Are you trying to suggest that because the capitalist system has totally failed to address the issue of climate change, that it must follow the technology does not exist to combat it?


I bet even you can pick the right one, if you turn off the computer, sit on the curb and think about it really, really, really hard.

It pays to know what you are talking about before you get so confident.


Could you explain that further please?

We could have been building effective renewables 10,15 years ago but its been more profitable for the big-capital to harvest fossil fuels and tiny amounts of the huge profits have found their way to renewable research and development. I live in 'oil poor' Scotland. A least a democratically owned oil sector in Scotland could have used the enormous wealth the oil has generated for the capitalists to build tide, wave and wind projects in tandem with dwindling oil supplies. Scotland has a wave power potential to power of 100 homes per single metre of coastline. That is much, much more than Scotland needs and that is just a conservative estimate of wave power. Tidal power is another area with massive potential for energy generation, but again its all very little, too late. The oil companies have no interest in widespread renewable generation whilst they can extract oil/gas from the north sea cheaper, and Iraq/Iran even cheaper and whilst their assets lie in that field. The market is thoroughly exacerbating the problems of greenhouse gas emmisions, not its solution.

We should/could have had these all over Scotland years ago:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=271042007

[QUOTE]Also, given a decentralized political system, how would you organize the implimentation of a renewable energy power generating system?[/QUOTE

We are not going to live in competing, tribal camps. We would have a global solution to a global problem.
Through sharing technology, resources and expertise. Workers, communities, experts all over the world could implement projects in their areas with access to all the latest information and technologies which would be available to all in a post-market society. Its a mistake to think the current model is the only one capable of progressing renewables to a sizable extent. Nothing will be undertaken in capitalism unless it generates profit for the bourgeoise. Thats no model for dealing with crisis. We live in bourgeois states and we get what they want. If workers and communities had the power to shape their own futures in their workplaces and lives then we would not be in the mess we are in at the moment, I'm certain of that.
Where there is one capitalist who is in the renewable sector there are thousands of others that are producing unneeded garbage, building energy inefficient houses, moving goods by road, exporting/importing identical products.


That fountain of knowledge T Wolves Fan made a spamming post directed at me claiming I had made unsubstantiated claims that capitalism was actually holding back the progress to renewables. It seems that post has been removed but I will direct T Wolves Fan to a letter by the Royal Society which shows what is really going on beyond the false reality he seems to have built in his head.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Article:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...1876538,00.html (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html)

Royal Society letter:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guar...ettertoNick.pdf (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf)

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 24, 2007 06:22 pm
[quote]In your company vault, you have new and improved energy technology that is easy and inexpensive to produce. If you unleashed it, you could provide energy at a much lower price than the competition, which would mean more market share and therefore more money for you.

Typically you don't find anything wrong with such technology being locked away until it serves the capitalists purpose, instead of it being shared with everyone and therefore precipitate a more efficient and effective counter to climate change. Whilst rational people wish to use all the resources we have to stop a global catastrophe, you are concerned with 'market share'.
Anyway, you have made a false argument. You have used this crude example to try and demonstrate that the capitalist interest is the same as the interests of the human race as a whole. Thats incorrect, but I'm not sure whether you are actually aware of that or are genuinely deluded.


Which one do you put on the market?

Are you trying to suggest that because the capitalist system has totally failed to address the issue of climate change, that it must follow the technology does not exist to combat it?


I bet even you can pick the right one, if you turn off the computer, sit on the curb and think about it really, really, really hard.

It pays to know what you are talking about before you get so confident.


Could you explain that further please?

We could have been building effective renewables 10,15 years ago but its been more profitable for the big-capital to harvest fossil fuels and tiny amounts of the huge profits have found their way to renewable research and development. I live in 'oil poor' Scotland. A least a democratically owned oil sector in Scotland could have used the enormous wealth the oil has generated for the capitalists to build tide, wave and wind projects in tandem with dwindling oil supplies. Scotland has a wave power potential to power of 100 homes per single metre of coastline. That is much, much more than Scotland needs and that is just a conservative estimate of wave power. Tidal power is another area with massive potential for energy generation, but again its all very little, too late. The oil companies have no interest in widespread renewable generation whilst they can extract oil/gas from the north sea cheaper, and Iraq/Iran even cheaper and whilst their assets lie in that field. The market is thoroughly exacerbating the problems of greenhouse gas emmisions, not its solution.

We should/could have had these all over Scotland years ago:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=271042007


Also, given a decentralized political system, how would you organize the implimentation of a renewable energy power generating system?[/QUOTE

We are not going to live in competing, tribal camps. We would have a global solution to a global problem.
Through sharing technology, resources and expertise. Workers, communities, experts all over the world could implement projects in their areas with access to all the latest information and technologies which would be available to all in a post-market society. Its a mistake to think the current model is the only one capable of progressing renewables to a sizable extent. Nothing will be undertaken in capitalism unless it generates profit for the bourgeoise. Thats no model for dealing with crisis. We live in bourgeois states and we get what they want. If workers and communities had the power to shape their own futures in their workplaces and lives then we would not be in the mess we are in at the moment, I'm certain of that.
Where there is one capitalist who is in the renewable sector there are thousands of others that are producing unneeded garbage, building energy inefficient houses, moving goods by road, exporting/importing identical products.


That fountain of knowledge T Wolves Fan made a spamming post directed at me claiming I had made unsubstantiated claims that capitalism was actually holding back the progress to renewables. It seems that post has been removed but I will direct T Wolves Fan to a letter by the Royal Society which shows what is really going on beyond the false reality he seems to have built in his head.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Article:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...1876538,00.html (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html)

Royal Society letter:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guar...ettertoNick.pdf (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf)
By what measure are you describing "efficient?"

[RebelDog]

By what measure are you describing "efficient?"

In terms of housing/buildings the German model for energy efficiency is a great one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Personal responsibility becomes important, of course. It is now, but it would be emphasised in decentrailised government.

I have some faith that humans want to make sure this planet survives, along with our species. So long as people are informed about the situation, I think that the workers councils would decide to pursure renewable energy.

-Alex