Nation wide free electricity

Easy steps to gain free, green energy for the whole country:
1.) Cut back in military spending on things congress decides to be an unnecessary expense
2.) Claim eminent domain on plots of land in the desert and mountains where there is guaranteed absolute sunlight
3.) Bring back the CCC
4.) Build solar panels in said areas (cutbacks in military spending cover all costs)
5.) Generate enough electricity for the country
6.) Provide free energy for the entire United States of America

I know it's a long stretch and extremely oversimplified but why wouldn't we be able to do this? Feel free to shred the whole thing to pieces, this whole idea is open to criticism, improvements, and overall discussion.

I'm fucking retarded and don't know shit about engineering or electricity, but wouldn't it be cheaper to build those panels everywhere around the country instead of putting them all in the middle of nowhere ? The US is very sunny, most states could make their own solar energy

The purpose of the federal government is not to give useless eaters free shit, OP.

And the whole solar panel thing is idiotic. IT takes almost as much energy to build the damned things as they produce in their useful lifetime. Then you have transmission line losses.

>Build giant solar panels in space for constant sunlight
>All nations chip in
>Free energy for the world

>3.) Bring back the CCC

what is the CCC?

1) Solar and wind aren't stable sources of energy, you need thermal plants as the backbone of your system and hydro for regulating changes in consumption. Using batteries is expensive as fuck and harms the environment. Using pumped storage is a smaller harm to environment over all but it's expensive and hard to find adequate locations for.
2) The whole grid is designed with synchronous generators in mind, replacing them with semiconductor elements isn't viable on a large scale.

The only legitimate approach would be to control consumption but that's even more expensive.

t. grid engineer

>1.) Cut back in military spendin
stop. as soon as you say "government hast to pay for it" means it's not free

>solar panels
Go green instead, you stooge.
>why wouldn't we be able to do this?
Transmission loss. And occasionally that spot of the earth won't get to see the sun for a few hours.

Large parts of the northeast are overcast more days a year than they are not. And yes, over the thousand mile long powerlines, even with transformers, you'd lose most of the energy to resistance and heat.
There's a reason we build our powerplants near the sites they power. They don't have to generate as much that way.

Free electricity would solve lots of issues, grow food with artificial lights.
heat our homes for free
morale boost for everyone

This is a great idea but pleb masses have zero imagination. on how this can work.

muh system
muh money

>government
>giving
The government have anything to give you shit-eating fuck head.

A typo, he means CCCP. OP is a commie.

electricity was monopolised a very long time ago. most appliances we use today are low voltage.

From America huh? Fully American with burgers and country music? Just being an American with an American power cor,.... what a tic!

> Incomprehensible Autistic screeching

So, Quebecker and English is not your first language or you made a typo?

>So, Quebecker and English is not your first language or you made a typo?
So, French and English are* not your first languages? Or you made a typo?

Fixed that for you, bud. You're more than welcome to tell me where government gets their money. We're not talking about personal wealth.

CCC = Civilian Conservation Corps, would be my guess at deciphering OPs silly post. A government Work program under Pres. Roosevelt, the Supreme Court Ruled it unconstitutional.

But FDR was a dictator...

All I read are increasing gouvernment expenses.

I'm gonna go with you misread my post and think that I said the government is supposed to give you shit.

>So, French and English are* not your first languages?
Oh how embarrassing for you to screw up acting smug.

>1.) Cut back in military spending on things congress decides to be an unnecessary expense
Never gonna happen. Oil is king, and brown people are always angry, gotta go to war over it.

>2.) Claim eminent domain on plots of land in the desert and mountains where there is guaranteed absolute sunlight
Could create a bill that protects certain plots to use for only this purpose. Lime we have for our forests.

>3.) Bring back the CCC
Yes, please.

>4.) Build solar panels in said areas (cutbacks in military spending cover all costs)
And encourage people to invest in home/business solar, or at least battery storage.

>5.) Generate enough electricity for the country
Check.

>6.) Provide free energy for the entire United States of America
We will somehow fuck the free part up, knowing how our politics go.

He probably means civilian conservation corps, a new deal era public works project that hired people to plant forests, build roads and bridges, and other stuff like that to give lower class people jobs again and lift the country out of the Depression.

Your post implies the government actually has something that it otherwise shouldn't be giving people: free shit.

So what would this free shit be exactly? How would they acquire the shit before giving it away?

Yeah you got me there.

That's actually brilliant. We tried something similar here, but the dregs actually bitched about it because it was too much like hard work.

>muh free shit.

Panels are more expensive than coal for example.
You either competitive through enrgy costs or wages. You want solar panels? Fine, but dont whine when your taxes go up and your wages go down

Subsidized by taxpayers. Very brilliant.

And in turn helps taxpayers. As it should be.

>doesn't know about return investments

Coal does not come back. At least, not in our lifetimes.

Go back to Sup Forums ........

It's another form of welfare, meaning it doesn't help anyone but the dregs receiving payment.

Never gonna happen op, how would they enslave us then?

That's only bad if it's a handout. The way that works is turning them into productive government employees, who earn a wage, and are thus able to stimulate the economy by buying goods and services.

/thread

>muh solar panels

No one bothers with geothermal anymore.

>That's only bad if it's a handout.
It's bad because it's taking hard worked dollars from workers and placing them in the hands of dregs.

I already stimulate the economy by buying goods and services with the money I already don't hand out to a bunch of faggots planting trees and spreading mulch in parks.

Protip: If your plan isn't as doable as "kill all niggers" then it's not much use.

The rare earth materials used to make solar panels also don't return.

$16,000 later and I am off grid.
Fuck the electric jew

Those tax dollars are meant to support and grow the nation, though.
>I already stimulate the economy by buying goods and services with the money I already don't hand out to a bunch of faggots planting trees and spreading mulch in parks.
That's fine. And it's why the government needs to do it for you.

You are aware we have solar technology that doesn't rely on rare metals anymore, right?

16k for just that amount is pretty bloody steep. Did that at least include the first battery?

But do we have any which don't rely on oil for production, and existing power sources?

>Those tax dollars are meant to support and grow the nation, though.
Exactly right. This doesn't support and grow the nation. We don't have nations anymore anyway.

>That's fine. And it's why the government needs to do it for you.
The government should actually try running the country and not acting as moral arbiters of wealth redistribution.

>all the nation's electricity in one concentrated area
>controlled by the government
>this is somehow seen as a good thing

no it should stay the same so people get off their fat asses and go out.

In what way does putting previously unproductive people to work improving infrastructure not helping the nation?

>This doesn't support and grow the nation.
How does it not?
>We don't have nations anymore anyway.
Might want to tell them that.
>The government should actually try running the country
That is running the country. The private sector won't do anything which doesn't create an immediate financial return, and as such couldn't be relied upon to do things like what i suspect the CCC was made for.

The only thing such funds grow is the gouvernment itself.
Let's say all the landscaping is done. What next? Let the workers go out into the free market, or find excuses to keep them shackled to a gouvernment they daren't vote against for fear of losing their job to budget cuts?

Or go nuclear, faggot.

Not as stupid idea as you might think. Space based solar is several times more efficient than on earth. But even the best wireless energy transfer (using radiowaves) is only like 50% efficient so that would need to improved first for it to make sense. What the world really needs is orbital mega infrastructure projects like space elevators, skyhooks and orbital rings, all of which are theoretically possible with modern technology. This would actually bring the price of putting stuff into orbit much cheaper and you could literally run a electrical cables down the active support tethers of an orbital ring to bring down that sweet sweet space based solar.
But the jews prefer us to waste our money blowing up brown people for them so the promise of space infrastructure will never come about before the eliminate the parasite.

This is only good if they're building infrastructure or something for the common good, and have strict rules that wouldn't work today

Because it comes at the primary expense of an already struggling middle-class.

Welfare doesn't help anyone but those receiving welfare and inevitably the local Wal-Marts where these people will buy their items and food.

>Might want to tell them that.
Kek, you think as if they don't know and want this?

>That is running the country. The private sector won't do anything which doesn't create an immediate financial return
Because financial returns pay for things themselves. Planting trees isn't productive economically speaking, loggers plant trees for every tree they cut down, hippies plant trees when they go on their walks to local farmers markets.

Why support reproductives when most of these reproductives aren't your own countrymen and neither are they not working due to economic troubles?

Would make for a good action movie premise, at least.
And that's a coincidence. I alt-tabbed out of that game, whilst trying to play as a Neural Worm. Can't seem to bally well win.

>Let's say all the landscaping is done. What next?
It's never done.
But yes, i agree that a (((democratic))) government is shit, and counter-productive. Doesn't mean that such allocation of funds isn't prudent.

Why not? It would have worked here if not for our cushy welfare system providing too comfortable a fallback for them.

No I had to buy all that shit separate

Honestly I lost track of how much I have dumped into solar seems like every other year or so I have to drop even more money on it.

I just infected everybody, and evolved the adoration trait. Instant win.

Niggers will never get free utilities
Rot in hell

>solar

The same people that push for green energy also push for natural habitats for animals and insects(real insects not the chinese).
When your whole ideologyis based in fee fee nothing makes sense.

>Welfare doesn't help anyone
I agree. What we were discussing is paid labour.
>and inevitably the local Wal-Marts where these people will buy their items and food.
Sadly true, but functionally better than nothing.
>Because financial returns pay for things themselves
That was explicitly my point.
> Planting trees isn't productive economically speaking
Indeed. But it, and many similar endeavours are required to maintain proper eco-balance. But in the private sector, it would never get done unless it was somehow monetised.
>Why support reproductives when most of these reproductives aren't your own countrymen and neither are they not working due to economic troubles?
It would depend on the country. And the original argument was in relation to the Great Depression, so economic troubles were quite pressing. To do it now is just a more productive and agreeable industry, since we can't simply kill off all the NEETs.

Sympathies, bro. My parents got bitten the same way. I doubt they'll break even in twenty years from it, and that was with subsidies.
Was considering getting some myself, but it's just not prudent. If i could erect my own small wind farm, however, that might help.

I keep getting noticed too early, despite having no symptoms. It's a pain, but my favourite strain so far. The vampire one is possibly the best, though.

you could power the entire planet if you covered 1/6 the planet in solar panels. The US uses 18% of the world's power. As such, the US would need 3% of the globe in solar panels.
From wikipedia:
>Together, the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C. occupy a combined area of 3,119,884.69 square miles (8,080,464.3 km2), which is 1.58% of the total surface area of Earth.

Basicly, we could reduce the entire nation to a parking lot, turn it all into a glass desert with solar panels, and still only have around half of our energy needs. We could probably sort that out if we kill everyone on the west coast, new england, and in chicago, but then you need to bear in mind the actual cost of production.

It apparently runs ~1.8 billion dollars per square mile. if you ate the entire yearly military budget for solar panels (in the desert, so optimum sun and not much landscaping), you'd get ~378 square miles out of the deal. 8,250 more years and you'd get your dream of a solar panel america.

Also bear in mind that we spend 3 times as much on various welfares as we do on military, so if anything else, cut medicaid and pensions and shit. military serves a purpose outside of making the boomers and pet niggers more comfortable.

Paid labour with no returns. That's called welfare. Might as well pay these people to exercise.

Fellow ausfag here, trying 2 'member what u might b referring 2, was it a state or fed initiative?

There are environmental returns, though. Or would you rather live in a squalid dystopian shithole? And i assume they did other work too, like road works, or perhaps even town cleaning.

I'm mighty curious what economic school you subscribe to, to be against job creation.

Work for the dole. I think it was federal.
The tl;dr was that it was supposed to decimate the number of dole bludgers, by forcing them to work for their welfare, but all the dregs who should be shot suddenly had injuries or other physical ailments "preventing them from working."
Better still, the (((Greens))) said it robbed them of dignity by forcing them to work in such a program.

>There are environmental returns, though.
Environmental returns that are already being satisfied by loggers and people who actually plant trees for fun.

Paying people to exercise would be just as productive, if not more. But that isn't real labour, and despite the economic benefits of unproductives exercising away their donut fat you don't consider this viable because it's not labour?

>But do we have any which don't rely on oil for production, and existing power sources?

You're asking if we have any resources that didn't require oil or any currently established power source to create? If that's the case, no, we have to use what we have established to advance out of our current means.

>Environmental returns that are already being satisfied by loggers
They only do it with a certain type so they can log again. It's not really contributing to the nation as a whole.
>and people who actually plant trees for fun.
A national effort designed to help the national environment is going to be a trifle more effective than hoping someone will buy a sapling before they go for a walk.

>You're asking if we have any resources that didn't require oil or any currently established power source to create?
Ergo, dirty energy is still quite prevalent in producing "green" power sources, in many cases outweighing potential benefits.
The actual green option would be switching to nuclear.

You people that are entertained with pointlessly writing how far in the pavement the boot on our heads has to go are really..special.. if you ever get the chance you should kill yourself

Clear cutting was the rule of the game until the 1960's, because "there's still lots of virgin forest" and it didn't make "economic sense." Replanting waste lands was necessary to keep the timber industry sustainable and to repair the damage it had already done. The industry still probably wouldn't replant if they weren't literally forced to.

God damn I really dislike you.

Global Rule #2, you politically and economically illiterate child.

Because you don't seem to grasp basic economic principles in the modern world? Fair enough.

And yes, the CCC built roads, bridges, schools, and electric lines. A lot of the stuff they built is still standing today and in desperate need of repair because nobody could be assed to put the effort in for the last 50 years.

>Ergo, dirty energy is still quite prevalent in producing "green" power sources, in many cases outweighing potential benefits.
>The actual green option would be switching to nuclear.

We had to be dirty to get nuclear too. And nuclear may be clean in production, but it's far from clean in waste. If we used Thorium we could help remedy that problem.

I'm still waiting on you to tell me how economically sound subsidizing the wages of people planting fuck off trees really is.

>We had to be dirty to get nuclear too. And nuclear may be clean in production, but it's far from clean in waste.
It's still a positive sum as far as the energy/waste management is concerned.
People tend to greatly overestimate the amount of waste produced per kW/h in nuclear stations.
>If we used Thorium we could help remedy that problem.
Agreed. As soon as we can do that on a large scale, i'd be a cheerleader for that instead.

Our infrastructure is an abysmal failure. The Norkies need to start flinging nukes already. Though it won't do too much more damage.

I'm just a simple peasant, but it seems to me that the US would benefit from the building of hydrodams or whatever you call them.

Hashtag rules make sure to drink your daily amount of water

Because their wages go back into the economy. Duh. That's like the most basic thing. They buy food, shelter, clothing, luxuries, and that tends to be beneficial to the economy.
As for the trees, the schools, the roads, the power lines, they benefit the nation as a whole.

Free electric would cause catastrophic economic shock. I am all for destroying this Jew based monetary policy, but renewable energy is just a sticker bandage on a gangrene limb.

Thanks Kojima?

Ok so the summary is:
>spend a shit ton of money to get free electricity

The wages that were previously in the hands of people who already know how to spend their own money. Fuck off you cocksucking numbskull.

Nuke scares too many people though.

>muh Chernobyl

If people would respect it more than fear it, I feel we would be better off.

You are a tremendous retard aren't you? You like having roads, electricity, wood, green spaces, and literacy don't you? Where do you think those things come from?

>The wages that were previously in the hands of people who already know how to spend their own money.
No, they had no wages because they were unemployed. Do try to keep up old boy.

Ayup. It's galling that whenever i bring up nuclear people mention Chernobyl or Fukushima. But then i ask them to name other nuclear disasters and they start to see the point.

Biggest problem these days is that few bother learning how to live in a way so as to not need so much electricity to begin with. For example, the way our housing is built guarantees that we need a steady flow of electricity just to be comfortable. Ancient peoples managed somehow, just by using common sense building techniques, but we in our advanced state rely on a steady stream of electric milk from the tit of the greedy, abusive (((utilities companies))).

Fucking HATE the Greens! For all the burgers that complain about having a two-party system at least y'all don't have to deal w/ parasitic Neo-Marxist scum often holding your nation to ransom.

Yes yes, unless we subsidize the survival of unemployed retards our entire infrastructure will collapse.

Are you missing the part where these people need to be paid by taxpayers? You know, the taxpayers that already have jobs and already spend their money.

I still prefer our jewed system. At least there's the slightly less jewing. They don't even have to pretend in the states. And the Greens are really just a joke here anyway.

>You know, the taxpayers that already have jobs and already spend their money.
You mean the ones who will be getting their income from those CCC workers buying things from them? Aye, indeed.
And clearly you don't grasp the concept of many hands making light work. Remember, the purpose of a government (which there will ALWAYS be in some form) is to govern a nation. That means doing things which are necessary, but potentially not profitable.

The government's role isn't to give jobs, it's to facilitate conditions where getting a job is possible ie: a stable nation.

Christ, if you're just going to ignore this being blatant wealth distribution from taxpayers to non-taxpayers I don't know what to tell you.

>The government's role isn't to give jobs,
Nothing in the rulebook saying it can't. Hell, governing is itself a job.
>it's to facilitate conditions where getting a job is possible
I concur. But that's just one aspect.
> ignore this being blatant wealth distribution from taxpayers to non-taxpayers
Except it's turning non-taxpayers into taxpayers, as well as supporting other taxpayers. Why are you ignoring that?

there aren't enough resources to supply america's demand for energy with solar panels, you need rare earth metals for them. You'd need to conquer africa or china for them

>as well as supporting other taxpayer
Thanks for the trees.

>use tax money to hire non-taxpayers so they produce tax money
>produce less tax money than independent workers because all their income is tax-derived
It's a cycle of inefficiency.
The gouvernment can't produce tax money.
If we have learned anything from communism, it's that.

And roads, and power lines, and schools, and anything else unskilled labour can be used to create.

>The gouvernment can't produce tax money.
In essence, it can. By creating conditions where the private sector can flourish, which in turn allows for the nation to be properly exploited into profit. And this gives back to the government to keep doing that.
>If we have learned anything from communism
Yea, putting all your eggs in one basket is a recipe for failure.

Also yes, the trees are pretty great in of themselves, as they're second only to algae in producing air, which i'm guessing you citymice don't get enough of.
They also provide habitats for animals and extract carbon from the atmosphere.

Only one person in this whole thread bothered to point out that you can’t put solar panels in the middle of nowhere because of loss in moving the energy, the idea is worthless.
The rest jus keep arguing over an idea that broken.
Good jarb, ree rees

>massive areas of very expensive solar panels
>need to build enough to cover for the daytime as well as produce enough to have storage for the night
>need a shitton of batteries everywhere to store said energy for night
>constant repairs and replacements on expensive panels and batteries
>"free"
>trusting the government to do this efficiently or effectively in the slightest
m8 they can't even get my mail across town in less than a week
they're not going to cut military spending and, by the good graces of our most benevolent government, use it to fund power for everyone. If they do cut back, it will just go in reserve just in case they need it later.

Between initial construction costs and maintenance, you could cut military spending to $0 and never afford for this. Beyond the fact it's immoral, it's impractical.

>which i'm guessing you citymice don't get enough of
See, your presuppositions get you absolutely nowhere.