• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Future Program for Deficit Spending

sookster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
452
Location
In my own world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have been ranting about this engineering idea recently because frankly it is a great idea. During the 70's I believe engineers first conceptualized the Space Based Solar Network. What is exciting is it is completely feasible, and I just recently read a business plan on a design for such a network. It laid out the finances quite nicely, and with a safety net of double the required budget, the entire project would cost around 200 billion dollars.

First let me say this could solve our energy problem completely. With the expansion of developing countries like India and China, the world is projected to consume about 50TW (terawatts) of power. A Space Based Solar Network (SBSN) could provide up to 155TW of power. It could satisfy an expansion of energy consumption three times over! Plus, it could provide power at half the cost of fossil fuels at about 1-2 cents/kWh. This really is a no brainer economically because we could easily provide power demand across the world at a fraction of the cost.

Now the project wouldn't have to be paid for all at once. In a span of about 20 years, we would have to front 10 billion dollars. (Consider the current Depart of Defense budget is about 526 billion) If we wanted to put the SBSN in half the time we would have to double the money at 20 billion which is completely possible. Of course, the better option would be the private sector building this project. This is exponentially more difficult but it is still feasible in the future. The cost will continually decrease while economic growth (hopefully) would eventually make this project feasible. However, if the government were to get involved directly this project could be enacted now. What I think would be the best option would to have the government build the SBSN and then transfer the network to private companies. Notice companies, not company. This would promote competition which would in theory increase the efficiency of the network. What is beautiful about the NASA design is that it is completely compartmentalized. Meaning not only is it easy to repair and construct, but you can completely scale the project to add more power if necessary. I am trying to work out a procedure to hand over network to the private sector. This is where I am open to ideas.

My initial idea doesn't cut the bill, but I haven't come up with any other way. We could divide the network into X amount of shares. The cost of the shares equal a little more than the total cost of the entire network so the government gets a profit. Multiple organizations in theory would purchase shares. The percentages of the entire share pool will correlate ownership to the network. This is the initial ownership of the network to the private sector.

This is so feasible it isn't even funny. Keep in mind that the way the money flow works, is as long as banks are issuing out loans The Fed can loan money to the government at an inflationary rate. This is why every single department has a growth of funds per year. There has to be, because the expenditure of money through government programs expands the overall money supply which is absolutely necessary for economic growth. I honestly don't have the numbers in front of me, but this entire project could be paid for outright by government deficit spending. The overall government debt does not matter, because if there was no debt there would be no money in the economy. If the government were to pay back The Fed, they are essentially destroying that money because it is going back to the banking sector.

Honestly, this is amazing. I can't believe it. I am ranting about this because I am too excited about the possibilities. Here is the business plan that I read:

Henson, Keith H. "Beamed Energy and the Economics of Space Based Solar Power." n.pag. Academic OneFile. Database. 4 Sep 2013.

Not to mention this would probably create jobs.

Do you guys have any other ideas on the transition of the network from the government to the private sector? What do you guys think of this idea?
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Before you get too excited the founder of Tesla Motors just handed CA the plans for a transportation system that is 1/10th the cost of high speed rail, 4x faster, and completely energy neutral (zero consumption) and its summarily ignored.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
10,528
Reaction score
3,486
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Before you get too excited the founder of Tesla Motors just handed CA the plans for a transportation system that is 1/10th the cost of high speed rail, 4x faster, and completely energy neutral (zero consumption) and its summarily ignored.
Everyone knows that government is smart and you can't trust car salesmen.
 

sookster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
452
Location
In my own world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Before you get too excited the founder of Tesla Motors just handed CA the plans for a transportation system that is 1/10th the cost of high speed rail, 4x faster, and completely energy neutral (zero consumption) and its summarily ignored.
There are other things that require power.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
47,347
Reaction score
16,457
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think his point was that great ideas are regularly ignored.
The transportation idea was the one that sucks people in tubes like your deposit at the drive-thru. It has a lot of work before it is feasible.
 

MTAtech

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
23,810
Reaction score
16,743
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Everyone knows that government is smart and you can't trust car salesmen.
Elon Musk is difficult to ignore, so when he is, that gives an idea about the uphill battle idea face.

 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have been ranting about this engineering idea recently because frankly it is a great idea. During the 70's I believe engineers first conceptualized the Space Based Solar Network. What is exciting is it is completely feasible, and I just recently read a business plan on a design for such a network. It laid out the finances quite nicely, and with a safety net of double the required budget, the entire project would cost around 200 billion dollars.

First let me say this could solve our energy problem completely. With the expansion of developing countries like India and China, the world is projected to consume about 50TW (terawatts) of power. A Space Based Solar Network (SBSN) could provide up to 155TW of power. It could satisfy an expansion of energy consumption three times over! Plus, it could provide power at half the cost of fossil fuels at about 1-2 cents/kWh. This really is a no brainer economically because we could easily provide power demand across the world at a fraction of the cost.

Now the project wouldn't have to be paid for all at once. In a span of about 20 years, we would have to front 10 billion dollars. (Consider the current Depart of Defense budget is about 526 billion) If we wanted to put the SBSN in half the time we would have to double the money at 20 billion which is completely possible. Of course, the better option would be the private sector building this project. This is exponentially more difficult but it is still feasible in the future. The cost will continually decrease while economic growth (hopefully) would eventually make this project feasible. However, if the government were to get involved directly this project could be enacted now. What I think would be the best option would to have the government build the SBSN and then transfer the network to private companies. Notice companies, not company. This would promote competition which would in theory increase the efficiency of the network. What is beautiful about the NASA design is that it is completely compartmentalized. Meaning not only is it easy to repair and construct, but you can completely scale the project to add more power if necessary. I am trying to work out a procedure to hand over network to the private sector. This is where I am open to ideas.

My initial idea doesn't cut the bill, but I haven't come up with any other way. We could divide the network into X amount of shares. The cost of the shares equal a little more than the total cost of the entire network so the government gets a profit. Multiple organizations in theory would purchase shares. The percentages of the entire share pool will correlate ownership to the network. This is the initial ownership of the network to the private sector.

This is so feasible it isn't even funny. Keep in mind that the way the money flow works, is as long as banks are issuing out loans The Fed can loan money to the government at an inflationary rate. This is why every single department has a growth of funds per year. There has to be, because the expenditure of money through government programs expands the overall money supply which is absolutely necessary for economic growth. I honestly don't have the numbers in front of me, but this entire project could be paid for outright by government deficit spending. The overall government debt does not matter, because if there was no debt there would be no money in the economy. If the government were to pay back The Fed, they are essentially destroying that money because it is going back to the banking sector.

Honestly, this is amazing. I can't believe it. I am ranting about this because I am too excited about the possibilities. Here is the business plan that I read:

Henson, Keith H. "Beamed Energy and the Economics of Space Based Solar Power." n.pag. Academic OneFile. Database. 4 Sep 2013.

Not to mention this would probably create jobs.

Do you guys have any other ideas on the transition of the network from the government to the private sector? What do you guys think of this idea?
We dont have " energy problems ".

We're the Worlds largest source of Natural gas.
 

sookster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
452
Location
In my own world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We dont have " energy problems ".

We're the Worlds largest source of Natural gas.
That's a hydrocarbon. We could save that resource anyways for other means. Imagine a grid powered by the sun, and then all that natural gas that we have. It wouldn't be wasted.
 
Last edited:

SlevinKelevra

Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
6,639
Reaction score
1,487
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Before you get too excited the founder of Tesla Motors just handed CA the plans for a transportation system that is 1/10th the cost of high speed rail, 4x faster, and completely energy neutral (zero consumption) and its summarily ignored.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have been ranting about this engineering idea recently because frankly it is a great idea. During the 70's I believe engineers first conceptualized the Space Based Solar Network. What is exciting is it is completely feasible, and I just recently read a business plan on a design for such a network. It laid out the finances quite nicely, and with a safety net of double the required budget, the entire project would cost around 200 billion dollars.

First let me say this could solve our energy problem completely. With the expansion of developing countries like India and China, the world is projected to consume about 50TW (terawatts) of power. A Space Based Solar Network (SBSN) could provide up to 155TW of power. It could satisfy an expansion of energy consumption three times over! Plus, it could provide power at half the cost of fossil fuels at about 1-2 cents/kWh. This really is a no brainer economically because we could easily provide power demand across the world at a fraction of the cost.

Now the project wouldn't have to be paid for all at once. In a span of about 20 years, we would have to front 10 billion dollars. (Consider the current Depart of Defense budget is about 526 billion) If we wanted to put the SBSN in half the time we would have to double the money at 20 billion which is completely possible. Of course, the better option would be the private sector building this project. This is exponentially more difficult but it is still feasible in the future. The cost will continually decrease while economic growth (hopefully) would eventually make this project feasible. However, if the government were to get involved directly this project could be enacted now. What I think would be the best option would to have the government build the SBSN and then transfer the network to private companies. Notice companies, not company. This would promote competition which would in theory increase the efficiency of the network. What is beautiful about the NASA design is that it is completely compartmentalized. Meaning not only is it easy to repair and construct, but you can completely scale the project to add more power if necessary. I am trying to work out a procedure to hand over network to the private sector. This is where I am open to ideas.

My initial idea doesn't cut the bill, but I haven't come up with any other way. We could divide the network into X amount of shares. The cost of the shares equal a little more than the total cost of the entire network so the government gets a profit. Multiple organizations in theory would purchase shares. The percentages of the entire share pool will correlate ownership to the network. This is the initial ownership of the network to the private sector.

This is so feasible it isn't even funny. Keep in mind that the way the money flow works, is as long as banks are issuing out loans The Fed can loan money to the government at an inflationary rate. This is why every single department has a growth of funds per year. There has to be, because the expenditure of money through government programs expands the overall money supply which is absolutely necessary for economic growth. I honestly don't have the numbers in front of me, but this entire project could be paid for outright by government deficit spending. The overall government debt does not matter, because if there was no debt there would be no money in the economy. If the government were to pay back The Fed, they are essentially destroying that money because it is going back to the banking sector.

Honestly, this is amazing. I can't believe it. I am ranting about this because I am too excited about the possibilities. Here is the business plan that I read:

Henson, Keith H. "Beamed Energy and the Economics of Space Based Solar Power." n.pag. Academic OneFile. Database. 4 Sep 2013.

Not to mention this would probably create jobs.

Do you guys have any other ideas on the transition of the network from the government to the private sector? What do you guys think of this idea?

Very interesting idea..but I think your cost estimate is off by quite a bit.

According to a 2012 article, according to NASA research scientist Geoffrey Landis, 'Landis' calculations reveal that for a capital cost of about $17.5 billion a system could produce about 5GW of power.'

Is There a Future for Space-Based Solar Power? - SpaceRef Canada


Now according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, America needs about 966 GW of power.

How much electric supply capacity is needed to keep U.S. electricity grids reliable? - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)


So (let's round it off to 1,000 GW) 1000 GW divided by 5 GW equals 200.
And 200 times $17.5 billion per 5 GW equals $3.5 trillion (with a 'T') dollars.


Hey, the system sounds fantastic, but the costs to supply the entire United States would be GIGANTIC.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's a hydrocarbon. We could save that resource anyways for other means. Imagine a grid powered by the sun, and then all that natural gas that we have. It wouldn't be wasted.
I don want to imagine a grid powered by the Sun.

Solar and Wind power is inferior and takes massive amounts of subsidies to remain " viable " as a alternativee energy source.

Natural Gas a Nuclear Power is the solution.
 

Critter7r

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
5,698
Reaction score
2,490
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don want to imagine a grid powered by the Sun.

Solar and Wind power is inferior and takes massive amounts of subsidies to remain " viable " as a alternativee energy source.

Natural Gas a Nuclear Power is the solution.
Ah ... but what if they weren't "alternative"?

And by "not alternative", I don't mean "mandatory", I mean "mainstream".

If every house has a solar array on the roof and a small wind turbine in the backyard then everyone would be self-sufficient.
 

sookster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
452
Location
In my own world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don want to imagine a grid powered by the Sun.

Solar and Wind power is inferior and takes massive amounts of subsidies to remain " viable " as a alternativee energy source.

Natural Gas a Nuclear Power is the solution.
Notice what I am writing about.
 

sookster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
452
Location
In my own world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Very interesting idea..but I think your cost estimate is off by quite a bit.

According to a 2012 article, according to NASA research scientist Geoffrey Landis, 'Landis' calculations reveal that for a capital cost of about $17.5 billion a system could produce about 5GW of power.'

Is There a Future for Space-Based Solar Power? - SpaceRef Canada


Now according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, America needs about 966 GW of power.

How much electric supply capacity is needed to keep U.S. electricity grids reliable? - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)


So (let's round it off to 1,000 GW) 1000 GW divided by 5 GW equals 200.
And 200 times $17.5 billion per 5 GW equals $3.5 trillion (with a 'T') dollars.


Hey, the system sounds fantastic, but the costs to supply the entire United States would be GIGANTIC.
That's crazy. I swear the numbers I remembered came from my source. I think your sources are more credible. I apologize for being so misleading, I trusted that business plan.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's crazy. I swear the numbers I remembered came from my source. I think your sources are more credible. I apologize for being so misleading, I trusted that business plan.
Don't worry about it...it is still a very cool idea that I did not know about until you started this thread.

So thanks for starting it so I learned something.

Besides, very few people apologize around here, so it is refreshing to read someone actually doing it.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ah ... but what if they weren't "alternative"?

And by "not alternative", I don't mean "mandatory", I mean "mainstream".

If every house has a solar array on the roof and a small wind turbine in the backyard then everyone would be self-sufficient.
No, they would be STILL be dependant on Coal.

Alternative energy comes with lags in power that are inherent and unavoidable.

Germany switched over to 100 percent Wind and Solar, and now their importing more Coal than ever. Its their largest energy import.

If you want to every house to go off the Grid then people will be dependant on keeping very expensive battery packs that last on average of about 5 years.

Also, the manufacture and disposal of those Batteries is far from green.
 

sookster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
452
Location
In my own world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, they would be STILL be dependant on Coal.

Alternative energy comes with lags in power that are inherent and unavoidable.

Germany switched over to 100 percent Wind and Solar, and now their importing more Coal than ever. Its their largest energy import.

If you want to every house to go off the Grid then people will be dependant on keeping very expensive battery packs that last on average of about 5 years.

Also, the manufacture and disposal of those Batteries is far from green.
Actually you could use fuel cell technology to store power for the home, and make it self sufficient over time.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
29,108
Reaction score
7,721
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don want to imagine a grid powered by the Sun.

Solar and Wind power is inferior and takes massive amounts of subsidies to remain " viable " as a alternativee energy source.

Natural Gas a Nuclear Power is the solution.
Until you run out of natural gas...


Solar power doesn't run out...
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Until you run out of natural gas...


Solar power doesn't run out...
Well, if we pretend that it's not a inferior technology I guess we could use that as a excuse. Problem is it's not. If it were left up to me we would be investing in Nuclear power and building new power plants and ignore this ridiculous initiative to power our grid with Solar and Wind.

Solar has been around for a LONG time and it still has to be heavily subsidized by both the consumer and the Government. The first patent for a photovoltaic cell was given out in the late 1800's, and with the exception of inverter and battery technology it really hasn't changed that much.
 

Critter7r

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
5,698
Reaction score
2,490
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, they would be STILL be dependant on Coal.

Alternative energy comes with lags in power that are inherent and unavoidable.

Germany switched over to 100 percent Wind and Solar, and now their importing more Coal than ever. Its their largest energy import.

If you want to every house to go off the Grid then people will be dependant on keeping very expensive battery packs that last on average of about 5 years.

Also, the manufacture and disposal of those Batteries is far from green.
Germany didn't "switch over to 100% wind and solar" ... they have set a goal of 80% electricity and 60% overall energy generation using renewables by 2050.

They currently provide over 30% of their electricity via wind and solar. More than quadrupling their renewables since 2000.

Their increased coal use is more a product of their increased energy usage than any inadequacies of renewable power generation, and would be significantly higher were it not for those renewables.

Having a home solar electricity generation system reduces the amount of electricity that needs to be produced by a power company. So while that home may still be dependent on coal power generation, it's still significantly less dependent than prior to having the system. An on-grid (no batteries) home can generate 50-90% of its own electricity needs. How is that not better than using only grid power? On-grid solar systems do away with the problem of making and recycling of batteries. But even having an off-grid system and using batteries isn't any worse than what we're doing currently. Any decent battery system is good for 1,000 charging cycles, so your 5-year lifespan is a little light. Most residential batteries will last twice that long.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Germany didn't "switch over to 100% wind and solar" ... they have set a goal of 80% electricity and 60% overall energy generation using renewables by 2050.

They currently provide over 30% of their electricity via wind and solar. More than quadrupling their renewables since 2000.

Their increased coal use is more a product of their increased energy usage than any inadequacies of renewable power generation, and would be significantly higher were it not for those renewables.

Having a home solar electricity generation system reduces the amount of electricity that needs to be produced by a power company. So while that home may still be dependent on coal power generation, it's still significantly less dependent than prior to having the system. An on-grid (no batteries) home can generate 50-90% of its own electricity needs. How is that not better than using only grid power? On-grid solar systems do away with the problem of making and recycling of batteries. But even having an off-grid system and using batteries isn't any worse than what we're doing currently. Any decent battery system is good for 1,000 charging cycles, so your 5-year lifespan is a little light. Most residential batteries will last twice that long.
Yea, they did.

Merkel shut down their Nuke plants in and started one of the most idiotic iniatives in History.

Their increase in Coal usage is a direct result of their decision to rely on Wind and Solar instead of Nuclear.

Why would Germany CHOSE to go green and then after the fact start building new lignite ( brown coal ) power plants ?

Their own Finance minister called their " Green revolution " iniative a total failure. Germans now pay 300 percent more for their electricity than the average American because they've had the increased cost of subsidizing " renewable energy " added to their utility cost via surcharges and taxes.
 

Critter7r

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
5,698
Reaction score
2,490
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yea, they did.

Merkel shut down their Nuke plants in and started one of the most idiotic iniatives in History.

Their increase in Coal usage is a direct result of their decision to rely on Wind and Solar instead of Nuclear.

Why would Germany CHOSE to go green and then after the fact start building new lignite ( brown coal ) power plants ?

Their own Finance minister called their " Green revolution " iniative a total failure. Germans now pay 300 percent more for their electricity than the average American because they've had the increased cost of subsidizing " renewable energy " added to their utility cost via surcharges and taxes.
No, they didn't.

I can do this all day.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, they didn't.

I can do this all day.
You can ignore reality all day too.

Their own Finance minister called their " Green revolution " iniative a disaster.

Here's what the German people got for their huge investment in renewable energy.

300 percent higher cost on energy than the average American and dirtier air because now they are having to build new Coal fired power plants to make up for the lags in power that are inherent to Wind and Solar.
 
Top Bottom