You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

Socialized Energy?

Alright, I have to write a proposal about a national issue.

Here's the format:




Proposal for Action:

Areas to be Affected:

Expected Results:


North and South Dakota combined have enough wind potential energy to power the entire United States of America ...

The southwestern sunbelt has enough solar energy to power the entire United States of America.

We could use tidal energy to power coastal regions of the United States of America.

The idea is that the government take control of wind power/solar collectors, and building means of transporting the energy, basically taking over the private sector of energy.

Ideas are SUPPOSED to spark controversy.

What are your thoughts?

How would you write the plan?

What are the implications of socialized energy?

What are the pros/cons?
It seems to be an interesting idea to economize energy.
I yould like to knoy φore qbout thqt
One thing you may want to do in your plan is look at different models. Take a look at Germany as I think I may have read somewhere that they seem to have been able to convert most of there energy needs to green power. As far as governing bodies, Canada uses a crown corp system. There may be other examples of already working systems. Taking down the private sector and using socialized controls may not be the answer for the USA though. Perhaps an incentive plan for companies to develop new and innovative ways to deal with problems now being faced would be more practical. Since mostly every government, corp, and person are affected it may be useful for everyone to see a good plan.

I would suggest focusing on the actual technical solutions for change and sending them to your congressman (woman) and also around publicly.
Sounds good. Will it happen? Nope! Just as the oil companies payoff the government, so do the utilities.
Well, the entire point of this is to stir up controversy.

So if there is any idea for wording, logistical things, etc., just tell me.
Well, the most promising short term solution would be to use existing technology to convert coal into gasoline, while implementing these alternative sources to generate the electricity the coal used to generate. (The USA has a LOT of coal.)

Once we are done in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would hopefully have enough money freed up to implement these improvements, though rising gas prices might influence companies to start doing this without government intervention.
the best way to fix or upgrade anything in America would be to get a president that would Actually change things for the better. This terms candidates don't hold much hope for me. I feel it's been a battle of "vote for me and I'll give you the world" from the start.

If someone would become elected that were willing to change the area's of America that kill the middle and low class citizens of today, we might actually be capable of evolving our technologies far enough to not be threatened by cancer's or terrorists. But no. Major industries and governing bodies are too full of pride and strapped down too far by black mail and fear of not losing any power.

And better yet. The only thing anyone can really do about it is whine on radio talk shoe's and Internet blogs.
That would never happen for the simple reason that it would damage the economy. Of all governments, the US is the least likely to socialise the energy industry.

It could easily socialise health care and force its insane private healthcare industry back into the realms of reality and even that seems like a distant hope at the moment.

It's a nice idea, but one that's not likely to be made a reality.
achowles wrote:

It could easily socialise health care and force its insane private healthcare industry back into the realms of reality .

But the main force driving the medical field away from sanity is government intervention of a dozen different types... Could that really be solved by far more government intervention?
The problem with socialized energy is that it's run by the government. Government couldn't organize a two-car funeral, and couldn't build a one-hole outhouse. Electricity used to be government run in Ontario. The problem was that no one was paying the real cost for electricity. So when it got privitized, there was a $5 billion debt. Good job, government. Socialized health care is another bad idea, but I won't get into that here. Let me just say that if I would ever need an MRI, instead of waiting 8 months for one through the socialized health care here, in Ontario, I would drive to the US and pay for one right away out of my pocket. That is how well run government programs are Rolling Eyes

Wind potential energy doesn't amount to anything. Just about any place can have the potential to have enough wind, but how much wind is there realistically? Not to mention the space the windmills take, the environmental inpact they have on the are and the animals living there, and the eyesore that they are. The same is true for polar energy, which isn't efficient enough to not need a 20'x20' panel in order to power a radio. While both have zero impact as far as emissions and pollution, they have impacts in other areas.

Why not at the same time argue the pros and cons of nuclear power (pro: produces a lot of electricity, only emission is steam; con: waste that needs to be safely disposed, human errorcan cause meltdown), as well as high efficiency incineration? There, you kill two birds with one stone: you get rid of garbage by incinerating it at such a high temperature that there is amlost no emissions (far less than what a landfill emits), and you produce electricity from the burning of the garbage. It is very popular in Europe and has been used for a long while.

There is also plasma gasification. Again, disposal of garbage and the creation of electricity, where the waste is broken downprimarily into elemental gas and solid waste (slag), where the lag can be used in the building of roads.

The problem with the three I listed is that the eco-nuts from organizations like The Sierra Club and Greenpeace is that they are so hellbent on everyone having 12 different types of recycling boxes that anything that would take away the absolute necessity (in their view) of recycling is bad, and will say whatever they have to to make the technologies look bad, including, suprise suprise, lies.

As far as socializing it: bad idea. Have the government give grants for research and construction, but don't let them run it. If you do, you can bet your life savings that they will screw something up somewhere.
Related topics
How many energy drinks have you had at once?
EnergY - Why do some people have so much energy?
Climate March
Mass to energy conversion
Change energy use now
What kind of science are you into?
New ways to obtain enery?(PART I)
nuclear energy ?
Solar Power Energy
Aeolic Energy
BioFuel, BioDiesel, Ethanol and renewable energy
Energy for a Human Brain
Favorite Energy Drink
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.