Global Revolution?

North_West_Art

the riots in Algeria seemed to have a knock-on effect across North Africa, Tunisia followed, then Egypt, now Yemen in the Persian Gulf

whiteonion

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You could produce 100% of the world's energy, power and fuel needs by covering 2% of the unpopulated areas of the Sahara in photovoltaic cells.

Seriously, relax.

If it was so simple why hasn't this already been done?

ejmaztec

Deleted User wrote: »

I hope so, but there is a big difference between could and can!
Even if it's theoretically possible, is it practicable to build and operate?

...and whoever had control of it would hold the rest of us to ransom.

mickydoomsux

whiteonion wrote: »

If it was so simple why hasn't this already been done?

The cost far outstrips the benefit at present. We're set up to have oil as our main energy source.

If the last drop of oil came out of the ground today, there'd be a solution to the energy "crisis" by tomorrow morning.

North_West_Art

whiteonion wrote: »

If it was so simple why hasn't this already been done?

they are planning this already (Im dragging the thread off topic here)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxgaoYZflRc

Badgermonkey

I'd support Boyd Barrett were it not for the whiny self righteousness.

Oh, and the economic policies which are like something that came to George Galloway in a dream.

ejmaztec

ejmaztec wrote: »

...and whoever had control of it would hold the rest of us to ransom.

Bingo! China is already buying up large chunks of Africa for food production, kicking out the locals in the process then damming up rivers for irrigation etc.

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0R3woOg_gQ
Without a UN type army safeguarding it, it and its interconnectors would be prime targets for terrorists attacks as well.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Hi there.

There will not be a global communist revolution, apocalypse, or an end to life as we know it. There have been plenty of other recessions and the world ticked over just fine.

That is all.

A very very illogical statement to make. "Because it hasn't happened before means it will never happen in the future"... wtf?

That's an absurd thought.

Coriolanus

Things would need to get much worse for the Irish to riot on the scale of Egypt et al. Poverty, imo, won't be enough to do it. I don't mean it in a bad way but we as individuals seem to have a short fuse, but as a nation have a bloody long one.

Worztron

whiteonion wrote: »

If it was so simple why hasn't this already been done?

Because it would diminish profits from fossil fuel use, especially from oil. The capitalist system would much rather keep its huge profits coming in rather than use a clean renewable energy source such as solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc.

CorkMan

Guill wrote: »

I just ran to my window and had a look out!
Seems fine to me.
Just two cows strolling accross a field.
Ill wait here, watching,and keep ye informed as soon as i see this revolution.

Keep an eye out for a piece of hay that will blow across the field. That is supposed to be the signal for commencement.

Worztron

Worztron wrote: »

Because it would diminish profits from fossil fuel use, especially from oil. The capitalist system would much rather keep its huge profits coming in rather than use a clean renewable energy source such as solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc.

Nothing to do with building in an unstable part of the world, thousands of KM away from the consumers, just think of the losses in the transmission lines for starters, then there is the sand, it will make panels opaque after the first sandstorm etc etc.

Reducing consumption is the key to avoiding energy starvation in the future.

Worztron

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing to do with building in an unstable part of the world, thousands of KM away from the consumers, just think of the losses in the transmission lines for starters, then there is the sand, it will make panels opaque after the first sandstorm etc etc.

Reducing consumption is the key to avoiding energy starvation in the future.

You could build solar panels in stable parts of the world with a lot of sun shine (i.e. Australia, Spain, parts of USA, etc.). You forgot about the other renewable energy sources: tidal, wave & wind. Also there is geothermal energy.

Fossil fuels took millions of years to make, they will be gone before long. They are disastrous to the environment.

Amhran Nua

ejmaztec wrote: »

...and whoever had control of it would hold the rest of us to ransom.

The Sahara sunfarms aren't the best world solution, it's a number which highlights that there is no energy shortage, and there will be no energy shortage.

I've already said that a far better idea is to site renewable energy plants scattered all over the world in the huge number of excellent locations available.

Nobody is seriously suggesting turning the Sahara into a giant battery for the entire world, since among other things it is dark half the time there.

The bottom line is, if you were to start from scratch with a blank sheet and today's technology, solar/wind/etc would be a complete no brainer. However we took a different route, which probably made sense at the time (immature wind and solar tech) and now have an immense fossil fuel infrastructure which actually makes it cheaper just to pump and dig the stuff out of the ground. The costs for building this infrastructure have long been paid, which is why it seems cheaper.

We need to put in a deliberate effort to move to renewable sources at this stage so we don't get caught with our pants down up the road, and this is in fact what is happening.

So again, there's no energy crisis, and probably never will be. No food crisis either while we're on the topic.

Amhran Nua

Deleted User wrote: »

thousands of KM away from the consumers, just think of the losses in the transmission lines for starters,

You could build a HVDC line direct from here to the Philippines and incur losses of a grand total of 20-30%, less than you'd lose from distribution.

Worztron

Worztron wrote: »

You could build solar panels in stable parts of the world with a lot of sun shine (i.e. Australia, Spain, parts of USA, etc.). You forgot about the other renewable energy sources: tidal, wave & wind. Also there is geothermal energy.

Fossil fuels took millions of years to make, they will be gone before long. They are disastrous to the environment.

Yes, you're correct, I was only referring to the Sahara project.

But my main point about reducing consumption has to be the top priority, to provide all the energy required to run our wasteful BAU ways would consume huge amounts of steel concrete and oil to manufacture the infrastructure to support any renewable energy solution.

Halve the consumption, halve the power generation capacity needed, ban life limited consumer junk by compelling manufacturers to make products that have as long a life as is reasonably practical, Light bulbs used to last at least 2500 hours before manufacturers got together and jointly reduced that to 1000 hours, all this wasteful consumption is ultimately stealing from the third world.


As for a solution to the unrest in parts of the world.
Cancel their debts for starters, then where possible pursuade them to produce their own food, ban exports from countries that have famine like conditions. Population control through education & contraception must also be a very high priority, over population is a primary cause of famine.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The Sahara sunfarms aren't the best world solution, it's a number which highlights that there is no energy shortage, and there will be no energy shortage.

I've already said that a far better idea is to site renewable energy plants scattered all over the world in the huge number of excellent locations available.

Nobody is seriously suggesting turning the Sahara into a giant battery for the entire world, since among other things it is dark half the time there.

The bottom line is, if you were to start from scratch with a blank sheet and today's technology, solar/wind/etc would be a complete no brainer. However we took a different route, which probably made sense at the time (immature wind and solar tech) and now have an immense fossil fuel infrastructure which actually makes it cheaper just to pump and dig the stuff out of the ground. The costs for building this infrastructure have long been paid, which is why it seems cheaper.

We need to put in a deliberate effort to move to renewable sources at this stage so we don't get caught with our pants down up the road, and this is in fact what is happening.

So again, there's no energy crisis, and probably never will be. No food crisis either while we're on the topic.

Agreed, but try telling the starving people of this world there is no food shortage. I wonder how you would be recieved...

Amhran Nua

Deleted User wrote: »

But my main point about reducing consumption has to be the top priority

Making use of resources more efficiently should definetely be a priority, we don't have to accept a reduction in quality of life to do that however. There's plenty for everyone, plenty to go round.

Mateo Mammoth Flame wrote: »

Agreed, but try telling the starving people of this world there is no food shortage. I wonder how you would be recieved...

I doubt I would be received, since the dictators causing them to starve probably wouldn't allow me to be heard in the first place.

Eric Cartman

everyone protesting the goverments all over the world have 1 thing in common - theyre all poor / homeless / lower middle class - the goverment and the rich all have money for armoured vehicles, private police forces etc.... revolutions were easier when countriees were isolated, would be fierce hard to overthrow some goverments like egypts

Amhran Nua

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Making use of resources more efficiently should definetely be a priority, we don't have to accept a reduction in quality of life to do that however.

If you can buy stuff that lasts for 10 years for 5% more than the same with a five year life, you only have to buy one instead of two every ten years and save almost half the cost of buying two.
Your quality of life will improve as you now have some extra money to spend on leasure, or work less hard!

Rabble Rabble

A "communist" revolution? Cuba - 25% private sector already - is talking about liberalising it's markets - that leaves the fantastic North Korea as the only real Marxist State left, a repressed hermit hermit State stuck in the 50's. If that.

Can someone model the communist takeover in Ireland? The takeover of all agricultural land ( leading to famine and civil war), the takeover of all private sector companies - leading to massive shortages and civil war ( as people resist), the mass exodus of capital, the fleeing of multinationals leaving the entire private sector unemployed. The State is not going to replace Apple, Intel and IBM. Seriously.

The chances of a left wing revolution are 0%. We are going to vote Fine Gael.

As for the revolutionary trends in the rest of the world, if they dont go more capitalist and democratic, they will go more autocratic and Islamist.

The chances of a worldwide left wing revolution is 0%. The chances of an Islamic revolution is a good bit higher. They will be hanging any remaining communists from the trees.

So, um, no. I would put away Marx and take up Quytb, if you are interested in revolutions.

Rabble Rabble

Deleted User wrote: »

If you can buy stuff that lasts for 10 years for 5% more than the same with a five year life, you only have to buy one instead of two every ten years and save almost half the cost of buying two.
Your quality of life will improve as you now have some extra money to spend on leasure, or work less hard!

And, you would be typing that on an IBM mainfame. If you got access.

Rabble Rabble

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

And, you would be typing that on an IBM mainfame. If you got access.

There's a big difference between using something that has been replaced because the current model is "more advanced" and replacing something like a washing machine* that's simply died and is "deliberately" unrepairable with another one that is almost identical! White goods should be expected to last longer than 5 years or so!

technical advances are the exception, the newer unit is actually an improvement on it's predecessor, but do you need to upgrade?
Only if the old one if failing to provide the required functionallity, I suppose.

*There are many household items could that fit here.

Wolfe Tone

Capitalism is fundamentally unfair, its all about profit at other peoples expense, we need a better way.

Holybejaysus

"World Revolution". The only two words in the English language guaranteed to make a starry eyed student jizz their pants. :rolleyes:

Eric Cartman

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Capitalism is fundamentally unfair, its all about profit at other peoples expense, we need a better way.

capitalism is the best system in the world if your smart enough to get on the right side of it.

life is a giant pyramid scheme, somebody always has to lose, you cant change that, I cant change that, so just dont be on the bottom...

Wolfe Tone

Eric Cartman wrote: »

capitalism is the best system in the world if your smart enough to get on the right side of it.

life is a giant pyramid scheme, somebody always has to lose, you cant change that, I cant change that, so just dont be on the bottom...

And if you arent its a case of fcuk them?

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

capitalism is the best system in the world if your smart enough to get on the right side of it.

life is a giant pyramid scheme, somebody always has to lose, you cant change that, I cant change that, so just dont be on the bottom...

Capitalism assumes, well needs, infinte growth to work, those pyramids rise with growth of "disposable" capital, in a declining* world, classical capitalism is doomed to fail.

*If you believe in peak oil and that oil is the primary driver in the worlds economy, then yes, sometime soon the decline will start, some believe it has already started.

Dudess

Will it or will it not be televised?

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

Will it or will it not be televised?

Sky sports are in negotiation with Obama