Venus Project

Zeitgeist 2 mentions the Venus Project which proposes the world can be run on solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power, with electric cars and maglev trains for transportation, and unlimited abundance of food, shelter and basic needs by eliminating scarcity.  Technology would handle 90% of labor, while technology itself improves to be more and more efficient because it won't rely on money or competition, but instead payment will consist of warm happy thoughts and paintings. 

So what are some flaws in the idea that there is enough energy, food, and advanced technology for everyone in a society relying on resource and energy abundance without using money as a competitive incentive?  Could Intel create better CPUs by being paid in happy thoughts?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912
http://www.thevenusproject.com/getInvolved.html

The elite have that same plan also.

>>1
That might work if there was an actual deficit of happy thoughts.  If that were the case, then life would be pretty depressing, now, wouldn't it?

How do you produce an infinite supply of food/shelter?  Real estate is limited.  Even if you cover the entire surface of the earth, it's still finite.  Building up (or down) is an option, but that's an earthquake hazard.

In the current world, there is great contempt (especially in lower education) of nerdiness/science/math, and I do not foresee that changing.  What incentive would a little kid have for spending their lives studying their asses off for math/sci, only to get happy thoughts (which math/sci already provides by default)?  In such a world, there would be little incentive for technological improvement.

What about powering the world with solar, wind, tidal and geothermal?

>>4
Too expensive.  Uranium and coal and oil are cheaper atm

nothing is too expensive for the totalitarian superstate of the future, my friend

>>5
Only in immediate costs. Though more nuclear rather than less would probably be a good idea in the short term.

>>4
it's not expensive, it's impossible, wind and solar are very seasonal, you can't base whole country infrastructure on fickels of mother nature

tidal calls for really extensive investments, ones that impact environment much, much more than any other energy, especialy nuclear

and geothermal isn't aviable everywhere in resonable prices (in some places you have to dig really deep (more than few kilometers) to achive power needed to power society, and so it will be expensive no matter how the technology moves forward, it could decrese by one or two orders by magnitude and still stay prohibitly expensive

>>8
Not entirely true, solar power can still be harnessed through cloud-cover and well after the sun has set. It's a very real alternative to that of fossil fuels, especially when we learn how to harness it further, currently there are theoretical builds which harness up to 87% of the energy placed upon them. Although costly, it is an alternative, and a good one at that.

I'm gonna lose my job if you cunts keep talking about this shit.

>>1

Venus Project is more bullshit than ORBO (http://www.steorn.com/orbo/), anyone with a high school education can tell that site is used to scam fools. No technical information whatsoever, no blue prints just a bunch of poorly drawn photos, I bet the creator of the site is probably a hopeful hippie who believes that Solar Power is the future.


You cannot power the entire world with solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power.

Geothermal power is not renewable, solar and wind use too much room and for tidal power there is no way to transport the electricity efficiently.

>>11
That may be true with contemporary technologies, but with experimental solar panels reaching over 80% efficiency, you could very well power the world with solar panels.
Conventional panels are efficient anywhere from 12 to 30 percent, and they collect enough energy to power a home, and in some cases have enough power left over to be sold back onto the grid.
This is further supported with research into infrared solar cells, which allow the capture of energy well after the sun has set.
The cost per watt may be great now, but the more they are produced and put into use, the cheaper they became, especially when they end up paying for themselves in electricity bills (or lack thereof). This, coupled with the every growing fossil fuel costs, makes solar cells a real challenge for fossil fueled energy production.

>>12
>but with experimental solar panels reaching over 80% efficiency
Solar panel efficiency degrades by a LOT over time.
>they collect enough energy to power a home, and in some cases have enough power left over to be sold back onto the grid.
depends on where they live, Solar energy is not ideal for most major cities which are located in cooler wetter climates.

Solar Panels are still too expensive to produce and the energy is too difficult to store, not to mention they take up room that could be used for better things.

>>13
>they take up room that could be used for better things.
You're not going to install a reactor on your roof.

>Solar panel efficiency degrades by a LOT over time
Degradation of cells is typically LESS than 10%. Degradation of cells if often 'caused by poor maintenance and installation. If you leave a cell horizontal with no run off opportunities for things like water, you're asking for degradation.

>Solar energy is not ideal for most major cities which are located in cooler wetter climates.
Solar Panels run off light, not heat (were talking PV cells). You're going to get energy regardless of how cold or wet it is.
Solar panels still collect energy through cloud cover, and with the integration of infrared panels they still collect well after sun down.


>Solar Panels are still too expensive to produce
That cost is steadily declining. The more people buy and put them into use, the cheaper the cost of mass producing becomes.

>>11
shut up faggot.
we can advance technology.

>>12 but with experimental solar panels reaching over 80% efficiency
>>with experimental solar panels reaching over 80% efficiency
>>experimental solar panels reaching over 80% efficiency
>>solar panels reaching over 80% efficiency
>>panels reaching over 80% efficiency
>>reaching over 80% efficiency
>>over 80% efficiency

lolwut

moar liek 0.8%, that's eight tenths of 1%, efficiency, amirite?

>>16
No, you're an idiot.

>>14
If they were economically viable options now, they'd have a reasonable cost and would be common. They're so very scarce that they cost too much for them to be successful at this time.

Maybe in a few years they'll be less costly and more convenient.

This thread is the reason we need more electrical engineers.

>>19    Graduating in 013   Ill be making this.

Everyone is missing the point....  Money is no object in this new world that is being created.  Therefore Solar panels and all the other electrical clean sources will be the BEST they can be and for NO COST.  So your arguments are invalid and you should just die because you are holding the Earth back.

You're not going to install a reactor on your roof.
I think he meant ground cover.  No matter how many rooftops you can cover with cells, you will eventually need to start building over land.  Which will make real estate the currency and or birth privileges the currency over time.  The former could be tolerated to a point; the latter is never tolerable.

>>18
Back in 2007 I read a report out of a Chicago university/college/whatsis that had developed a cell that they could sell for "$1 per watt."  I'm not sure how they came to that number and perhaps it was being simplistic for the sake of the article but they also predicted the solar cell industry would be a $35-billion industry in 2010.

>>21
Money will always important, even if it is not paper and coinage.  Food can be a currency.  Property can be a currency.  Ideas can be a currency.  Human nature proves that even basic rights can be made into a currency.  Even socialistic and or communistic philosophies, which is usually hailed for their "fairness" or "purity," are concerned with "what you have/can do" and "how much its worth."  Humans just do not have a viable mindset that zeroes-out the explicit worth of a thing versus its intrinsic value.

So, no, your utopia will have money and greed.  Oh, you may have power, but there will still be cost.  For example: "how much to pay the person who builds/repairs/installs/maintains the solar cells?"  or what about a more personal question: "do I really want these giant pseudo-mirrors on my lawn or roof?"

I'm your penis, I'm your fire..your desire..

Yeah... the Venus project claims they will invent trains that run 2000 miles an hour on a thimbleful of corn oil.


bunch of idiots

impossible, unless you get rid of a lot of all humans, who like to waste time (gues it's not waste for them) on violence and/or wanting to have more, even if you have more than you could possibly ever need/use, just becouse they want to have more than others.

And that's just the first step.

Nah.. the mantauk project was the first step. Reprogramming the lazy good for nothings. ever heard of a replicator? Yea I know its star trek... but why do they have one on the moon? If man can just think of w/e they want an then pull it out of a giant microwave I believe many many things would change...

Oh... and solar/geothermal/hydro whateva energy doesn't really matter when you can use the universes energy (cosmic rays) trying no to sound too much like a Tesla fanatic, but wireless energy is the answer. Pull multiple Gw or even TeV and transmit it across the globe... If one man could build such a system without telling anyone (very very difficult)and turn it on before gov. got ahold of em and people realized free energy isn't crazy, the world would change