Herstel de Verzorgingsstaat Roboeconomisch

Rutte is opgehoepeld. Helaas zijn VVD stemmers niet al te snugger dus de kans dat hij weer premier wordt is groot. Zoniet dan komt er misschien een club aan de macht die wel hart heeft voor nederlanders, niet alleen voor bedrijven. Maar hoe ga je in een wereld die zich aan moet passen aan de klimaatveranderingen en de schadelijke gevolgen van gebruik van fossiel meer welvaart creeren voor mensen met weinig eigen middelen of capaciteiten? Heel eenvoudig : Roboeconomisch. Waar de huidige economie continu vereist dat we opnieuw energie kopen kan hernieuwbare energie een keer gekocht worden en vervolgens decennia lang het creeren van weelde faciliteren. Dit is het geheim van de Roboeconomie hij is ‘cashflow lean’

Als gedachten experiment bedachten we de Markermeerzonnecentrale.nl Dat is een grote drijvende zonnecentrale op het Markermeer. Die kan als het de helft van het meer bedekt alle centrales van Nederland vervangen. Dat betekent dat alles wat we in Nederland produceren dan met stroom uit die drijvende centrale geproduceerd kan worden, alle fabrieken, bakkerijen, distributiecentra, kunstmestfabrieken, recycle centra, scholen, theaters : alles. dat betekent dat de werkelijke kosten van die weelde liggen in het onderhouden van de zonnecentrale. Dat zijn dus marginale ondehouds en vervangingskosten. Hebben we aan de oever een grote (dunne film) panelen fabriek gebouwd dan zijn die kosten natuurlijk minimaal, en het is zeker denkbaar dat die nul zijn aangezien je de werknemers met energie krediet (Euro’s) kunt betalen.

Het is al vele jaren bekend dat hernieuwbare energie weelde kan creeren, huizen kan verwarmen en alle andere dingen kan doen die we nu met fossiel doen. Het argument tegen was altijd dat fossiel goedkoper was. Dat is natuurlijk een grote leugen gebleken. De kosten van het gebruik van fossiel zijn immens, het kost nu al vele mensenlevens, al zijn het levens die ons (kennelijk) niet veel kunnen schelen (zoals in Africa of Azie of Zuid Amerika). Het probleem is dat mensen aan de verkoop van fossiel ‘verdienden’, er rijk van werden. Aangezien fossiel het middel was om weelde te creered waren de eigenaren van fossiel (en hun intermediaries de banken) in staat mensen te verleiden met die weelde om te zorgen dat we doorgingen met het gebruik van hun ‘product’. Dat product omvat fossiel -en- krediet (maar dat voert wat ver).

Willen we met een nieuw niet asociaal kabinet toekomst bestendig worden en de schade van Wiebes inhalen dan zouden we een medogenloos hernieuwbare energie beleid moeten voeren. Medogenloos omdat fossiel medogenloos is geweest ten opzicht van de werel, omdat fossiel de drijfveer was achter het asociale beleid van Rutte en de VVD. Het ging hen om meer geld meer fossiele cashflow. Wat we nodig hebben is meer weelde in handen van burgers. Reele waarde dus geen blokjeshuis van 400.000 Euro maar een motiverende woning met een tuin voor 150.000 Euro. Dat kan allemaal als we daar onze eigen energie voor opwekken, zodat niemand ons kan tegenhouden als we willen graven, bouwen, vervoeren, assambleren, opruimen, aanplanten etc. Geen banken, geen externe investeerdes.

De speerpunt moet het opwekken van hernieuwbare energie zijn, want efficientie bevrijdt ons niet snel genoeg uit de macht van fossiel. Opwekken opwekken opwekken, en de industrie omvormen naar een electrische. Waterstof is nog een uitstel en pro fossiele strategie. Biomassa was een strategie om veel cashflow te genereren. Zelf zonnepanelen en windmolens bouwen, op een zo groot mogelijke schaal en zo snel mogelijk. Gebruik maken van de meest recente technologie, manieren van automatiseren, AI, robotica. Hierbij kan bv. ook land in het buitenland worden aangekocht zodat Nederlandse bedrijven daar innovatief aan de slag kunnen bv met de integratie van zonnepanelen en landbouw. Denk je dat een landbouwerktuig niet tussen zonnepanelen kan oogsten?

De Roboeconomie, die met gebruik van hernieuwbare energie en technologie de ecologie herstelt en welvaart creert is waar we uiteindelijk zullen uitkomen. Laten we niet eerst elke andere domme en asociale optie proberen.



 

What is the Roboeconomy?

Experts are advising to forgo the goal of economic growth to save humanity from the ravages of fossil fuel use. You’ve heard it all before, but have you ever connected the dots? Ravages of fossil fuel use? Why would we tolerate that? Because someone sells it to us. Why do we need to buy it, its found in deep under ground, nobody made it or owns it really. Why don’t we simply distribute it? The answer is we ‘simply’ do and the mechanism by which we do it is called the ‘Economy’. The economy is a system to ‘optimally’ allocate fossil resources.

You can ask “Optimally for whom?”. Good question. Not for you if you means the average non-oil well owner or banker. You may be ignoring those having a hard life in your country, which is a higher percentage than you if you live an easy life (more so in the more economically advanced countries!). The economy is optimizing for one group only : The banks. Because the banks created it and the banks need to remain all powerfull in it to sustain it. There’s only one catch : It only works with fossil fuels. This is why we need to let go of economic goals to save ourselves from the ravages of fossil fuel use.

So is there an alternative. The answer is YES. Its called the Roboeconomy. Many because it uses Robots because it is Ecologically compatible with the existence of life on Earth and because it does strife to maintain an economy, which is simply a structure who’s goal is to use resources optimally but this time to the benefit of mankind.

The main elements of a ‘roboeconomic’ society is that all energy is from renewable sources. This has the effect of distributing productive capacity more widely and reducing the need to produce or source products from places along an important fossil fuel supply chain or in a way so that transactions make banks rich. Do you think we produce in China because it’s cheaper? Nope. Production in China is not cheaper but the coal there is dumped, and the bunker fuel for the container ships is subsidized and banks get damn rich from all the financial traffic.

There is a lot of ‘economic activity’ related to all the steps needed to make something in China for consumption on the US market. What that means is that the benefits of fossil fuels are distributed all along that production and logistic chain and because banks fight so hard against any alternative to fossil fuels, we need to participate in this process in order to live a decent life.

In the Roboeconomy this global network, the reason for a global bankingsystem, will shrink and all but disappear. Instead production will move closer to consumers and closer to renewable energy sources. This will also happen because there is no reason to market widely anymore. If you have a subsidized dirt cheap global logistic system global brands make sense. If you decide to abandon that you have no reason. There is no profit in selling shoes from Africa in Norway, local shoes will be cheaper!

The first key property of the Roboeconomy, to only use renewable energy will on its own bring all the changes we need, by depowering the banking system. Of course the banks will try to own -All- renewable energy sources. They will also try to slow down the growth of RE in now poor sunny countries as well as the shift to electic production systems and logistics. This is also done by making you a follower. This is a fundamental marketing oriented manipulation to the benefit of the economy. If you still like Coca Cola you need to reflect on that, its a sign you are indoctrinated. Instead of worshipping brands your role is to help with the transition.

The second key property is that technology is used to create wealth and to restore the ecology. The latter will be easy once cheap versatile robots drop in prices. We have the Ford and Boston Dynamic robots and Tesla Roadbots so soon we will have autonomous access to every part of the globe. Innovation in motors stalled for nearly 60 years because it was about selling fossil fuels. Now innovation can free itself, mostly with private money, to truely improve the fate of humans. Robots, AI, new types of logistics. Thin film solar panels (a blocked technology that needs to be freed by an Elon type entrepeneur). As it gets hotter on Earth we will find our means to produce an answer will become less and less encumbered by fossil and banking opposition.

The Roboeconmoy is what this blog is about, and renewable technology and other ideas and concepts. I hope you share our ideas. If so let us know on Twitter at @climatebabes



 

Robotics

Boston dynamics has been shown to know how to crack the code of fast movements of arbitrary ‘systems’ of actuators. It’s probably thanks to the speed of CPUs and enormous amounts of memory that its robots can trigger the right control based on their position vs gravity, their own mass, elastic effects and actuator lag and power curves. Complex, but if you make lookup tables of everything not impossible. The algorithm that navigates all these control signals will probably be a standard part of any real AI..

The latest in robot dancing

It is fascinating how one lab can achieve so much and many others are left in the dust. The Ford (we thought Amazon) digit robot walks but is not as agile. It has the advantage of being a product made for a real purpose. What happens if these become more lightweight, if the controls are minimized and internalized and turn out to be doable with generic hardware. The challenge with AI is often training the system, that process requires a lot of cycles, energy and time. But once the resulting weight matrix has been developed it can be really lightweight and fast.

Now there’s a real attempt to make these things not look to much like humans, because our innate reflex is to project emotions and intentions on whatever moves around us. Japanese are the most sensitive culture in this respect because in Japan machines can have souls and can be considered to be alive. This is not a weird position, we are after all also biochemical mechanisms. The rub is that we have different needs from machines.

The big challenge of the next 20 years is to remain on top of robots and AI. To keep them from being servants of egos, from destroying our planet because somehow someone made them strive for self preservation without also makeing them want to see us around. If we manage we can have a renewable powered society where robots can do nearly anything, robots, road bots (Tesla’s with autopilot with a robot mounted on it for example). Once these devices can roam freely outside, running on solar/electric energy that does not run out, our options to survive climate change increase. Our job is to not start loving them, not try to give them a soul that wants to survive, because that’s how we’d lose our freedom to them!



 

A Natural Health based performance measure

I has been the perception of many for decades that trying to save something will help save it. It never does. People don’t like to be hero’s and what needs to be save is weak, so why put energy into it. The slogan works with people that have empathy for the weak, but most leaders don’t or they would not be leaders.

Shaming goes a lot further towards motivating change, but it is a negative motivator. It requires someone to take the role of victim, one that acuses the pollutor, and a victim is weak so does not get empathy. The whole process of accusation is something most people dislike. It is ( to be sexist ) very feminine. Justice in general is feminine and for the weak. The world is run by people who are strong and do not call on justice but simply do what they can get away with even if it is a crime.

What does work imho is a grading system or classification of leaders as to their ability and achievments regarding conservation and restauration of nature. Just like we as a civilisation are not yeat on the Kardashev scale, but can aspire to, all countries and municipalities should be put on a ‘health scale’, where every aspect of its nature is rated compared to the possible optimum. A bit like a golf course where every hole has a handicap.

There is such a rating in terms of carbon offsets or carbon emissions, but that has not prevented Holland from developing a nature cripling Nitrogen emission problem. CO2 and NOx are winning in Holland because there is more money in it, and because it can’t be brought up as a topic of pride or shame in a decent conversation.

Drought is an issue in Holland. Rain shortages are about 200 days worth and growing. This could mean a downgrade of the country as a whole on the Standards and Poor ‘health’ rating of our country. Apparently we can’t achieve better performance under our stupid Mark Rutte government. This and the Nitrogen means that people have red eyes, beathing problems, are more succeptible to Corona virus, and nature can’t really cope with the changes.

If you view Holland as a big open floor restaurant right now the kitchen waste is dumped in the middle of the hall and the cooking fumes are blown into the faces of the guests. Apparently the suppliers are running it, not somebody who cares for the customers. Of course there are many ‘development’ ratings and ‘eco’ ratings, but those don’t communicate you are better off in the dry heart of Spain than in beautifull Limburg.

We are talking here of a measure of natural healthyness of a country or region or city. Simply put if there where no civilisation at all, how healthy would a place be. This includes its support of mental health, so no cruelty or absence of trees, green medows etc. (of course when measured against the potential of the land). Then when you have a drink with people from other countries you can boast about it or be shamed, and then maybe you will vote for leaders that see actual strength (not fossil credit cashflow) as something important.



 

Ways to rate cities

Cities are grown on opportunies. Whether it was a bussy harbour or a rail hub or a river or a place people would choose to rest. Once established they would attract people based on the activities. LA is for aspiring moviestars, NY is for aspiring stock traders, Amsterdam for aspiring potheads (only joking). But cities are traps if you can’t find a place in the economic mechanism, and the economic mechanism that has grown into existence the last century is all fossil based. It’s run to create cashflow (this is the basic and only goal of banks). Fossil always causes cashflow because you buy it, burn it and have to buy it anew.

How to feel like an ant

To fix ourselves for the hot future we need to fix cities. Either fix them or abandon them. Reasons to fix them are that they can be (sometimes) easily adjusted to deal with extreme heat. You can cover streets so for example. Reasons to abandon them is because banks make them extremely expensive to live in, because you can’t grow food, because the banks prevent radical changes or even utilitarian repurposing of for instance building walls to grow ivy against. You’re constantly stuck between the frustration of home buyers who can’t afford homes and the home sellers who insist on getting the maximum out of their sale. It constantly leads to paralysis of the market that is then fixed by giving banks even more power and freedom.

A town with structure and randomness

Dense cities will need power plants to exist. Now you have a power plant and you buy the energy with the money you earn by being usefull to the city economy, usefull to the cashflow desire of the banks. It is much smarter for a city to won its own power plants, especially renewable ones, because then it can make the city an attractive living environment. It can grow crops underground with LED light to keep the citizen alive. It can still maintain a free market for homes, but those homes will be much more attractive. Now because of bank cashflow hunger, homes are like islands, not intrinsically connected, usually in highrises because people don’t like the needy crowd they are faced with at street level. Needy because of banks! The city should make people less needy and now, with super cheap renewable energy it can.

Square and baren design was introduced to help builders build more efficiently. It can be enjoyed, but not as easy as classic architecture

We should rate cities based on public beauty, and then not apply a standard that is defined by Mies van der Rohe. The extreme of barren architecture has relaxing qualities, it’s like sitting on a slab of rock, enjoying nature and solitude, but this does not comfort people who are already fighting to exist. It does not inspire them with hope or make them thankfull for what they recieved. Architecture used to be more of a gift to the population, something that became less relevant when we all became dependent on money and banks.

I guess we should rate cities on a couple of indicators

  1. How much do tourist like it
  2. Can you enjoy it in summer or is it too hot
  3. Can you grow food close by
  4. How many animals do you find in it besides rats
  5. Do you feel comfortable at street level
  6. Does the city own its own power station and is it renewable

What are your suggestions? You can tweet to use at climatebabes



 

CO2 drifting out of reach..

We are facing tremendous problems and are seeing serious consequences of the global CO2 concentration rise. Still because many of the people that read this will be stuck in an economic dependency, our hands are tied except if we are willing to part with money or our freedom. This is not going to give us the agility we need at this time, because we need to hurry up, step up. We need to capture the CO2 while it is still in the lower atmosphere.

The easiest way to understand we need to hurry is to compare it to dripping ink into a swimming pool. Once you dripped it in it will spread, and if you can only reach the surface of the pool with your clean up device (just like we can only reach a small part of our atmosphere from the ground) you have to wait and hope the water circulates so you can clean out all the ink eventually. If you drop in a lot of ink you want to clean it up fast, before it mixes into the deeper water. CO2 is now mixing into a pool of 16 km high covernig our globe, and we are on average only reaching 50 meters up with our trees.

Covid19 is now serving two agenda’s, on the one hand it is helping pro fossil right wing people restrict climate action and organization, motivation while at the same time making it easier to indoctrinate people through the media and make them do other tricks. On the other the climate conscious will sieze the opportunity to reduce travel and consumption in general. Even global food logistics is under (righteous) fire from China, the country claims we can catch Covid19 from frozen seafood for example. A collaps in seafood demand and capture would be a good thing!



 

Brandgevaar in Zonnecentrales

Het recente Symposium Coöperatieve Energieopslag geeft inzicht in een paar concrete energie opslag projecten die in Nederland succesvol zijn afgerond. Leerpunten zijn oa dat de netbedrijven niks doen (tenzij ze het zelf van plan zijn) en ook niet zijn in te schakelen om een locatie aan de rand van het net van grid connectie te voorzien, omdat de finaciering via SDE meestal vervallen is voordat het proces van aanleg is afgerond (of op gang gekomen). Dit is misschien expres geweest. Opslag wordt gekaderd als middel om meer te doen met bestaande grid capaciteit, ten koste van hernieuwbare opbrengst. Natuurlijk zijn grid en opslag vijanden, maar wordt opslag gewoon nog veel te duur gemaakt. Tesla doet dit veel beter.

Panelen gegroepeerd om brand veiligheids reden (op de daken worden de regels niet toegepast)

Een interessant punt in de presentaties is dat de brandweer iets te zeggen heeft over de realisatie. Ze geven aanwijzingen over de indeling van de panelen in oppervlaktes van max 2500 m2. Dit is omdat dat het grootste oppervlak is dat ze mogen laten uitbranden. U leest het goed, ze maken deze indeling en vervolgens gaan ze niks doen. De brandweer vind dat electrische branden niet te blussen zijn omdat de panelen stroom blijven leveren.

Zonnepanelen die overdag in brand vliegen door bv. kortsluiting zijn idd lastig te blussen als er stroom blijft lopen. Een brandweer die er water op spuit maakt het probleem alleen maar erger, en kan zelfs explosiegevaar creeren als er waterstof ontstaat. Het gekke is dat andere types branden ook lastig kunnen zijn, neem bv. petroleum branden. Daar kun je ook geen water op spuiten, dan spat de olie alle kanten op. Daar zijn schuimblus middelen voor ontwikkeld.

Uit mijn IT ervaring weet ik dat in een serverroom, omdat er veel kunstof wordt gebruikt en flink wat electrische capaciteit aanwezig is (een rack kan meerdere kWs gebruiken) niet met water kan worden geblust. Er wordt een gas dat FM200 heet gebruikt. Vast een fluor gas dat ozon schade veroorzaakt. Het vervangt de zuurstof en de brand stopt. Mensen die in de server ruimte zijn als dit gas wordt verspreid hebben wel pech. Dit is niet iets dat je bij een zonneweide zou kunnen gebruiken, maar is slechts een voorbeeld van een oplossing voor het electrische branden probleem.

Het lijkt me ook niet slim om een zonneweide in te delen in maximaal uitbrandbare oppervlakken. Dan zeg je in feite “Als er brand ontstaat doen we niks en ben je het grootst mogelijke deel van de zonneweide kwijt”. Tussen de delen kunnen wel barrieres worden opgericht, brandschermen, maar waarom grote brokken maken als kleiner ook kan? Het lijkt of er niet veel onderzoek gedaan is naar hoe brand zich door een zonnepark verspreid. Het lijkt ons logischer een groot aantal kleine compartimenten te maken.

De brandweer zou ook kunnen aandringen op onderzoek naar beveiligings methoden. Er zouden bv. hitte geactiveerde stroom onderbrekers kunnen worden bedacht die tussen de paneelconnectors geschakeld worden, of tussen groepen. Er zou een zwart schuim bedacht kunnen worden dat de panelen blindeert zodat ze geen stroom meer produceren tijdens een brand.

Het meest suffe vind ik dat er uiteindelijk niks gedaan wordt bij een brand (behalve de 2500 m2 afschermen). Die ben je dan dus kwijt. Als dat toch zo is dan lijkt het zinvoller om kleinere groepen te maken. Dit komt dan weer in de knel met het land oppervlak dat veel te kostbaar is of waarvan het gebruik voor zonneenergie omstreden is.

Agrovoltaics kan een oplossing zijn, niet denken ‘zonneweide of landbouw’ maar ‘zonneweide met landbouw’!

Het lijkt dat het netbedrijf nog veel te veel invloed heeft op de ontwikkeling van zonne energie productie in NL. De capaciteit van de centrales wordt in de netcapaciteit gepast, en een project wordt afgewezen als de centrale niet tijdens pieken uitschakelt. De piekstroom kan wel worden opgeslagen voor gebruik op een ander moment, maar dit is nog veel te duur, en nog volledig onder beheer van het netbedrijf.

Het symposium laat min of meer zien dat de markt, het netbedrijf en de brandweer allemaal bezig zijn de realisatie van dit soort projecten te vertragen en lastiger te maken. SDE kan wellicht expres termijnen hebben gekregen om te zorgen dat het geld -niet- naar grid uitbreiding gaat, maar dan zou het handig zijn als de regels wat liberaler werden zodat de invetiviteit van burgers, bedrijven en cooperaties meer kans krijgt.



 

Humanibots

Humans are low bandwith communicating self preserving autonomous robots. A human can engange in stabile repeated behaviour if the environmental factors are constant, but they evolved to deal with constant novelty in their environment due to the constantly changing nature – of nature. We could call humans ‘Humanibods’ or ‘Androids’, ‘Biobots’ just to accentuate their true nature.

I think it is best to think of humans this way on some occasions. We seem to reject the idea that our behaviour is fully predictable, but for the largest part it is. There is basically nothing we do without a reason or cause, either internal or external. If we want to break that pattern we have to do it consciously (so we actually don’t), if we do it spontaneously we are considered “mad”. Go into the street and shout “banana!”, you will be sane if you do it because of this post. You will be insane if you do it without any prior thought. You’ll be accused of having fruity Gilles de la Tourette, and draw quite a lot of attention.

If we super rarely do anything we have not been taught or have not observed in others, then it follows we are programmed by our environment and our experiences. We are predisposed to repeat behaviour we have had succesfully or that we have associated with succes and safety. These statements are very vanilla and nothing new, but how much freedom do we have to divert from our programming, our repertoire of behaviour which can be quite limited.

In fact our lives when young for a large part turn around the illusion we will make a unique impression on the world with our behaviour, we will not be like everybody else. We are unique this is undeniable, but we allow ourselves to be programmed by media constantly. This is in part because we experience constant mild anxiety over the lack of real support for our lives we own.

People that live in city appartments know in their bones that there’s nothing to eat unless they get food or money from someone. Even with a big home and garden most people don’t dream of getting rid of such dependencies. Owning land and living of it is not highly regarded. We thus have to trust employers and pensions, abstractions, promises. The tough thing is to distrust the same suits you have seen since you where born. Us ‘Humanibots’ need a change in what they base their behaviour on to change their behaviour.

Now there are plenty of people that analyze the world, and they do not look at the exterior of a politician or functionary. They look at what they expose to the public and judge that, and either bond or abandon themselves based on that. The average humanibot however has not developed an ability to distinquish, lacks as strong rational basis for behaviour and is prone to fall for what is directly observable. Our brain immitates what we try to understand, so if the influence is impressive we quickly internalize it.

Humanibots are also hindered by the effects of emotions. Emotions are the ‘soundtrack’ under our experience, they can induce learning and forgetting. Intense emotions can make us forget what came before. Emotional experiences are existential, they take precedence over whatever we are involved in. They signify a change in our environment, our dependencies. Our minds are (usually) changed by our emotional states, and anger is one of them. When anger is aroused we forget what came before. We also spend our ‘anger budget’. It is harder for us to remember what we ourselves thought would be good for us if we have been angry about some distraction.

What the current economy tries to do is keep us in that place where we consume all our (financial) resources and accept the absolute minimum security. The news cycle is full of fear and cause for anger, perferably both not related to anything real. The real information, the observables of what other people do in our system of control (government), is available but the minds of many are to preoccupied with simple easy to understand things that they don’t register.

One would have to investigate how reliable people are in certain circumstances, and then how dangerous they are. This is the rub. A Humanibot that is comfortable and misinformed in a way that does not hurt him/her can be very dangerous. We see that now with the Corona epidemic. I go to a laundromat place and the owner of it does not care about Corona. He comes up close to me when he starts the machine, seemingly conscious of the risk but not caring. He was misinformed, and he is dangerous to society. There is no law to persuade him to behave otherwise (except perhaps a mask wearing law).

We have a director of our dutch airport Schiphol that worked for Shell for years as its CEO. He sounds really nice and sane, but his leadership is insane if you consider the danger of emissions. He hopes to maximize air travel and believes in lies that are hard to recognize as such. Other people with less discriminative minds will listen to him, his timbre and manner of speaking and recognize a honest hard working deserving man trying to save his company. He creates a bond. People support him.

Inside the head of this man lives another reason to say what he does, it is the desire to profit at all cost, the desire to deliver cashflow for his previous environment, Shell, and a desire for himself to appear high status and in control. His mind is sane, but he doesn’t show that side of himself. What he exposes is his insanity, and this is copied by people because they can’t recognize it while they can recognize his humanity.

Now imagine you where standing in a road with 12 people, chained together. 6 of you had earplugs in and headphones on and given smartphones with a good movie to pass the time. 6 of you where just standing around without anything. Then from behind you hear a big truck honking its horn to warn you to get off the road. You look around and the truck is moving fast, no sign of slowing down. Would you disrub the peace of the six mesmerized by their screens, not hearing a thing? What if they protest and reject your calls to move off the road? What if they fight you?



 

Tesla Battery Day

Tesla held its 2020 shareholder meeting where it also announced progress and plans regarding its battery production. Historically it used off the shelve batteries, then it started to make its own in cooperation with Samsung, and now it makes them in house doing research on every aspect of the production chain. The aim is to find a method to produce TerraWathours of batteries ASAP because batteries are the limiting factor to the adoption of Electric Vehicles.

The innovations and improvements are amongst others

A new way to make batteries that have multiple tabs, or [single] tabless. The advantage is in the production speed, the tab doesn’t need to be attached, but also in output power, as now the path between electrode and the output is shorter and has less resistance.

In a ‘tabless’ battery the entire side of the membrane is a tab, so electrons can leave the membrane much easier. The trick was to make a cut copper strip that could be auotmatically folded inwards without shorting the battery.

Tesla will use Silicon as an electrode, and developed a method to encapsulate this brittle metal in such a way that it does not crumble and lose contact on charging and discharging. They will encapsulate the silicon in a conducting polymer. Silicon is a much better absorber of lithium than grafite.

Tesla has looked at the raw materials processing and redesigned it to its bare minimal steps. Industry prepares their materials for general trade, but Tesla has a specific use for it and has rethought it. This saves a lot of cost, logistics and pollution. This also reduces the size of the factory as a lot of work went into making the paste and recycling the water.

Tesla wants to create different batteries for different purposes, so that the high nickel high energy batteries can be used in semi-trucks and the low energy density lower nickel ones in stationary storage or low end cars.

The mining and processing of Nickel can be a lot simpler

Batteries consistes of layers separated by a membrane. Ions move from one side to the other as the batteries are charged and discharged. The preparation of these layers has been done in a wet proces, as a paste that gets sintered. Tesla plans to change this to a dry proces that gets pressed onto the substrate.

A dry paste is pressed in to a film

Last but not least Tesla has introduced a new method of constructing the base carriage of the car. The new batteries (their cilindrical casings) will become a structual part of the car, providing stiffness with the weight more centered than before. To achieve this the basic buildup has three parts, a front a back and a battery pack in between.

Heat modelling of Tesla’s aluminium casting process

All these innovations and changes will cut the battery cost by 69% and will be realized in the next 3 years. Its great because a battery plant can be much smaller now, and will cost less. We would like to see every country with a couple of billions to spare to build a Tesla battery factory.



 

The Joule Currency

It is clear to me that we need a currency that exists independent of the current fossil credit banking system. I wrote about the tree currency system the EU needs to rid itself of fossil banking occupation (Euro, Auro, Joule revisited). The reason is that as long as we use Euro, Dollars or Yens to trade renewable energy we are in the same monetary space as fossil fuels. Because fossil fuel production is costless the price of fossil fuels is arbitrary, and thus it is impossible for renewables to develop a true relationship with the price of products.

Fossil fuels do not have a monetary cost to produce. The production proces can be facilitated by delivering or promising fossil fuels

Just to illustrate, a piece of electronics from China can cost 2 Euro by airfreight, no shipping cost. This is because as long as banks print money oil companies will deliver the oil, kerosine, plastic, gas to whomever holds the cash. The cost of a 2 Euro products is in reality way higher, but the waste of fossil fuels in the process of producing and shipping it to me remains hidden. The fact remains : Nobody can make fossil fuels, they are a gift!

We need a new currency to develop a new economy around renewable energy, the ‘Roboeconomy’

To enable a separate powerbase to develop we need to introduce a new currency to trade renewable energy. We find the name Joule highly appropriate for such currency. This is because the Joule value of energy is ultimately what we need to do work. A KiloWattHour or kWh is an amount of Joules, its 1000 Joule per second times (60 x 60) seconds = 3600000 Joules or 3.6 MegaJoules.

A Joule can not be traded for Euros

Every currency needs rules. This is a big mistake in the crypto sphere. Bitcoin has no rules, the only reason Bitcoin works is because the amount is limited, because energy companies like the mining revenue, because it has a true administrative utility (at what cost though? Ripple is cheaper) and inertia. The Joule currency will not be a detached crypto coin, it will be a specifically allocated trading token for renewable energy.

A joule is not a free floating crypto coin. It has rules, and it can be implemented in many ways.

Money is always an energy credit

The basic idea of the Joule is that you want to be able to sell your energy, as an owner of a solar farm, wind farm, wave energy farm etc. To do this people can buy Joules from the owner of the energy source. Those Joules can be used to pay for the energy but also to buy goods from people who will accept the Joule coin. Anything made with electricity can be bought with the Joule, even though the actual value of an individual Joule varies greatly. There has to be an algorithm to compute the actual energy value of Joules, especially in the beginning.

We forget sometimes our money has wildly varying value based on our location. Gasoline prices show that : A mile of driving can differ in price by 40% in Europe, or conversely, the local value of the Euro can do the same!

Storage

Storage of electricity will greatly facilitate the usefullness and liquidity of Joules. One can imagine a wind turbin owner delivering energy to a central battery where people can buy the electricity (or rather pay for it) in Joules that all have a similar value. Ideally a network of energy stores develops so that the Joule is more or less equal value anywhere, even if it is not available everywhere.

Taxation

The government plays a large role in the creation of Joules. It is possible to imagine an automatic process to allocate them, but it is more likely the tax office will do it. The reason is that the government taxes productivity in the land (with the claimed goal to share this wealth to reduce social tensions). With the Joule it will be very easy to do this. The producer of renewable energy is entitled to Joules, but the tax office takes a portion of them as tax. So let’s say a person generates 5000 kWh a year, that becomes 18000 MJ (mega Joule, which can be simplified to Joule), so 18000 J. Of this the government takes 10% (but the number is decided in politics and with regards of the social needs) and the owner gets to loan out the remaining 16200 J, maybe add it to a Joule bank. The value of the taxated Jouls varies from place to place, but so do the needs of people.

Lifecycle of the Joule

A Joule exists only so lang as it has not been used to buy energy. So the producer of energy gets Joules, and can borrow them or spend them against products and services. It makes no sense for the producer to buy energy with the Joules, because he/she has energy to sell.

Anyone accepting Joule can buy energy or products sold for Joule. This can be any product, its up to the seller. Whoever makes products needs energy to do that, so say the pizza restaurant sells pizza’s for Joules and uses those Joules to buy the eletricity for the oven, refigiration, lighting, heating etc. These Joule return to the energy producers, and there they evaporate.

Our current money system tries its best to hide a very similar lifecycle but for fossil fuels. The energy companies claim to make profit and have cost etc. In reality oil companies have no use for the profits they make. The reason is that if they spend the profits, this will cause more oil consumption. All the money keeps returning to them! Iran tried to sell oil for gold, but this stopped because all the gold in the world would end up in Iran!

Structure of the Roboeconomy

A renewables based economy (so called roboeconomy) is thus a patchwork of energy producers, Joule currency circulating and wealth being produced. Regions with no producers can recieve shipments of stored energy, this can be mobile batteries or methan or hydrogen or ammonia or ethanol produced elsewhere.

Many people will however have their own energy sources, so the demand for Joules may be low in affluent places. Life will be cheap there. Right now we see that life is cheap in places where nature absorbs a lot of sunlight in a way humans can use. We will see renewables join nature in creating an evironment that supports human life and requires almost no effort (especially when we use technology and AI to assist us).

Joule banks

As described above anyone with renewable resources can become a Joule bank. They are opposed to the existing Euro, Dollar etc. banks. The Joule can not be created out of thin air like the other currencies. No instruments can be based on them. Administration of the Joule should be done by the state, the tax office preferably. It should form a separate ecosystem from the banking system so that it can form a separete power base, which is the purpose of the currency. It should be possible to have Joules and Euro’s and Auros (see my other piece on the gold currency) in some app.

It makes no sense though to convert Joules to Euro as Euro’s can be printed at will, while Joules can not. When the Joule comes into existence the Euro and other currencies become limited for fossil energy and can no longer be used to purchase renewable energy by law.

Development of the Joule Currency

Right now energy trade is strictly regulated in most places where fossil credit banks are in power. You may not notice but ‘economics’ and ‘is good for the economy’ are from the fossil credit lexicon. They are almost never good for renewables or being climate responsible. Banks put producers of wind farms into serious debt, so that their currency, the Euro or Dollar, is used to trade the energy. The losses due to transportation are hidden, the cost of delivery of methane (gas) can be enormous, simply because it requires a permanent medium to travel through (gas bottles are way cheaper).

To develop the Joule currency energy trade must become free. It can be taxed by VAT (although I don’t know if that makes any sense). A practical way in which energy trade is free is through the use of mobile batteries. Most storage methods are lossy. hydrogen wastes up to 70%, so not desirable. As batteries proliferate and become cheaper we can see them used to move electricity around.