UPS means Uninterrupted Power Supply. It is a system used in IT to ensure servers and other computers don’t shut down in the event of a power failure or intermittend fulctuations in grid power. They are ubiquitous, nearly every server room has one because computers are expensive and leaving them without power for only a microsecond wipes their RAM memory.
Having these systems proves we already have battery storage for the home, and the Tesla Powerwall is not that much of a innovation. What is the innovation with Tesla is that the Powerwall product is priced to be sold in large quantities, and has a design and ergonomic qualities to be part of a normal houshold.
That said, what the Powerwall does is take in electricity, store it, and make it available on demand, at an output of about 2 kW per unit, probably as smooth AC (110v for US). If the grid fails we expect it to continue to provide AC in the house. This is a lot of what a UPS does.
A 10 kWh Powerwall is half the price of a 10kW UPS
The question is what the power draw an a normal UPS is, this can vary between 66% and 90% of the rating, so a 10 kVA could deliver 5kW, this is more than the Powerwall. But the cost of a 10 kWh Powerwall is 3500, while that of a 10kW UPS is about 7.000, double that. You could reason like this : If the equipment power use at a grid failure is below 2 kw, and a UPS offered for that power draw is more expensive than a Powerwall, what is there against going for the latter?
Will Tesla’s large storage units make UPSes a thing of the past?
The price will come down more, because Tesla is building a battery factory, it is offering the design for this factory to anyone that wants to build it, as a product, just like many production lines are themselves a product. In any case, Tesla can already service a market, just like the UPS producers could offer storage solutions for the home.
.. or will UPS manufacturers enter the competition to produce the most usefull and cheap grid storage devices
The reason they probably aren’t doing that is exactly what this article is about, it would be cheaper, because the potential damage af failure in the home does not justify as high a price as one in a critical operation of a company.
Toyota is attemption to sell us the hydrogen car, a technology that has been called out for being a very stupid idea, primarily because the fuel cell is max 50% efficient and other reasons. But this video makes a mockery out of you, the viewer.
The idea presented is that if you make hydrogen out of manure this is a clean fuel. What the add doesn’t explain is the following:
1. Manure is not the source of the gas/energy
Manure can be used to make biogas, but what is digested in the biogas installation is usually not all manure, it is mainly (in holland legally up to 50%) argicultural waste/overproduction that contains sugars/starches, which are needed to make the gas. Not only gas is made but heat and other gasses. The manure contains very little sugar so it leaves the digester almost the same, minus the sugar.
2. Making hydrogen out of biogas means you emit CO2
The guy glosses over it quickly, but he mentions steam reforming of CH4 (methane) into H2 (Hydrogen). The two step proces goes something like this :
This leaves you with H2 and a lot of CO2, and a lot of heat. Of course a much better option is to burn the CH4 in the car’s engine, which would save a lot of hassle. Now you just emit CO2 somewhere else and don’t reap the benefits of that heat loss in your car. Rediculous.
This is exacly why hydrogen is being pushed, it is because it allows the natural gas industry to keep selling gas, even if they have to reform it into hydrogen first. Electric cars don’t offer that option.
3. There is hydrogen in manure, but that fact is ignored completely
Manure does in fact contain hydrogen, but it is usually called nitrogen, because it is a hydrogen/nitrogen molecule called ammonia. This fact is ignored by Toyota This molecule, NH3, is a easy to liquify under relatively low pressure diesel like fuel that can be harvested from manure and that can be burned or converted into H2 with only N2 emissions, which are completely harmless.
Ammonia is the ‘other hydrogen’ nobody talks about. The way Toyota envisions it the NH3 evaporates from the manure ponds, into the atmosphere where it is a much stonger greenhouse gas than CO2. Using NH3 for agricultural fuel makes a lot of sense. There is even an infrastructure for it (for farmers) and even though it is usually only made by cows or using natural gas, it can easily be made with solar or wind electricity electricity. We know about a project that did that.
So yes, hydrogen is bullshit to begin with, and hydrogen from bullshit is double bullshit, unless it is clean burning Ammonia, on which almost all Toyotas can run.
Mensen met het Syndroom van Anton zijn blind, maar zullen bij hoog en bij laag beweren dat ze kunnen zien. Zo zitten de hersens in elkaar, ze zijn onbetrouwbaar want ze hebben geen enkel intern referentiekader. Als ze goed functioneren zijn we blij, maar meestal laten ze ons dingen doen die we niet zouden doen, dingen geloven die nergens op slaan en dingen verkondigen waar geen grond voor is. De test is de praktijk en deze maakt gelukkig korte metten met illusies, en zorgt ervoor dat mensen die betrouwbaar in elkaar zitten en actief genoeg zijn beschikken over gezond verstand.
De media gooit roet in het eten als het om de kwaliteit van onze overtuigingen gaat. We staan bloot aan allerlei fantasieen die zo worden weergegeven dat ze niet van de werkelijkheid zijn te onderscheiden. We worden on onze zoektocht naar waardevolle kennis steevast volgestouwd met informatie die alleen bedoeld is om ons bepaalde voor anderen winstgevende dingen te laten doen. Zelfs als onze kennis van hoge kwaliteit was (dwz niet in strijd met de praktijk) dan nog zijn er gebieden waar we weinig mee te maken hebben, bijvoorbeeld de risicos van opwarming van het klimaat.
Opwarming is permanent. De naald zal niet vanzelf terugveren.
Hoe verwerkt u de informatie dat “Een op de zes soorten bedreigt wordt door de opwarming van de aarde“. Afgezien dat het onzin is, klinkt een op de zes als een acceptabele schade. De melding lijkt te impliceren dat het daar bij blijft. In wezen in de boodschap “Het valt wel mee”. U weet niet dat visstanden soms met 90% zijn teruggelopen, dat miljoenen hectaren bos (niet eens tropisch) al is afgestorven, dat insecten, vogels, vissen, kleine zoogdieren overal onder druk staan, niet eens vanwege het klimaat, en dat er niet te vergeten honderd duizenden mensen per jaar overlijden aan het gebruik van fossiele brandstoffen, door astma, autobranden, kanker enz. enz.
Het proces lijkt meer op een lawine
Uw brein helpt echter ook een handje. Want wat het niet wil is een of ander bericht waar iets mee moet. U heeft uzelf geleerd om uw dagelijkse dingen te doen en als er iets tussen komt zal uw brein een reden verzinnen waarom dit of dat niet nodig is. Het zal zelf de gedachte creeren “Een op zes? So what?”. Daarbij wordt u nog gestuurd door uw positie tav het nieuws. U leest het of hoort het ergens. Gaat het u wel iets aan?
Opwarming van de aarde is op gegeven moment niet meer te stoppen. Dan treed een mechanisme in werking dat alles wat zuurstof ademt op de kleinste dieren na zal uitroeien.
Het genoemde artikel is overigens nog op andere manieren misleidend. Het zegt dat als we een opwarming van 4.3 graden krijgen we een op de zes plant- en diersoorten zullen verliezen. Dream on. Ten eerste blijft het niet bij 4.3, omdat 4,3 graden een situatie creert waarbij verdere stijging tot wel 12 graden onvermijdelijk wordt. De consequentie is dat niet 16% of 1/6e maar 90% van alle soorten, planten en dieren, zullen verdwijnen. En daar horen we zelf bij.
CO2 die we in de atmosfeer brengen is als inkt in een zwembad, je drupt het er makkelijk in, maar haalt het er alleen door elke druppel te zuiveren weer uit
U kunt zich veel verbazing en onverschilligheid besparen door dit feit in te nemen : Als we niet ons uiterste best doen om 1. Fossiel gebruik te stoppen. 2. Landbouw praktijken fossil vrij te maken 3. Planten en dieren in de rijkste varieteit en aantallen te laten groeien. 4. Verdere directe interventies te doen, zal de mensheid het niet redden.
U kunt beter niets lezen, maar alleen steeds opletten wat er om u heen gebeurt, en als u kans ziet om iets te doen dat onder de bovenstaande vier punten valt, dat te doen. Zo ontwikkeld u uw gezond verstand, en beschermt u uw gezondheid en dat van uw kinderen, zonder dat u pessimistisch of onverschillig hoeft te zijn.
People are struggling to understand the low prices of oil. Some say it is a result of competitive production, where OPEC doesn’t want to cut back because it thinks Russia will fill the gap. The US doesn’t want to cut back on its own tar sands (Ok, its in Canada, same difference) because it doesn’t want ever to be sensitive to Middle Eastern politics again. All are offering oil to the market, so the price is low?
The price of oil is low because there is more oil than money to buy it. This depends on the amount of oil as much as it depends on the amount of money.
No, that’s not the whole story. Because we buy oil with USD (primarily) and who makes them? The USA’s federal reserve, which is a private bank. This is important because if you are an arab with a ship full of crude oil and you have to hand that oil over for paper printed in the US, you may not want to do that. Although the US dollar is used in many regions to produce many interesting products, why would you need so many right now. Why sell oil for paper if you have a choice.
Actually Saudi arabia doesn’t seem to have a choice. It has to earn money because it is running out of USD. The country ships millions of barrels of oil to the world every day, and still it is running low. This is strange. It must have something to do with banks.
Banks determine oil prices by controling the amount of credit
Banks play a major role in the situation. If they increase the amount of money by providing credit for big projects, the demand for fossil fuels will go up (that money will be spend on fossil fuels in the proces of realizing the projects) and the price of oil goes up. In fact, banks only have to lend to speculators and the price of oil will go up. Banks print money, that is something everyone needs to fully appreciate, they can create it when they want it, although they prefer to do it with a good excuse, for instance an asset. But anything close to an excuse is usually enough, like a dot.com company or a portfolio of NINJA loans. What matters is if the creation of credit makes them more powerfull, or at least keeps them as powerfull as they already are.
If there is more credit, it will increase the number of people buying fossil fuels, which will increase the price of oil
It seems today, Saudi Arabia can’t raise the oil price to pay their costs, and it can also not tell those needing USD (banks with creditors) to go fuck themselves. The Saudi money reserves are depleted by Wallstreet obligations, possibly through the decades old mechamism described by the ‘economic hitman’, who explained the Wallstreet banks make Saudi Wealth (USD) disappear to keep them hungry for more, in return for oil.
Direct trade of oil in other currencies has been fought by the US in many instances, because it would reduce the total pool the US could freely make use of by printing dollars.
It seems there is a fight going on that the oil producers can’t win because they don’t control the currency their oil is traded in. They throw the barrels on the market, but unlike in the 50s and 70s (after they negotiated a pay rise) the response is not an economic ‘boom’ accompanied by more credit creation and subsequent higher prices. The banks are against, as is shown from dutch central bank director Knot who remarked that ECB quantitive easing programs where ‘unnecessary’. European QE is happening, so this fact doesn’t yell with the idea banks are against more credit, but off course they didn’t realize that Europe wants to do the same thing the US has been doing for a decade now : print money and buy oil. And it is after all a Coal and Steel uninion.
Putin has been making gas deals to make ends meet and expand his options to sell outside the influence of USD banks. Because those banks force him to squander his oil?
It seems that whatever the banks want, they are in charge, and all the countries that produce oil are either inclinde strategically to keep producing (US) or have to because of their financial engagements, with the same banking sector that is refusing to print more money to drive up demand and enable them to pay their bills.
On the other hand, nobody ever hears the whole story of oil production, it may well be that wells can’t slow down production for technical reasons. It may also be production is dropping along with credit.
This situation thus is either a recepy for war (f.i. between creditors of Russia and Russia) or for the economic enslavement of all oil producing countries that need dollars.
The upside of banks refusing to increase credit is that there are less CO2 emissions
It is so typical of banks controlling the game, that when things go wrong for Saudi Arabia, they don’t get into a fight with their bank, but with the creditor that thought it was investing dollars in Saudi Arabia. While all the while the dollars only had value because they bought oil from the same, Saudi Arabia or some other place. The banks thus play both sides, armed with a printing press and neat suits, hubris and complex instruments, and the oil producers (for now) are the sucker.
People are dying early because they have to breath car fumes. This is expecially the case in urban environments. Everyone living in a bussy city knows that the moment you step outside your door you will be deafened by carnoise, and within a few seconds you smell the half burned fossil fuels, see the smoke. Stop and go traffic is belching out clouds of soot from half heated badly tuned engines. Supply trucks are the worst.
Some morons even pride themselves in the soot comming out of their stacks..
In many countries mandatory car checks have been introduced to increase road safety. In Holland this is called the APK check. It means you your car brakes, lights and a number of other things have to work or it has to be kept off the roads. We think it would be a smart move to do the same for emissions. Since it is only a small portion of cars that are high pollutors, and probably and even smaller portion of that small group, that are the real culprits, it makes sense to introduce road side emission checks.
HC are hydrocarbons, or VOC, volatile organic compounds
The idea is not new, but it may be something one can put more emphasis and action to in the next few decades as the world is trying to rid itself of all internal combustion cars on the road in favour of battery electric vehicles. Recently the health issue has recieved more attention, also because higher average temperatures increase the damaging effect of some emissions, like ozone.
We don’t want people to drive cars that kill other people, no matter how slowly
Internal combustion cars are despreratly (for fucking crying out loud) inefficient. This situation is worsed by having to remove emissions, which costs energy as well. Electric cars using the same fuel to generate electricty and then use that electricity to drive their engines are already more efficient (so called hybrids if the generation happens inside the car). The top of the range is electric cars using solar/wind or other renewable electricity sources.
Iedereen weet intussen wat zonnepanelen zijn, hoe ze er uitzien en dat je nooit iemand hoort klagen over de installatie. de prijzen zijn intussen flink gedaald, wat nog zal doorzetten omdat de productie capaciteit groeit en er aan de EU heffingen wordt getoornd. Gemeenten zoals Arnhem hebben geen enkele reden meer om te aarzelen met het promoten en faciliteren van zonneinstallaties.
De zwarte panelen zijn esthetisch, de investering verdient zich al bijna in 6 jaar terug. Nederland loopt flink achter bij de ons omringende landen, voornamelijk vanwege de gasverslaafde partijen in de regering. Langzaam begint de weerstand daartegen toe te nemen. Nog even en nieuwbouw huizen met daken op het zuiden moeten verplicht panelen in plaats van pannen gebruiken.
In de motie hierboven wordt Het Rijnstate Ziekenhuis genoemd. Daar werden 600 zonnepanelen op het dak van Rijnstate Arnhem, in totaal ongeveer 3.000 m2. Ieder jaar wekt Rijnstate op deze manier ongeveer 148.500 kWh op. Ziekenhuizen hebben continu electriciteit nodig, ze zijn dus ook een prima kandidaat voor batterij opslag.
De getoonde Tesla Lithium Accu is groter dan hij hoeft te zijn voor de meeste huishoudens. Volgens sommige bronnen worden de systemen via een leas constructie geplaatst. Lithium accus zijn perfect te recyclen, dus ook al gaan ze niet eeuwig mee, waneer ze met hernieuwbare energie worden gerecycled kost dat bijna niks.
Lokale opslage wordt nu in Duitsland gestimuleerd, waarbij je wel moet kiezen, danwel je eigen stroom opslaan met subsidie, danwel deze terugleveren tegen een vergoeding. Deze regeling is voornamelijk getroffen omdat de kolencentrales de kosten van het in de winter produceren van stroom tegen terugleververgoeding (geld dat huiseigenaren in de zomer opbouwden) niet meer kunnen opbrengen.
Een regeling die energie opslag stimuleert moet echter levering naar het netwerk toestaan, zodat individuele opslag installaties een buffer kunnen zijn van stroom. Zo kan stroom die lokaal wordt geproduceerd lokaal worden benut. De energiemarkt is nog niet op deze fijnmazigheid voorbereid maar dat zal dan vanzelf komen. Gemeenten kunnen op dit gebied koploper zijn.
Elke gewonnen slag voor meer hernieuwbare energie betekend minder invloed van de fossiele infrastructuur. Dit zal op gegeven moment een totala omslag teweeg brengen, zodat fossiel echt wordt gezien als iets uit het stenen tijdperk. We kunnen niet wachten tot het zover is.
The tide is outgoing for climate deniers. Fossil industry lackeys are being called out left right and center. Renewables are clearly able to produce energy as reliably as coal, gas and nuclear. The sense that fossil and nuclear are part of a dangerous diversion is growing rapidly. Soon people not wanting aggressive climate action will be deemed fools or criminals.
Say : I will not object solar, wind, geothermal or wave renewable energy installations until jan first 2050, at which time my grievances will be heard and action will be taken if agreed by majority in the relevant governmental body.
In light of the growing understanding there is a real need to keep average temperatures below 2 degrees compared to the pre industrial era, and that expanding the renewable energy capacity is needed for this, and that wind energy is the cheapest form (although solar might trump at some point), it must be clear to anyone with a rational mind that we need to pull out all the stops, release all the brakes and keep no reserves when it comes to producing renewable energy sources. True clean energy (which excludes biomass, which hides a lot of ecological destruction), has to be unleashed. At least temporarily.
Wind, Solar, Geothermal and Wave energy need to be deployed at absolute maximum speed
The opposition to wind and solar and wave energy projects is partially driven by making people aware of their impact on the horizon. How it looks. Many people are preoccupied by this over any benefit in terms of wealth and health, let alone posterity. Wind turbines are deemed ugly and an eyesore. Even though this may be true, for all intends and purposes there is no time for this kind of wrangling.
Building ten Tesla equivalent Giga-battery-factories as soon as possible is part of this race
We think it would be good to declare a global moratorium on wind opposition, because Wind is the main recipient of public opposition. The moratorium will be temporary, until about 2050, at which point it will be possible to determine the outcome of climate change for humanity. At that date we are either completely screwed or on our way to recovery.
People have put up with a lot of uglyness in the name of industrial progress, look at Bejijng even today. Make no mistake, renewable energy will bring about a revolution also because it is thousands of times more abundant, and the methods of harvesting will soon be zero cost to manufacture. This is a change for good even if millions of Koch Brother funds (now $1 billion for the next precidential candidate) lie about it. We need to take a bullet for the next generation, like the soldiers in WO I and WO II, only this time it amounts to ‘not complaining’.
That is not to say wind turbines have to be placed and accepted everywhere, it is to say that we need to keep their deployment at maximum capacity for the next 25 years. If it is in eyesight of where you live, accept it. Look the other way. It is the decent thing to do.
We think energy that is produced by a wind or solar farm should primarly serve the local population. So agressive and destructive colonialization as we see from many fossil fuel driven corporate business models are certainly undesirable. But considere that even if you don’t get money for the solar or wind capacity, the prices of things you buy will drop because the solar and wind farms will offer cheaper energy. Your health will improve, your streets and cities will be cleaner and more quiet. It has many benefits. To shut up about any estethical shortcommings is not a sacrifice. There is enough land and sea to place enough renewables to replace fossil fuels 2000 + times over. So you are likely to be spared any inconvenience, but stop any objection until 2050.
Floating solar panels offer new options to increase renewable capacity. We propose Holland starts a project to build a large array in the Markermeer, which is part of the original Zuiderzee (before the ‘Afsluitdijk’, connected to the North Sea) and IJsselmeer (current situation, a sweet water lake). The Markermeer is used for recreational sailing, and may one day be claimed as land, but that does not prohibit it’s use for solar electricity generation (when the lake dries up the pontoons simply land on the ground). It has 700 square kilometers, and above you can see what area 100 square kilometers would cover.
Old map showing the early Zuiderzee, from which much land was claimed
Floating pontoons with panels on top have several advantageous over land based panels:
No land is needed (quick and cheap)
Panels shade the water, reducing evaporation
Panels cooled by the water have higher output.
Add to this easy maintenance, level construction, securing they system
Kyocera has a system that can support big solar installations on water, like it proves with the Nishihira Pond and Higashihira Pond in Kato City
Other systems are possible as well, as the Markermeer is only 5 meters deep, so poles of 12 meter deep in the clay underneath could be the basis of almost standard rows of panels. There are other floating solar systems, for example of the dutch company Van der Valk Solar.
When we consider the Kyocera system we can calculate that it allows about 108 Wp to be installed per m2 of water. This means that on 10 by 10 km water, one can install 10.801.880.798 Wp, more than 10 billion Wp. This amount of solar panel would generate 9181 MWh (9 GWh) per year. This is equivalent to about 16 500 MW powerplants. Holland has about 40 powerplants of varying capacity. Two 520 MW plants on the Maasvlakte are about the biggest. Some stand idle even though they are brand new. Solar Pensions As the pension system heavily depends on the availibility of productive capacity when people recieve it (imagine you get a 1000 Euro or Dollar but there is no fossil or other energy to farm or make products), and because fossil energy is quietly shown the exit, there needs to be a replacement energy source to produce all the things pensioners may want to buy in the future. The most efficient way to deal with this is to create the renewable energy capacity to produce all the things pensioners need, preferably by using the money people pay into their pensions.
Sadly Dutch Orange Solar’s Business strategy (according to the CEO) doesn’t include creating a mega project to secure its revenues for the next 10 years
A Markermeer Solar Array could be build over a decade, using only pension premiums, functioning as an investment object for pension funds. The money put in is returned about 2,5 times. Moreover, one could build a solar panel plant right next to the Markermeer to build the panels, which would create a lot of jobs. Further improvements to the design of the panels (no glass cover f.i.) could cut the cost of the installation per Wp. Climate goals would become easier to reach as well. Just like the dutch practically invented the pension system (Johan de Witt) they could invent the Solar Pension, not in the hand of speculators and fund directors, but in the hand of the dutch state, which knowing it has the solar GWhs to do whatever it pleases, can produce all it needs for its pensioners in the future circular economy.. Ocean Based Solar Even though wind is developing into an energy source easily deployed in even the most hostile oceanic environments, floating solar plants hold a similar promise to allow activities in places now considered remote and inpractical. We think we will see eco restorative installations in remote places like the middle of the atlantic at the equatorial lattitude, to increase ocean life thourgh artificial upwelling of deep water and dumping of CO2 to great depths (robo / extraeconomically). It now seems unfeasible economically, but this will become irrelevant when the cost of solar dips below zero. The potential to capture carbon is enormous, just like the above calculation of producing energy with an practivcally unused lake is pretty enormous.
We are seeing the shocking result of human trafficing in the Mediterranean. Hundreds of men, woman and children drown as they are shipped (sometimes locked up) on rickety boats from Lybia. Italy, being easiest to reach, has the burden of rescuing these people, and the honour of treating them humanely, and letting many of them in to Europe.
The debate seems to center around how we should stop this stream of immigrants, with more patrolling, harsher treatment of traffickers. Wheter we should distribute those that arrive alive over the whole territory of Europe. There are two solutions that nobody is talking about: 1. Send the people back, drop them on the Lybian shore and 2. Make it easier for them to stop migrating by supporting ways to live along the route.
Lybia keeps immigrants in prison. The situation there is horrible, barely water, sanitation and food. So sending them back should probably be done with some plan to improve those conditions in mind.
But looking at the routes, it’s hard to understand why Nigeria would be a source of refugees because of it’s wealth of oil. Apparently this oil is not used to stabilize its society (maybe a lot to ask as they just recently had real elections). Is Boko Haram chasing people towards Europe? Of course violence and human rights abuses justifies people fleeing, but how far should they have to go?
In general we would assume that if there is local opportunity for employment and a normal life, people would not try to reach Europe (at least not uneducated women with children). Between The main sources of refugees and Europe there are regions in which could be temporary or permanent homes with some help. The closer to the problem zones they can stay, the more likely they will eventually return home.
We are probably underestimating the savagery in some parts of Africa, but there are large parts where there is not much fighting (probably the most resource poor). How hard is it to establish safe zones on de Mediterranean coast? Are warlods in Lybia involved in the trade? Anyway the absolute number of refugees is not that big (not like in refugee camps elsewhere in Africa). Anything would be better than seeing people drown.
Africa needs help, not only against war and violence, but also to cope with climate change. Luckily, with some sensibile interventions it is possible to improve the outcome, in the video above farmers in Mali talk about how simple ‘contour trenching’, or digging ditches perpendicular to the direction of rain water floods, increased the millet yield threefold. That means the land can now carry three times the people! Peter Westerveld pioneered this approach which also includes creation of microclimates and rain/cloud ‘conveyor belts’. He observed that trees create clouds, clouds create rain and so planting trees or simply enabling them to grow through contour trenching can carry water (by cloud) to dry areas, and keep it circulating in the topsoil and atmosphere. The greening effect of this attracts all kinds of life. Simple ditches can thus revive a whole landscape.
Climate change will cause drought in large parts of Africa. The World Bank predicted this and suggested poor farmers would buy ‘rain index futures’. But you can’t insure against continuous drought, and if people run away from the places that climate change makes uninhabitable the process of desertification won’t stop. It is necessary to fight the degradation and drive a change in Africa that makes it a more hospitable continent. This may in turn stem the refugee streams. It may take time, but the only option is to improve things, not run away from them.
Perhaps the approach to providing better food security can be done by Extraeconomic principles. When western companies come in with trucks to build shelters and and poor concrete and such. They may on the one hand just subsidize European companies, and on the other make climate change worse. This is the trouble with any free market economy approach to climate change : Its like trying to put out a fire with gasoline (literally).
You can optimize the cost of renewables to zero
A much better approach is to start with a zone, either inhabited or not, and try to make it an autonomous self sustaining territory. One that doesn’t need to import or export to keep its population alive. This is what we call an Extraeconomic zone.
Fossil fuels used for the harvesting of natural resources is like fuel in a lawnmower, and as long as the fuel doesn’t run out, the lawnmower doesn’t stop
The difference of an extraeconomic zone compared to an economic zone is that there is nobody trying to grab its assets or resources to sell on the global market. There is no banks offering fossil fuel credit seeking interest and contact with the global market is restricted, the bulk of what is produced is not for sale. Its a bit like a plantation, but one for Mother Earth. Even though the people in it may earn a regular wage, the zone as such does not serve the global economy, it only serves the purpose of restoring the atmospheric CO2 balance.
Growing trees for the sake of capturing carbon means you can’t sell them for wood
Examples are large tree plantations that don’t sell the trees, but turn them into charcoal for dumping into the ground (reverse coal mines). Agriculture without fossil fuel fertilizer, aiming to increase soil carbon as wel as growing harvests of CO2 capturing crops, meanwhile sustaining the population in the zone. Creating wealth and biodiversity abundance without the intent to slaughter and sell, only to sustain more life.
You can’t use fossil fuels to restore the climate
It may sound like hippy talk, but it will be necessary, and even desirable. Right now the move towards local autonomy is gaining traction in every corner of the planet. In germany people are subsidized to generate their own solar electricity, store it in their own Lithium batteries for use in the evening, then of course they can (eventually) sell it locally to the water company, or to local restaurants and factories, in effect reducing dependence of activities on more distant sources including the world economy. Renewables being distributed by nature will turn the world in a patchwork of autonomous (but connected) communities.
Dutch Rainmaker Windturbines can provide water where there’s none right now, allowing food to be grown and villages to develop
A special aspect of extraeconomics is that it works any place where there is renewable energy potential (technically anywhere on Earth). Once you have energy you can use it to turn the driest desert into an oasis. This turns the classic idea of economics on its head, which looks for economic factors or locations. This is because fossil fuels are scarce and you have to optimize. With renewables that may still be the case, but rest assured, they won’t stay scarce.
Extraeconomics : Investing money to create a self sustaining community that doesn’t create a return, but only serves the abundance and health of life on Earth
If you apply energy to any place on Earth you can let people live there. A good example (using fossil fuels) is Dubai isn’t supported by its natural surroundings, it was created and is on 24/7 fossil fuel life support. Dubai is just an extreme example, but the world economy as a whole (with its senseless logistics f.i.) is similary on a permanent fossil fuel high.
Fossil fuels being scarce have to be distributed through principles of competition. This means a region that wants it has to sell something to earn the money to buy the fuels (or have the biggest army and a printing press like the USA). Consequence is that only areas where the world economy can extract some resource recieve credit and fuel, the rest has to either scrape by or elect a government that sells their natural/mineral resources. Renewables don’t create these dynamics. They allow for many independent ‘extraeconomic’ zones.
Extraeconomic zones could be designed, created and protected under protection of an alliance of countries like the UN
Extraeconomics says : How can people live here, take care of themselves and restore the environment without help over long periods of time. They can be situated within normal economic regions, or be created in places nobody is interested in, even at sea. This thinking takes a new look at our planet and sees plenty of options to fix global warming and perhaps provide shelter for refugees..
De overgang naar electrisch is een langzaam proces, er wordt verwacht dat het wagenpark langzaam wordt vernieuwd (duurt 20-30 jaar). Conversie van bestaande auto’s (zogenaamde aftermarket benadering) staat nog op niemands radar. Een enkele hobbyist stelt een kit samen maar that’s it.
Toch is het goed dat er modellen op de markt komen die zinvol dienst kunnen doen, zeker in het segment van het kleine busje. Daar rijden er zoveel van rond die ons dagelijks roet en chemische middelen cadeau doen (ten koste van onze levensduur) dat menige stad er over denkt om ze volledig uit de drukke delen van de stad te verbannen. Vracht leverancies dan maar met een locale electrische bus, of met de electrische boot, zoals in Utrecht.
Op de AutoRai is momenteel een bus van Nissan te zien, de E-NV 200. Als niet auto expert maar zeer fanatiek roethater hebben we het apparaat kunnen bewonderen. Zeer voor de hand liggend eigenlijk, een motor voor, accus als bodemdeel. Verder niet geoptimaliseerd. De range 170 km met een lading van 500 kg. Dat is toch een nuttige afstand, zeker als je op je bestemming kunt opladen terwijl je bijvoorbeeld een keuken installeert.
Die 500 kg is de belading waarbij de range is bepaald. Het kunnen ook zeven passagiers zijn. Met dit soort busjes weet je in ieder geval waar je aan toe bent in vergelijking met de hybrides, waarvan de specs nog aleens optimistisch kunnen zijn.
Busjes zijn uitermate geschikt om electrisch te zijn en bestaan ook al jaren in die vorm. Het hoeft er niet strak en aerodynamsch uit te zien en het chassis is toch al gemaakt voor gewicht dus die accus kunnen er wel bij. Met het toenemen van de range (toch wel 30% te verwachten in de komende 5 jaar) en het lichtere onderhoud (geen olie, motor, pakkingen etc.) zou het voor veel bedrijven nu al een winner kunnen zijn.