To our Podcasts

Preventing Future Renewable Energy Contraction

The world is turning towards wind and solar, the trend is unstoppable. Oil companies are increasingly profiling themselves as the indifferent egobastions they are. Ben van Beurden bragging he has a fuel guzzling Mercedes and triggering the interviewer to rephrase his words as “Stop me or I’ll kill again” on the Guardian. Even if the COP21 is bought by Shell, it is clear the brakes will come off soon.

But the revolution has a problem : It is fossil fuel powered. Production of solar panels, the whole chain is largely dependent on coal, oil and gas, even if the cost in terms of these fuels is dropping, this is a major achilles heel.

Another problem that will be amplified by the first problem is that even though solar panels last a long time, they need to be replaced after about 30-40 years if they aren’t destroyed or removed earlier. Some companies are just waiting to schred those panels.

All the current solar panels, or most of them will need to be replaced, and to do that the world needs energy, and as first generation panels are replaced the ability to grow solar capacity will be deminished. What is more importantly, this will likely happen in a world in trouble, a world in which carbon is heavily taxed or even unavailable. This is going to be difficult unless the right strategy is chosen.


refining silicon with solar thermal energy

We don’t know yet if new technologies will be (or have been) developed that trump the efficiency if silicon PV panels, or that CSP (concentrated solar power) will be implemented (as is possible) in the way it can power f.i. the US 6 times over, without using any currently used land. What is certain is that if there isn’t a method to produce renewable energy sources resilient to the circumstances in 2040, we are in deep trouble.

Luckily it is possible to develop these methods, one example is to use solar thermal energy to refine silicon in to solar grade material. Of course the way to cut sicilcon wafers is being innovated so even if energy is spend on refining it, the energy per wafer is less because the wafer is thinner. If processes don’t become more efficient, they may simply be powerde by renewables.

The effect of using renewables to make renewables is that it lowers their cost

Aluminium smelting for frames is also rapidly turning to renewables, in Iceland it’s geothermal, and at a dutch plant the energy source of choice is cheap wind and solar from Germany. Still it requires a deliberate strategy to transform the complete production chain of solar panels and wind turbines into ones only supported by renewables (not even for its lubricants, coatings or plastics).

The truth is that the fight is never over. The fossil industry is driving misguided pessimism regarding renewables, apathism regarding our fossil fuel dependence. Ben van Beurden of Shell does this openly and with a sense of arrogance, becuase he feels himself privy to unique knowledge of the problems we’d face if we suddenly shut down oil. Because of that possible shock he doesn’t take anyone serious who even contemplates an exit.

As renewable energy systems come offline the cost of replacement if it requires fossil fuels will be high. To prevent the situation that renewable installations are not replaced or even maintained we need to build the infrastructure to do so without fossil fuels.

We already noted that using fossil fuels is a limit to growth, but if we don’t make renewables independent of them the availability of fossil fuels will keep determining the volume of renewables, and will ultimately choke it as people choose short term fossil energy to survive in a hostile world. The fossil exit is not achieved by buying solar panels or wind turbines, but by making them without needing fossil fuels.

 

 

   To our Podcasts

Economism from Japan to Norway

Japan has shown interest in importing norwegian wind energy. The idea is to use the wind energy to convert water into H2 (hydrogen) and transport that under pressure to Japan to be use in fuel cells and powerplants.

This is a perfect example of economism, it serves multiple parts of the economic matrix, even if it is a uniquely dumb idea. The parts are as follows :

  • It requires the use of a banking system for international transactions
  • It makes japanese people dependent on income to purchase energy
  • It can outcompete local energy solutions in Japan because logistics will be free (based on hydrogen), driving Japanese dependence.
  • It will waste wind energy slowing down the rise of Wind energy
  • It will justify the development of a Hydrogen infrastructure in Japan
  • It will justify gas based hydrogen production as norwegian hydrogen production is ramped up
  • It will use gas logistics that already exists, with some changes
  • It will slow down Japans own offshore energy projects.
  • It will keep Europe dependent on fossil energy longer

This sickening list is one of typical economic arguments, the utilization of fossil resources to secure the utilization of fossil resources as long as possible, even if it means doing something rediculously wastefull. Why? Because the world is supposed to shift to gas, and hydrogen is a fuel that can either be made with electricity and with gas.

Power 2 gas is one of the technologies that will allow the continued utilization of existing gas infrastructure. It means splitting water and CO2 and combining them into methane. This however is an energy intensive proces, not all that efficient. Power 2 hydrogen is half of that process. Hydrogen needs to be compressed into a liquid which also takes a lot of energy. Shipping the hydrogen will use up a lot of energy as well. When hydrogen is burned or used in a fuel cell it can only convert it’s energy to electricity with an efficiency of 50%. The total turbine to japanese hydrogen car or household efficiency of this approach is thus very low (in the 15%?).

Some country in the Middle East will be offering to ship gas based hydrogen to Japan, stranding power to gas and driving hydrogen utilization in Europe, further delaying electric mobility

One can see that the banking system however would be all over this project, because it takes a hell of a lot of money to get going, it will create money streams from Japan to Norway, it will require a lot of financing but most importantly it will give control over japanese energy access to the international hydrogen market (which no doubt will be created).

All this sounds like music in the ears of an economist, a banker, a fossil fuel producer. It sounds like disgusting nonsense in the ears of anyone that takes climate change seriously.

A serious effect of the shift to renewables is that countries no longer have to trade if they choose not to. The type of energy is land bound, so it is about evenly distributed across the globe, not concentrated in a few locations like the Middle East or Canada or the Arctic. It therefore spreads power more equally across the globe and reduces the incentive to cooperate. Economist see this as a threat to their philosophy, and they are very pessimistic about peace in a post fossil reigned world. They don’t sell the idea that there will be more energy to share (about 2500 times more) with solar than there is today with fossil fuel, they don’t want to believe it, even if it is true.

We need a clean break with economic thinking

Instead of screwing about to secure economism we need to use the remaining fossil fuels to build as much renewable energy sources as quickly as possible, and if we are going to use the existing infrastructure in a transitional period then not to secure banking control over currency streams, but simply because it is the most efficient way to get to where we need to be. We’re in Appollo 13 and the clock is ticking.

 

 

   To our Podcasts

Solar Bike Revolution!

It’s a fun phenomon, an electric bike that charges itself. Because bikes are light this can actually result in constant mobility, as a bike is parked for longer than it is being used. Just a collection of examples for inspiration:






   To our Podcasts

The Divestment Illusion, or What about a Fossil Poaching HedgeFund

Divestment from fossil fuels, coal, shell etc. is experiencing more interest and is driving more and more initiatives. It seems to make sense, you divest from shares of Shell, this means the stock price drops, operation of Shell becomes less liquid and so it’s exploration will slow down. Maybe it even has to shut down parts of it alltogether.

These people could have other less destructive jobs

The approach is to be supported primarily because it sends a signal about the companies invloved, they are not to be respected, the need to shut down, and a public divestment campaign will make the public aware and possibly share the sentiment. To actually shut them down such actions have little effect. If there are no high profile investors, there will always be invisible, anonymous investors, why? Because most oil/gas/coal companies support the existence of the wider economy.

Thinking of oil/coal and gas companies like Shell, BP, Exxon as profit making businesses is common, but does not allow us to understand them completely. The money an oil company gets for one barrel of oil does not depend on the effort it took to produce it. We can clearly see that because the price rises and falls. It can depend on that, but only once producing oil has become very hard, and then the price still can’t explode, instead some will no longer be asked/have access to buy it.

neat people at the ‘helm’

The price of oil/coal and gas is for the most part a function of its importance in the wider economy. It is hard to explain this clearly because most people can’t think of the economy in terms of material flows, so oil, wood, steel, gas, soj etc. They think in terms of money flow, which says nothing about the amount and location of any resource. We will work on a story that immediatly shows how weak most people’s understanding is, or how paradoxical our economy.

We can say : As long as people use oil (or any other fossil fuel), it will be offered, and as long as it is offered and used, it will be affordable at least to some. To offer oil you need oil, not money. You can buy steel with oil, you can trade steel for cash, you can get food for cash, you can run your drill with oil, you can run your rig with oil, you can get planes in return for kerosine, you can fly them with oil etc. etc. An oil company does NOT need money. This is the most important thing to understand. As long as Shell has oil reserves it can direct itself (and for that it also gets a lot of subsidies, so they are liquid), it is independent and can do what it wants.

This is the reason why divestment doesn’t work. Investment also doesn’t work. Shell and most oil, coal and gas companies that have their own reserves are independent of whatever happens in the financial markets. What they operate on is their OWN preference for certain countries and communities, as well as the ability of these countries to protect their interests. Shell has been shown to pick and choose members of government so that its interests be served, and once enough members of government are pro-shell, which is also pro-economics it becomes impossible to repopulate it with people that think about alternatives to oil/coal and gas, at least in the ruling parties.

So divestment doesn’t work. Oil/gas and coal companies may act as if it does work just to make sure we keep believing in it. But what does work?

We would say poaching. Poaching is the buying out of key employees from a business, usually to staff the competition. Head hunters do it, big IT firms like Apple and Google have (illegal) anti-poaching agreements. Poaching is effective because it means you don’t have the right guy/gall with the right expertise to do the job. You can build an oil rig, but you have to move it to the right place and drilling for oil/gas is not easy, it requires smart allert intelligent people. It also requires a lot of easy going, strong loyal workers.

The word loyal defines a company like Shell. Shell workers are loyal, they are perhaps selected exactly on that trait, why? Because it is not enough to work for any company, they need to work for Shell. To support that Shell gives a lot back, it also gives Shell white collar workers the high life as an expat. Banks do that too. It is all to protect themselves from people moving out of the industry, it also helps companies like Shell to be protected by an aura of neatness, kind politeness, the style and culture of the visible part of their workforce. That is perhaps the hardest Shell to break through : A neat, kind, well to do person is almost automatically respected. How can you say something bad about a company of neat people?

Another way to capture workers is the prospect of a carreer. The first carreer humans where offered in the west was to go to heaven, and this has proved to be extremely effective in getting them to work hard and be decent. In companies a carreer means workers invest efforts in to some goal they can attain, and this not wanting to lose what they invested locks them into their path as well. The white collar workers in Shell are selected for sensitivity to status, cars, big houses, wanting a life. (Blue collar workers practically have no life).

But back to poaching. A lot of work done in the oil/gas/coal industry has similar cousins in the renewables sector. Wind turbines require off shore expertise, steel work, heavy logistics. One could imagine to poach welders towards the Wind offshore sector. The only thing needed is a slight pay rise. The wind sector is growing at breakneck speed so the demand for welders is growing. Get them where it hurts the competition! Mining coal is harder to shut down by buying out the workers, and there are always other workers to take the place of the people you buy out, but higher up in the operational food chain there may be opportunities. Coal is sensitive to competition from gas, nuclear, oil, and biomass producers, who are eager to pounce on it because its fuel has the highest carbon content (all others also contain hydrogen).

For sure oil drill workers and gas installation workers can be bought out and this will impede those type of operations. It means for instance a person able to run a drilling operation will be offered a guaranteed income for x years if he leaves the industry. If he finds a job elsewhere he will get extra money so his income is as promised.

Poaching can kill an operation in its tracks, it is much more efficient that divesting, which is like leaving a restaurant on a bussy street. It’s not a nice guesture, but there will be other clients. Buying out the cook of a top restaurant can make it shut its doors for good.

So if you divest from coal/gas/oil, then invest in offshore wind, solar organic farming, so when your funds are used to buy fossil fuels, it is at least to build or manage a green operation. If you for instance invest in a building company you will cause massive emissions from concrete pouring, heavy logistics, shipping etc. If you invest in a chemical company you may be responsible for the use of oil to make plastics or pesticides that never break down once they end up in nature.

Perhaps a fund that poaches (re-employs) workers from the coal/gas/oil/nuclear sectors and shorts the stocks is a succes formula : On the one hand you can send a press release “Essential Shell engineer resigns, halting arctic drilling” on the other hand you can cash in on the slide in Shell shares as that news hits the markets ;-)

P.S. Another thing that will work is to not let the neat people think they are neat. The problem is really that if an elite that can separate themselves from the wider society is in charge, the rest of society can live in a tarred wasteland, these people won’t notice because they are only interested in their own lives. So no compounds, no enclaves, so these people who are selected for their singular self interest (and interest in their family) are exposed to the damage they do.

 

 

 

   To our Podcasts

All Electric Car Roundup

Below a list of all currently available electric cars. So called Battery Electric Vehicles or BEV. Click the links to get more info on them. If we are missing one please let us know here.

  1. BYD e6
  2. BMW i3
  3. BMW Brilliance Zinoro E1
  4. Bolloré Bluecar
  5. Buddy
  6. Cherry EQ
  7. Chevy Spark EV
  8. Cheverolet Bolt
  9. Fiat 500e
  10. Focus Electric
  11. JAC iREV
  12. Kia Soul
  13. Mercedes B-Class Electric Drive
  14. Mitsubishi i
  15. Nissan Leaf
  16. Nissan Venucia E30
  17. Renault Twizzy
  18. Renault Fluence
  19. SIAC Roewe E50
  20. Rimac Concept One
  21. Smart Electric Drive
  22. Tesla Roadster
  23. Tesla S
  24. Tesla X
  25. Tazzari Zero
  26. Volkswagen e-Golf
  27. Volkswagen e-Up

 

   To our Podcasts

Rossi’s E-Cat Cold Fusion Seems to be Real

 

Update : Another independent verification “E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours”

Update : Cold fusion test going well. But Rossi’s technology is locked up in the US.

 “the 400-day, 24/7, acceptance test of the one megawatt reactor is going well after several months”

Update : An attempt to replicate the e-cat ended explosively.Watch the point it explodes here. Not clear if this is due to the fusion reaction..more about this group

Update: Cold fusion is real, claim scientists

“It is just a matter four or five years for energy sources based on cold fusion to be commercially available.”

Update: Skunk Works, a research lab of Lockheed Martin, is working on a small fusion reactor that would fit in the back of a truck. However, the approach is not really new so it experts are not sure why it is persued.

Update : Bill Gates is looking into Palladium based fusion technology, also from Italy. The term for this type of fusion is Low Energy Nuclear Reactor. The key remains that the energy per mass of fuel is huge.

A couple of years ago an italian researcher Rossi claimed to have build a nickel/hydrogen fusion reactor. He demonstrated it in his lab and was working on building an actual powerplant in Greece. Then things died down. His claims where refuted mainly because there was no (accepted) explanation for them. His reactor seemed to produce more heat than it should, but nobody could explain why.

The reactor gets hotter than it should..

Now a number of researchers have tested his E-cat reactor for 32 days, analized the Nickel fuel and conclude that it works. ”The researchers, analyzing the fuel before and after the 32-day burn, note that there is an isotope shift from a “natural” mix of Nickel-58/Nickel-60 to almost entirely Nickel-62 — a reaction that, the researchers say, cannot occur without nuclear reactions (i.e. fusion).” (source)

The reactor emits no radiation and produces no radioactive waste (except Nickel-62, a very stable isotope). It can be used to generate heat and electricity witout emitting CO2, NOx or other pollutants (of course the Nickel has to be mined and processed). It is interesting to learn how clean the energy is when all steps necessary for it are considered.

The research paper

More info at e-cat World

Patent

Swedish paper

Update : Rossi believes the energy is due to a shift in isotope composition, So not fusion as in adding protons .

 

   To our Podcasts

Climate Rage, Wait for It

A scene out of Soylent Green, which mentions the “Greenhouse effect, a heatwave all year long”

Can rising temperatures and excessive heat cause more anger, rage, and crime. Yes it can. A recent study in Nature shows this is the case, in fact, heat, cold and drought seem to have shaped history to a large extent.

 if one U.S. county is three degrees Celsius warmer for three months or one African country is 0.6 degree C warmer for a year, statistics reveal an uptick in crime, violence and revolutionary fervor.

When survival is at stake, either because fossil fuels are scarce or climate change is undermining the food supply, people get more agressive. The recent revolution in Egypt for instance was triggered by higher fuel prices.

Brain temperature, which is affected by ambient temperature, does seem to be associated with aggressive mood states and aggressive behavior.

Domestic violence also correlates with temperatures, “domestic violence usually reaches its peak during the summer months“.

“A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychologyfound that aggression and violence seem to peak in hot weather.”

Heat rage during heat waves is evident.  ”Dehydration affects the brain and disrupts our sleep, both of which darken our mood.”

   To our Podcasts

Relative impact of ETS on the fossil fuel mix

The ETS or Emissions Trading System in Europe is disfunctional. This is because way to much emission rights are granted, and will remain in circulation until at least 2020. The dutch government released an analysis that concluded that ETS was useless, and advised one would think of a better use for it (for instance job security for ETS consultants).

But lets say one has to pay for CO2, what is the consequence of this for industry using fossil fuels. Energy in fossil fuels is not equal per mass of the materials. The reason is that as coal burns, what burns is carbon, but as gas burns, what burns is carbon and hydrogen. Oil similarly has a mix of C (Carbon) and H (Hydrogen) atoms in its molecules.

  • Natural gas is primarily Methan, or CH4, it has one carbon and four hydrogen
  • Coal is primarly Carbon (with pollutants like sulfer) so it has one Carbon atom.
  • Oil consists of various length molecules of Carbon and Hydrogen. Crude based fuels are sorted by molecular length, and also processed to break down the molecules to shorter strings.

The CO2 per BTU (Britisch Thermal Unit) tells us what the CO2 pollution and thus the ETS burden of each fuel will be when used for the same amount of heating.

Fuel CO2/BTU
Coal 214.3
Diesel 161.3
Natural Gas 117.0

So natural gas causes the least CO2 emissions, and certainly more H2O emission than coal, H2O, water that will end up as rain, raising the ocean’s levels (apart from heating expansion and melting ice). One could determine of for reasons of sea level rise Coal would be the preferred fuel! Of course none of these fossil fuel types need to be used.

In any case natural gas is favoured by the ETS system. Not only is it a fuel that could become abundant (due to geocidal amitions of companies such as Shell), but it is also one that is taxed less if the ETS systems ever got any teeth. They don’t have ‘em so that’s why we have new coal power plants f.i. in Holland.

   To our Podcasts

De paradox van het fossiele pensioen, of waarom het ABP niet kan Desinvesteren

Grote kans dat elke maand een deel van uw inkomen naar uw pensioen gaat. Dit geld wordt voor u gespaard zodat u als u de pensioen gerechtigde leeftijd bereikt uw pensioen kunt ontvangen.

Geld dat wordt gespaard heeft geen betekenis. Geld is immers een ruilmiddel. Of er nu 1,- euro of 1.000.000,- euro op een bankrekening staat, het maakt niemand een klap uit als er niks mee wordt gedaan. Er hoeft geen product gemaakt te worden of dienst beschikbaar te zijn die met het geld gekocht moeten kunnen worden. Het begrijpen van de consequenties hiervan is even denken.

Geld dat stilstaat op een rekening heeft geen enkele betekenis. Als het er 100 jaar staat en je wil het uitgeven kan het wel waardeloos zijn geworden door bv. inflatie, of de muntsoort bestaat niet meer. Dit risico is duidelijk als je 100 jaar neemt, maar het geldt elke dag. Als je geld niet gebruikt is het niet duidelijk wat het waard is.

In plaats van sparen kun je ook beleggen. Dan geef je het geld aan een bedrijf in ruil voor een certificaat, een aandeel. Dit aandeel heeft geen vaste waarde want het wordt elk moment gekocht en verkocht. Daarmee wordt duidelijk zichtbaar dat de waarde van uw geld variabel is.

Een aandeel is een vorm van geld. En net als geld zoeven is de waarde van een aandeel pas duidelijk als het wordt verkocht. Men zou kunnen zeggen dat een aandeel eigendom geeft van een deel van een bedrijf, maar je zult dit als gewone aandeelhouder nooit kunnen doen gelden. Je hebt een aandeel in handen, een muntsoort, met variabele waarde tov de officiele muntsoorten. Net als met normaal geld hierboven is een aandeel dat niet wordt verhandeld van onzekere waarde. Het enige verschil is dat de prijs van een aandeel kan stijgen, en dat heet rendement, of het keert divident uit.

Rendement op een aandelen portfolio uit zich in een toenemende nominale waarde van de verzameling aandelen. Dit kan allerlei oorzaken hebben, bijvoorbeeld : de banken hebben meer geld in omloop gebracht, en dus is er meer geld dat het zelfde aantal aandelen probeert te kopen, en dus stijgt de prijs. Of : mensen geloven dat de prijzen gaan stijgen en zo stroom er meer geld richting de aandelen. Het omgekeerde kan ook.

Het rendement heeft geen enkele betekenis als de aandelen niet worden verkocht. Het is een geruststellend iets dat het getal steeds hoger wordt, maar in reele termen heeft het geen enkele impact. Stel een pensioenfonds heeft miljoenen aandelen met een gezamelijke waarde van 300 miljard Euro, dan heeft dit geen enkele betekenis. Waarom niet? Omdat je niet weet of als men die 300 miljard zou proberen te besteden, er producten en diensten ter waarde van 300 miljard te koop zouden zijn.

We gaan er van uit dat als we geld hebben, we dit kunnen besteden, maar dat is helemaal niet gezegd. Stel we wonen op een eiland met twee bakkers die voor 100 mensen elke dag 50 broden bakken voor 1 euro per stuk, als we dan op een dag met 5000 euro bij de bakker komen kunnen we geen 5000 broden kopen. Die zijn er niet, de grondstoffen zijn er misschien zelfs niet zoals eieren die door een paar kippen gelegd moeten worden.

In onze economie is een zeer strak spel bezig waarbij de beschikbare hulpbronnen worden geproduceerd, verwerkt en verkocht, meestal met fossiele brandstoffen, en meestal met exact de hoeveelheid brandstoffen die op elk moment beschikbaar zijn (anders zouden er reserves ontstaan). 300 miljard die opeens ook aanspraak gaat maken op de op dat moment geconsumeerde fossiele energie zal voor problemen zorgen.

Wat wel kan is deze 300 miljard in financiele instrumenten steken, andere aandelen etc. Waarom? Omdat die 1. Niks kosten om aan te maken en 2. Geen belasting zijn voor de bestaande hulpbronstromen en reserves. Zie daar waarom er een financiele sector bestaat : Geld onschadelijk maken. De financiele sector zal alles doen om geld te doen verdwijnen, vooral geld van burgers, beleggers, instituten die geen bank zijn. Een bank kan enorme geldreserves opbouwen, het zal deze nooit zo inzetten dat dit hulpbronconsumptie betekent. Dat is niet de functie van een bank of beleggings instituut. Een bank kan wel investeren maar moet dan goed opletten of de hulpbron balans in de markt niet wordt verstoord. Hiervoor zijn allerlei analyses mogelijk, risico, competitie (dwz je neemt de hulpbronnen die een ander graag had gebruikt).

Er is dus een deel van het bankwezen dat op allerlei manieren geld laat stromen in het bedrijfsleven waardoor weelde ontstaat, en er is een deel dat geld vasthoudt en zorgt dat het geen belasting is voor onze planeet. Als bank zijnde met de ontwikkelde complexiteit en de excuus mechanismen zoals risco analyses is precies sturen hoeveel geld er in feite besteed wordt een fluitje van een cent, en dat is nodig omdat de fossiele aanvoer kan varieren. Banken hebben dus de absolute leiding over het tempo van consumptie van met name de belangrijkste hulpbron fossiele energie.

Als een pensioenfonds in fossiele aandelen belegt met een zeker rendement dan geeft dat geen enkele zekerheid over de waarde van het pensioenfonds. Niet alleen kan de waarde van het aandeel in bv. Euro’s stijgen en dalen, maar de waarde van de Euro in termen van koopkracht kan ook stijgen of dalen. De waarde is onzeker, maar het belangrijkste is dat het geld niet wordt gebruikt. Het bestaat in feite niet.

Dit mechanisme van pensioenen was tot nu toe geen probleem omdat er altijd voldoende fossiele energie en hulpbronnen waren om wanneer het pensioen vrij kwam de koopkracht ervan waar te maken zonder prijsverstoringen. Dit heeft met de populatiegrootte vs de hulpbron voorraad te maken. Als de hulpbron voorraad niet te beheersen is dan de populatie wel, en misschien niet meteen met oorlog, maar met koopkracht. In Griekenland en Spanje, Portugal en Ierland hebben mensen een stuk minder te besteden gehad, en dus konden andere landen die hulpbronnen consumeren. Dit werd en wordt zichtbaar georganiseerd door de banken, ECB, IMF, consultancy firms die analyses maken etc.

Wat nou als een pensioenfonds met 300 miljard in kas besluit dit te gaan investeren in hernieuwbare energie ipv fossiele aandelen. Dit is een totaal ander verhaal. Stel er word 10 miljard geinvesteerd dwz er wordt voor dat bedrag windmolens en zonnepanelen geproduceerd. Dat betekent plotse fossiele consumptie, in de fabrieken, de aluminium smelterijen, logistieke keten, staalindustrie. Dat betekent een schok door het systeem. Prijzen zullen stijgen omdat het systeem er niet op is berekent dat iemand opeens zulke  bedragen uitgeeft. Dit kan alleen als er van tevoren is gekeken of het kan, dwz economen schetsen een beeld van “Er kan weer geinvesteerd worden”. Wanneer zeggen ze dat? Als ze een sloot olie op de markt zien verschijnen.

Afgezien van de schok die het plotseling opeisen van 300 miljard aan hulpbronnen zou betekenen zou de fossiele sector dit ook niet op prijs stellen. Hun brandstoffen zouden gebruikt worden om hen overbodig te maken. Dat zou ten kosten gaan van het aandeel, en hen in het spel dat gespeeld wordt ten gronde kunnen richten. Dan zou er GEEN brandstof beschikbaar zijn om ook maar iets te maken, vervoeren etc. Dan zou alles vastlopen en er net zoveel choas ontstaan als bij een totale financiele crach. Logisch, want geld zou niks meer waard zijn. Zo zijn fossiele energie en geld onlosmakelijk verstrengeld. Ik noem geld daarom ‘carboncredit’.

Dus het pensioenfonds zegt dat het zijn best doet, dat het probeert de CO2 uitstoot te verlagen. Dat het een microscopisch deel van het vermogen wil investeren in hernieuwbare energie. Het kan niet anders. Beleggen in fossiel is geen keuze, het is in een fossiele economie, rekenend op een fossiel pensioen, afgesproken werk. De fossiele sector zoekt zelf wel pensioenfondsbeheerders die dit zo houden.

Een echte exit richting hernieuwbaar is natuurlijk prima mogelijk. Het is zelfs zo dat met een klein deel van zo’n 300 miljard een productie keten van bv. windturbines kan worden gecreerd die niet afhankelijk is van fossiele hulpbronnen, en die dus ongehinderd capaciteit kan bijbouwen, energie capaciteit, die gepensioneerden warm, gevoed en van de gewenste weelde kan voorzien.

De fossiele sector zal er echter alles aan doen om dit te voorkomen. Mensen in die sector willen hun loopbaan behouden en daar voor vechten. Willen we wel naar hernieuwbaar dan zullen we moeten terugvechten. De partij die voor de burgers moet vechten is de regering, maar die regering is verstrengeld met het pensioenfonds. De regering laat zich zelfs door banken voorschrijven wat de regels voor pensioenfondsen moeten zijn, zodat deze een net eventueel plukbaar reservoir worden van ongebruikt geld.

Wil men iets aan deze situatie veranderen dan zijn de stappen 1. Vervang het bestuur van het pensioenfonds door mensen die hernieuwbaar rendement willen creeren. 2. Houdt de fossiele sector in de houdgreep zodat wordt meegewerkt. 3. Houdt de banken (en consultancy firms etc.) buiten de deur bij de beslisingen over het meest effectief besteden van het geld.  Dit alles zou onder een regering moeten gebeuren die niet is bevolkt door lakeien van de fossiele sector of mensen die dromen van een zacht baantje in die sector na hun ambtstermijn.

De materialisatie van bovenstaande stappen is in de huidige context lastig voor stellen. Voorlopig rest dus als enige optie dat mensen andere gelden richting hernieuwbare energie sturen, zodat er daar een machtsbasis ontstaat die tegen die van de fossiele sector op kan. Dat of een miraculeuze herbezinning onder de mensen uit de genoemde stappen.

Frits Rincker

   To our Podcasts

Vortex Wind Turbine, Why?

The Vortex wind energy generator is a spanish invention. It rocks back and forth in the wind, has no blades, less moving parts. It is presented as a viable alternative for horizontal axis bladed turbines. One has to wonder whether this is true.

Wind energy means capturing the energy of the wind, and this requires one to block its streaming where it is. A wind generator has to carve out a window in the wind that it can harvest energy from, the bigger the window, the more energy.

Normal horizontal axis bladed turbines carve out a circle. The size of the circle and the hight it is at determins the power. Vertical axis wind turbines usually carve out a rectangle, because they have vertical blades moving as the wall of a cilinder. Seen from the side this is a rectangle. They can be pretty efficient too.


Power per swept area

The Vortex will carve out a cone shape, from the base to the top the cone widens. If it doesn’t widen then the conical rod will still sweep a pizza slice in the sky. The size of the slice determines the energy harvested. The Vortex will have to deal with serious forces at its base. The bigger it gets the more force.


Other turbines swept areas

The way the power is generated, by moving back and forth, is also not optimal, because as the cone slows down against the magnetic baring (assumed) it will store the wind energy as elastic energy before it sweeps back. That energy conversion causes a loss. Only with the stiffest of conex/rods will this be as efficient as a spinning blade (vertical or horizontal) that never has to stop and reverse.