To our Podcasts

Follow-this, or misunderstanding Shell

The website is a very slick looking website that tries to convince people to buy shares in Shell in order to influence the policy of the company. It sounds great, for  34 Euro you can buy a share of Shell and maybe get heard at a shareholder meeting. You could do this on the stock exchange as well, although perhaps buying single shares is not possible there.

Even Shell CEO Ben van Beurden is referenced on the website quoted as saying (supposedly about the transition to renewable energy) :

“There is actually no problem that we cannot solve.”
“It is very important that we keep pace with the energy transition.”
“An organisation that has so many qualities, so much expertise, so much capital, has to be able to reinvent itself.”

(the link associated with the quotes is dead)

But anyone that knows Shell knows that the energy transiton is the one to gas, not to renewables. So these quotes don’t mean anything.

Shell does not want to transition away from fossil fuels, it works very hard every day on being a fossil fuel company

As far as we know one needs to have at least more than 50% of the shares in a company to wield any power, and that means, with about 3,894.500.000 shares outstanding that means one needs 1947250001 shares. The counter is now at 9380. Maybe you only need 20% of shares to get something to say, but then that is still  26.482.600.000 Euro.

But the people of Follow-this (why not call it smomething with shell in the name?) believe that when 10.000 shareholders are represented in their question for Shell to transition to sustainable energy in 2030, Shell will do that, because “Other shareholders won’t disagree with it”.

Meanwhile we read that Shell is accused of misleading shareholders about the risk of arctic drilling. The cost in case of an oil spill are astronomical. Shareholders think they should have been told about this risk. This is another way of dealing with Shell, which may be more powerfull because it can lead to large investors shorting the stock (offering it for sale) which may lead to an avelanche effect that can turn out profitable because the shorting investor can buy the stock he owes for a lower price than he/she payed to short. Hedgefunds do this all the time.

But just like a company can’t shift its core business (keep customers return for fuel they burn) into something totally different (renewables where it now hast to compete with an army of existing wind, solar etc. manufacturers), money and banking can’t do without fossil fuels. The whole idea of credit created (as it is today) out of thin air is that the recipient will use the credit to buy fuel, or buy products and services delivered by people who will use the credit to buy fuel. Credit = fossil fuel, we live in a carboncredit world economy.

It all works because the gas stations everywhere remain topped up, and that is a result of oil and gas flowing, and that can only happen if oil/gas and coal companies use every second to make that so. Investment banking, the stock markets will disappear when renewables dominate. Credit markets will shrink to zero. Everybody will own their own source of productive capacity : Solar, wind or other forms of renewable energy.

The work to be done is destorying the reputation of oil/gas/coal companies, attackin them on every front. The only acceptable life for them is in providing us with the energy to manufacture renewable energy sources, and that only until there is enough renewable energy to produce more solar panels, wind turbines etc. without the use of fossilfuels.


To our Podcasts

Earthquakes and Vulcano’s : The incredible risk created by Oil, Coal and Gas

We wrote about the risk of tectonic activity due to climate change (in dutch) in 2011. The idea was to imagine what the weight of the ice removed from the South pole means for the shape of the crust. We knew that rather than a billiart ball the earth is more like a water filled balloon. The crust is only 50 km thick and underneath is still 6000 km of molten lava. A real good visualization of earth is shown below, where a ball of water is manipulated in zero gravity.

Imagine it with a thin layer of something that can crack on the outside. Then you can see how tiny forces (relative to the mass of the water) can still change its shape. The forces the changes caused by climate change are causing are big enough to notice it. Greenland for instance is expected to rebound as much as a kilometer.

“And the greater weight of the water in the oceans where sea level has risen as ice melts can ‘bend’ the Earth’s crust.” 

We calculated the ice removed if the poles melt would be the size of a cube of 4 x 4 x 4 km with a weight of kg. That will trigger a reshaping of the crust for sure, causing Earthquakes and vulcanic activity as the weak points in the crust where lava wants to get out are broken by the movements.

In 2013 we posted about this vulcanic effect. Which was already mentioned in 2009 by the Guardian. Even earlier in 2007 there was a piece about this in on livescience.It was interesting to see that Scientific American had an article about in 2013 that made the eventuality ‘possible’ using the word ‘may’ which so often means we don’t pay attention.  It was actually super weak.

The study (in scientific american) doesn’t address whether modern-day climate change would have any impact on the frequency of volcanic eruptions, though in theory it’s possible, Jegen said. (bron)

 A case of ‘cast doubt to paralyze’ in a field far from most people’s attention. Although more recently earthquakes have been found to be caused by shale gas drilling, and this link is the cause of changes in dutch conventional gas extraction.

“Although they’ve described it in the past, nobody’s thought about it in terms of future effects of climate change,” said Bill McGuire of the University College London’s Hazard Research Center. in 2007.

Newsweek puts all doubt to rest with an article about the current Earthquakes that devestated Nepal and killed Everest climbers. Let the idea of Mount Everest shaking sink in for moment. The warnings of 2007 are now brought out in clear language :

“Climate change may play a critical role in triggering certain faults in certain places where they could kill a hell of a lot of people,”

Dr Pierre Bettinelli was the scientist who in 2007 first showed how this vast flush of rainwater, second only to that of the Amazon basin, affects earthquakes in the Himalayas. Nice.

All these vulcanos and earthquakes happen because we use fossil fuels, which causes climate change

A clear example how the Vulcano-climate relationship works is given here

“There’s a volcano in Alaska, Pavlov, that only erupts during the autumn and winter. The 10cm or 15cm rise in sea level during the winter months, when low pressure comes over, is enough to bend the crust and squeeze magma out. That’s an example of how tiny a change you need,” 

This doesn’t bode well for may sensitive vaults like the Andreas Faultline and the Yellowstone Caldera. Even if they where going to crack and blow at some point because of build up pressure, now we have another factor disturbing the peace in our earths crust : Fossil fuel use.

The production and sale of oil, coal and gas is a crime against humanity

So there is yet again a way in which fossulfuel, burned because it is extracted by oil/gas/coal companies and distributed by the economic system, can kill a sizable portion of humanity. Or, if we keep letting shell, BP, Rosneft etc. do whatever it wants, do we have to say “Will kill a sizable portion of humanity” if not all of it, as our climate runs away as it did before the so called Great Dying.

To our Podcasts

Powerwall vs UPS, the other commonly used grid storage device

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.

To our Podcasts

Toyota, Still Bullshit

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 :

CH4 + H2O ⇌ CO + 3 H2


CO + H2O ⇌ CO2 + H2

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.

To our Podcasts

De “Het valt wel mee” delusie

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.

Zie ook de “No Way Out Propaganda”

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.

Andere wetenschappers (aan het MIT in Boston) verwachten dat door het gebruik van fossiele gifstoffen in de intensieve landbouw, over 10 jaar 50% van alle kinderen autistisch zal zijn. Dit probleem kunt u ook aanpakken via de bovenstaande doelen

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.



To our Podcasts

Its a Bankers Planet

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 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.


To our Podcasts

Roadside Emissions Checks

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..

New research concludes it is 25% of the cars that cause 90% of the pollution. Ideally you’d have CO2, NOx and H2O (from cars running on pure fuels without added chemicals). NOx is unavoidable but can be removed with an ammonia Bleutech ‘afterburner’  as happens in some Mercedes cars. But there is always some VOC, meaning unburned fuels, and soot, also meaning unburned fuel as well.

An emission control system

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.

To our Podcasts

Steeds sterker lawine effect zonnepanelen

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.

To our Podcasts

A Moratorium on Renewables Opposition

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.






To our Podcasts

De Markermeer Solar Array

[some text was lost so this is a rewrite]..

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.

More examples