Monthly Archives: April 2013

   To our Podcasts

Saving the Rainforest

Few people know that the governor of the Amazon region is also the owner of one of the big soy producers. It’s a diabolical combination of responsibilities, and below video shows it’s no accident soy farming is growing and the Amazon is eroding. We knew about forrest activist being shot (38 and counting), but companies spraying locals to punish them for objecting agains the land grab…

It all boils down to oil companies pushing for increased fossil fuel dependence, and as a result to increased control by those that control fossil fuel flows, whether it be oil, gas, tarsand, coal. It’s a domination strategy, something that has been openly admitted. But now it is killing our planet, including us :

  • Lost Amazon means less oxygen and release of CO2
  • End the nauseating wasting of Amazon species and slaughter of tribes 
  • Intensive farming causes soil carbon loss and is energy intensive
  • Long range logistics of soy means lots more CO2 and soot
  • Intensive farming using the soy again is a huge waste of energy compared to direct use of the soy.
  • Massive NH3 emissions, ruining ground water as well
  • Animal suffering is immense in the meat industry
  • NOx and Ozone emissions are detrimental to all life 

We know these big companies are infitrated to the highest office, especially in the US, also because it really is a way for the US to control countries. No country wants to suffer a famine as it loses access to fuel and chemicals and it’s land has become infertile from Monsanto practices (or some other big high tech agro company).

But soulles companies that make so many suffer and are contributing 18% of all global emissions have one weakness : If you demonlish them nobody will get hurt. If you take Monsanto apart it won’t hurt anyone it wil only benefit people. It will mean more variety and resilliance in crops, less CO2 and deaths from inseciticides and herbicides. A soulless company is but a system of replaceable roles, because otherwise it could not function. Farmers will be happier, food quality will improve. The Amazon may recover and the workers can be free to use technology in a way that doesn’t condemn humanity to an early global warming defeat.

   To our Podcasts

Freedom Fertilizer Mirror

Because it’s harder to find info on the Freedom Fertilizer project, allowing farmers to generate their own fuel and fertilizer using wind energy, we copy text from

Below text talks about projections, expectations, but the project was executed and a generation site was build. The website is now offline (taken over by some other thing). Below an image of some of the installation :

Making Iowa farms energy self-sufficient

Sun, 2008-06-01 19:43 — freedomfertilizer

There is a lot of talk of making Iowa farms energy self-sufficient using biomass feedstock these days. Doing this would have to cut into food production. And in todays world doing this is going to be a very tough sell. The energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) of corn ethanol (1.3) means that a farm can never reach the factor of 2x EROEI if it only produces corn for ethanol. A method with an EROEI of 4 would require half the land to be used for energy, cutting the food supply in half. On the other hand, wind farms or solar collectors can use land more efficiently for energy production and would not cut into food production nearly as much. In the case of Freedom Fertilizer’s goals and plans not at all.

One further way to look at this: Iowa is devoting about a quarter of its corn crop to making around 2 billion gallons of ethanol or about 160 billion MJ of energy a year. The installed wind capacity in Iowa is about 1.3 GW and this represents about 0.6% of Iowa’s wind potential. But, already, wind is producing 12 billion MJ/yr in Iowa (30% capacity factor). So, if Iowa used just 10% of its wind potential, it would produce as much useful energy as using all of its corn for ethanol since ethanol is burned at about 30% efficiency.

Not all of Iowa has class 3 or better wind, yet in terms of energy production, the state would do much better promoting wind production rather than with ethanol. But we must make good with what we now have. That is an already installed corn/ethanol production capacity that requires fossil fuel to operate from seed to harvest and harvest to fuel tank. Or does it? Adopting the ideas and goals of Freedom Fertilizer would mean being capable of harvesting a larger percentage of the entire states wind capacity. 50% of Iowa’s estimated wind production that would be 1 trillion MJ/yr. 6.5 times the energy of ethanol produced. Subtract the energy (Fossil fuel) used to produce ethanol, 120 billion MJ/yr leaving only 40 million green MJ/yr net gain from 25% of the states corn harvest that is converted to ethanol. While meeting a Freedom Fertilizer goal would mean 25X the green energy harvested using only 1/2 of the states wind resources.

Freedom Fertilizer’s concepts and goals of making green fertilizer and fuel can make this even better. By converting this states wind energy into storable NH3 we can replace the corn’s nitrogen fertilizer made from fossil fuel and the fossil diesel fuel used to plant, cultivate, harvest and ship this crop to the ethanol plant. Completing a full circle of production using 100% renewable, sustainable, locally made and reliable green fertilizer and fuel. This is only a part of the full Freedom Fertilizer concept, Making all of ethanols 160 MJ of energy content produced in Iowa green MJ

How much would this NH3 cost on a per ton or per equivalent gallon basis? Our estimates are quite surprising. Using newly developed technology (Solid State Ammonia Synthesis) created by our associates NHthree. Ammonia can be produced from wind power or any other renewable resource (hydro solar, geothermal, ocean current or off peak grid electricity). This process is particularly appealing to stranded resources that could not be developed or connected to the grid. NH3 produced with the SSAS process would cost approximatively $100 per ton per 1cent KW cost of electricity. In other words 4-cent KW power would equal $400 per ton NH3.

For a equivalent fuel basis. $400 per ton NH3 would be equal to $2.60 a gallon diesel. And how do we use NH3 as fuel. Actually very simply. Ammonia has a high auto ignition temperature (high octane rating) and a low flame speed. It has a critical temperature of 132.4°C which means that above this temperature it is a gas no matter what pressure it is under. The high auto-ignition temperature allows us to use very high compression ratios that boost efficiency. The slow flame speed means the fuel is thus better suited for compression ignition (as in diesel engines). The low critical temperature from the compression of NH3 makes it impractical for it be directly injected into the cylinders as a liquid. So ammonia must be introduced into the induction manifold behind a turbocharger where it vaporizes. The key to simple operation is dual fuel. Starting a diesel engine on diesel fuel and then introducing the vaporized gas into the manifold on a computer controlled basis. Running an engine on a blend of NH3 and biodiesel of up to 95%. The roll of the biodiesel is to act as an igniter and lubricator.

Freedom Fertilizer may not have all of the answers to making Iowa farms totally energy self-sufficient but we challenge anyone else to come up with a better plan that is greener or easier to implement. If we are to prosper in this state and make the best use of the resources available to us we must do it quickly and wisely.

Steve Gruhn

Freedom Fertilizer

3006 Hwy

Spirit Lake,

IA 51360

On generating NH3 to power a fishing fleet

NH3 as energy store for Matinicus and Criehaven

   To our Podcasts

Toepassing van CSP in Mijnbouw


CSP, ofwel Concentrated Solar Power, is een hernieuwbare energiebron die al decennia in gebruik is. Er zijn twee types te onderscheiden, nl. de Parabolic trough, parabolische trog of spiegel centrales en de Solar tower centrales (met een centrale toren waar zonlicht op wordt gereflecteerd). 

Een aantal van de Kramer Junction CSP centrales, ‘SEGS’ (Solar Electric Generation Systems) centrales, de eerste van ’84 de negende van ’90. Ze worden vooral gewaardeerd omdat de opbrengst gelijkloopt met de airco stroom behoefte in Californie. Ook Spanje heeft een groeiend aantal van dit soort centrales, zelfs Marokko heeft er een. 

Spaanse solar tower centrale  

Het tweede type is de Solar Tower. Dit type is minder complex, want in tegenstelling tot de SEGS parbolische trog type centrales is er maar een plek waar de energie wordt opgevangen en afgetapt, het brandpunt waar al het zonlicht door spiegels op gericht wordt. Van dit type worden er nu rap versies gebouwd medegefinancierd door Google bij Ivanpah in Californie, als een soort test van hoe snel je deze kunt bouwen (een per 18 maanden ongeveer).

Drie Invanpah centrales op rij gebouwd, in totaal 440 MW

De Solar Tower technologie kan vast nog worden verbeterd, maar het moet gezegd dat in deze branch vaak pas op de plaats wordt gemaakt en het wiel opnieuw uitgevonden. Het simpele feit is dat je met geconcentreerd zonlicht van alles kunt doen, vooral omdat een hoge temperatuur te bereiken is, iets dat helpt bij het omzetten van de warmte in stroom. 

In Solar Towers wordt zonlicht gebruikt om stroom op te wekken, maar het is ook denkbaar dat zonlicht direct wordt benut, zoals wanneer we ergens met een vergrootglas op schijnen, of via laser technologie (solar pumped laser). 


Veel mijnbouw vindt plaats in warme droge gebieden. Voorbeelden zijn oa Australie, Mali (Uranium) en Chili. In die gebieden is vaak overvloedige zon aanwezig. Tijdens een recente webinar werden de denkbeelden tav het 

   To our Podcasts

A future for Bitcoin

Bitcoin is in the news, it’s a peer validated crypto currency, meaning every bitcoin is a cryptographic key while its ownership history is validated by a peer to peer system of serial encryptions. All users of bitcoin participate in the validation of the pool of existing bitcoins, and as they do so new bitcoins are released into the pool (at an ever deminishing rate). 

Bitcoins are unique tokens that can have only one owner at a time 

You can wonder : What’s the value of this? This is an invalid question, unless it is asked of everyone alive around the world at the same time. The value of Bitcoin lies in it’s specific qualities. So far you have unique tokens you can own, of which there is a limited amount. They can not be forged, because they are mathematically unique things. You can’t make up a whole number between 5 and 6, it simply doesn’t exist. 

Making and validating Bitcoins is a pulluting activity, and therefore undesirable  The liberating aspects of it are however interesting and potentially important

As a currency it is superior to all other currencies, because it is hyperliquid. It can change hands in a millisecond, it can travel around the world and be stored indefinitely are verly low cost. It fulfills the role of store of trust, meaning that if two parties agree to respect Bitcoin, doing more for more Bitcoin and less for less, then this creates a communication between these parties, their behaviour will be coordinated, and there is very little chance that coordination fails or is disturbed because of the use of Bitcoin.

Bitcoins can be used to symbolize effort, so that groups of people can exchange efforts towards a common goal 

Bitcoins do have a drawback in that the integrity of the bitcoin transactions requires all participants to store a backup of them, encrypted, and do calculations and updates. The history of all Bitcoin transactions is stored peer to peer in the bitcoin system. This requires a lot of energy and infrastructure, and of course a functioning hardware market, internet etc. Software used to move and exchange bitcoins is also a vulnerability. So in that sense you could say the coins are like little birds traded around a catmarket as currency. It’s a vulnerable system because it’s substrate can devour it. Not the coins itself, but the systems set up to use them.

Bitcoin exists necessarily in an environment that can destroy its integrity 

Bitcoin’s primary authority is mathematics, a belief system if you will, but one very much in tune with reality, unlike economics. But if the bitcoin trade system becomes compromised the coins lose their restricted ownership and will be abandoned. News of rogue coins, forked ownership chains etc will announce that hackers destroyed the system. We can wonder why this matters at all in the bigger scheme of things though.

Many people focus on the price of Bitcoin. This is the least relevant thing, but it is interesting because price information allows us to navigate towards higher monetary reserves. Price behaviour alone can be the engine behind trades, in that sense Bitcoins are like over the counter zombie stocks. The price they generate through trade can collapse any second, if no one traded that second. It doesn’t work like the US Dollar or Euro, who’s value is determined by their fossil fuel buying power. Everyone knows you can get around with a certain amount of Dollars or Euro’s (the so called carboncredit system). Nobody knows that about Bitcoins. Simply using them in daily life is no use because it becomes a floating derivative of other currencies. This will be resisted because banks have to make the other currencies work and will object to freeloaders. You can’t transfer a million USD around the globe in Bitcoins because the exchages have to actually administer the transfer through the banking system in parallel with the quick email containing the coins.

What Bitcoin is really good for is payment and coordination of effort in a restricted economic system. It makes no sense to think it will run the world, you can do that many other ways. There is no difficulty generating digital or analog unique tokens. The utility of a bitcoin is zero, so it has to derive it’s value from people being conditioned to respond to it, and that conditioning can not be achieved because bitcoin has no linked incentive (unlike Dollars and Euro’s with their fossil fuel incentive). It can not be used to seduce (except through some external conditioning proces), but it can be used to deny.

A reliable value base for Bitcoin 

The key to consolidating value for Bitcoin is for IT professionals to demand they wages be payed in Bitcoin. No digital work will be done unless it is payed for in Bitcoin. Why IT professionals? Because that is the only group with the skills to manage their currency. Chicken farmers need a currency that they don’t have to worry about, gold, silver, feedstock, or USD. They would be hacked pennyless and not understand what happened if they used Bitcoin. Hackers do, and as such bitcoins create an incentive to do good IT work, it creates a pecking order in that sector. At the same time spending Bitcoins can be easy because the recipients (traders or otherwise) know it has value to almost every company on the planet.

IT professionals will know and want to know how to protect the coins, they can manage the infrastructure, and they will not tolerate fraud amongst themselves because their currency is as good to them as gold is to chicken farmers. Because of the need for Bitcoins to pay IT workers there will be a real exchange rate in other currencies that will generate reliable prices. Of course other cryptocurrencies exist as well and the real opportunity they offer is for skill groups to band together and choose a token of exchange nobody else can touch. In that sense these currencies are the way to free yourself from interference by financial institutions. 

It makes sense to denote effort in certain skillhours in a seperate currency (this is the idea behind our project and our piece Euro,Auro,Joule). That makes it’s trade much easier. The beauty of using Bitcoin this way is that it spreads the value of IT work (in this case) far and wide because it creates fundamental demand. 

   To our Podcasts

Zonnepanelen voor de Sociale Huurwoningen

"De innovatie zit hem in een nieuwe juridische constructie: Zonnefabriek blijft eigenaar van de panelen. De huurders noch de woningcorporatie hoeven te investeren. Huurders betalen alleen voor de zonnestroom die de panelen leveren. De prijs daarvan is lager dan die van gewone stroom." (bron)

Het is duidelijk dat hier veel krediet achter zit, dus een waarschijnlijk een specifieke bank. De huurder lijkt geen eigenaar te worden van de panelen en hoeveel deze betaald is (bij ons) niet bekend. De stroom is wel groen, maar de mogelijkheden zijn verre van wat huiseigenaren kunnen bereiken, zonder concrete reden.

   To our Podcasts

Subsidie Zonnepanelen Den Haag

Na 2011 en 2012 stelt de gemeente Den Haag ook dit jaar subsidie beschikbaar voor de aanleg van zonnepanelen. Bewoners, bedrijven en instellingen kunnen van 10 april tot en met 10 juni 2013 een aanvraag indienen. De gemeente wil op deze manier het gebruik van duurzame energie aanmoedigen.

500.000 Euro per jaar beschikbaar 

De subsidie wordt gegeven op basis van een open inschrijving. Aanvragers geven zelf aan hoeveel vermogen in Wattpiek zij willen plaatsen en welke financiële bijdrage zij hiervoor van de gemeente willen ontvangen. De inschrijver die de laagste financiële bijdrage per Wattpiek aanvraagt, krijgt als eerste subsidie. Op deze manier wordt zoveel mogelijk duurzame stroom opgewekt met de beschikbare middelen.

Vraag ons een offerte :

   To our Podcasts

The Formula : Ep(n+1) = P x E x D x R X Rp x T X Ep(n)

Humans evolved over millenia into creatures abled to extract from their environment at least enough to live on and often a lot more. Since we found coal, oil, gas we have been on a sugar high that brought forth machines that now do most work, running on the fossil fuels or derived energy sources. The big connundrum of our times is how to get off that high without killing ourselves.

Downside : We need to save ourselves. Upside : There’s no dilemma

The predicament is easy, if we stay on the high we will kill ourselves, if we quit and do nothing we will end up being killed by our environment (it will turn toxic, long story check the End Permian Extinction). So the only option is to organize a response. The more targeted and smart, the easier it will be. Before we even begin we can calculate what it will take for each of us. Let’s look at what that takes.

One example we found is from Bill Gates, he discusses a formula that describes the dependency between CO2 and four factors. It talks about our CO2 output only of the population :

CO2 = P x S x E x C 


S:Services (food, clothing, heating) we use

E:Energy per service

C:CO2 per unit of energy 

The revealing thing about this formula is that (in Bill Gates mind) humans are going to generate a cost in terms of carbon no matter what. This shows you we live in a carbon supported reality, nobody really physically does enough to enable his or her existence. That is what makes the carbon and related credit system so arrogant, and is exacerbated by companies like Monsanto and Syngenta, but we digress. 

The question is not how do we minimize CO2, but how do we maximize renewable energy potential 

In Bill Gates formula you can bring C to zero easily, especially when you offset energy. But it is a flawed representation of the challenge. We are not able to optimize if we split services and energy and CO2 up. A better formula would simply be :

CO2 = P x CO2

People times net CO2 emitted per person

The net CO2 is the CO2 emitted after you substract any process that absorbs CO2 (mainly growing biomass). This number can be brought to zero and has to turn negative. One way of looking at our situation is saying all humans have a carbon debt if they are descendants of those that burned all the fossil reserves, to act to repay those debts. That would however create an unnecessary undercaste while technology and alternative practices (for instance in agriculture) can bring wealth to all people and recapture carbon. That is : Once everyone is committed to improving things for humanity (or sufficient numbers have found a safe space to do so).

Besides, why pick a metric that we need to minimize, that is analogous to fearing it’s existence. We want to maximize something, so we can worship it and love it. 

In real terms a more interesting thing to know is how much renewable energy one person can enable. So how many people do we need to create a wind turbine, solar panel, solar thermal power plant, a ton of biomass. Because then we know that if we allow a certain number of people to use resources, we will get a certain amount of resource generation capacity back (energy). Like in an army where you have a tank unit with 4 men, or a sniper team of 2 men, or a hospital tent with numbers of surgeons and nurses. This type of thinking can result in an accurate strategy to decarbonize a region. If you want to really optimize the roll out of renewables this is the way to go. Just like France roled out one standard 3 kW solar pv system all over the country to make up for lagging in the adoption of the technology.

Wealth is a result of three factors : Skills, Raw materials and Energy 

(skills do not necessarily have to be human) 

So one way of looking at things is wondering what the renewable production potential is of a group of people. In a formula you could say:

Ep = P x E x D x R X Rp

Ep : Renewable Energy Capacity/Year (for a region

This includes all types of energy, also biomass for food)

P:Number of people

E:Education/Skill level 


R:Raw materials

Rp:Renewable energy potential of the region 

This metric can be divided per age group, per technology, per region. Deserts in Morocco have mad solar potential, but there’s nobody there. You’d have to import them, educate them, mix them culturally and set them to task. If there is a population you may find the region lacks required raw materials, or the ability to produce them.

Would you accept a less than perfect option, if it would bring you wealth and secure the future? 

The big joker in this game is robotics, automation, machines, technology. We believe we can build without cement, we hope to show more of that this summer. We know robots are capable of running on renewables and do work in remote areas, quicker and without increasing the human footprint. Drones show us remote robotics can be done.

But automated factories for all kinds of potentially helpfull products can give a huge boost to the energy potential of regions. So a better formula is

Ep = P x E x D x R X Rp x T

T Technology, robotics, cybernetics, remote control 

The Ep times the number of years it is increased results in the energy a region produces each year, and that energy can be used to feed the population, capture CO2 or exist as ecorestoration. So there’s afinal touch that may confuse people and that is

Ep(n+1) = P x E x D x R X Rp x T X Ep(n)

This is the general insight at the heart of roboeconomics 

The renewable energy potential that can be harvested increases the ability of people to produce renewable energy harvesting devices. As long as there is renewable potential that is unused one can bring it online using the available renewable energy. Because of the need to lower the carbon concentration in our atmosphere there is no reason to not maximize until we feel safe again.

Technically there is no reason we can’t fix the problem, we can do it or we can let the sun do it without us 

To give an idea of how easy this can be for certain regions with highly educated people, lots of resources and sophisticated and automated building practices let’s just repeat that the US can produce 7 times its current electricity need using only suitable unused federal land. The oceans have vast regions with excellent sun, wind and wave energy, nutrients and water. 

We need innovation, but when we’ve got solutions we need people capable of doing the work, many of them

We’d like to know about other models of how to deal with climate change in terms of organizing the response proactively. Let us know about your ideas here : 

   To our Podcasts

Optimalisatie van Zonnesystemen

Veel mensen hebben momenteel zonnepanelen op het platte of schuine dak, sommigen al meer dan 10 jaar. Deze panelen zijn inmiddels terugverdient, maar leveren nog dagelijks Euro’s op (en gaan daar voorlopig netjes mee door). Het is een terechte vraag of de opbrengst van deze systemen is te verbeteren op een manier die zichzelf wederom vrij snel terugbetaald. Op dat gebied zijn er verschillende mogelijkheden, en de investeringen er in hebben vaak belasting voordeel. Hieronder een aantal aandachtspunten belicht.

Stof en Vuil 

Stof en vuil op uw panelen kan de opbrengst reduceren. Maar een cel van een paneel hoeft door vogelpoep of een aangekleefd blad te zijn bedekt en het hele paneel presteerd significant minder. Af en toe een sopje is de moeite waard.


Schaduw is funest voor een serie zonnepanelen, net als vuil. Misschien heeft u er niet bij stilgestaan dat planten in de buurt van uw panelen inmiddels gegroeid zijn, en nu wel schaduw veroorzaken, terwijl dit niet zo was toen u de panelen plaatste. Snoeien geblazen! 


Koelere panelen presteren beter. Het is dus belangrijk om de achterkant goed geventileerd te houden. Zitten ze tegen het dak dan helpt het om te zorgen dat er ventilatie is tussen dak en panelen (die is er meestal wel). Panelen absorberen het meeste licht zonder er iets mee te doen (85% – het weerkaatste licht), dus ze worden erg warm. Per graad Celsius lever je soms 0,25 % opbrengst in. 


Misschien heeft u als u al in 2004 panelen aanschafde niet zo nagedacht over de plek waar u ze opstelde. Toen waren zonnepanelen nog relatief nieuw en wilde mensen vooral het prijsvoordeel meepikken. Het verhuizen van ook de oude panelen is echter heel eenvoudig, de verbindingen kunnen vaak losgetrokken worden, de omvormers van de klem gehaald en verplaatst.


De orientatie van panelen is de belangrijkste performance beinvloeder. Ze dienen immers om zo veel mogelijk zonlicht op te vangen. Dat doen ze in Nederland het best als ze pal Zuid zijn opgesteld en een hellingshoek hebben van 35-37 graden.

Veel panelen worden echter op 20 graden steunen gemonteerd, omdat dit minder ballast vergt en er zo meer panelen op een dak kunnen. Het scheelt een paar procent met de optimale hoek, dus meer panelen bijplaatsen is dan misschien makkerlijker.

Panelen die pal Zuid staan en 20 graden hoek hebben leveren 916 kWh/kWp op

Het zelfde geldt voor roteren om de vertikale as. Panelen die dit doen volgen de zon gedurende de dag van Oost naar West. Dat vergroot de opbrengst meer dan roteren om de horizontale as.

Verticale as trackers 

   Panelen die om een verticale as kunnen draaien leveren 1210 kWh/kWp op 

De maximale opbrengst komt van panelen die om twee assen draaien, waardoor ze altijd op de zon gericht zijn.

Tweeassige trackers winnen de hoofdprijs, maar verticale as trackers zijn het kosten effectiefst. 

Als u een boer bent met een schuur met 12 jaar oude zonnepanelen, dan kan het de moeite lonen deze elders op trackers te zetten. De reeds afgeschreven panelen gaan opeens meer geld opleveren. Zelf maken kan natuurlijk ook. 

Kabels en de Omvormer 

Het is niet de bedoeling dat kabels of de omvormer voor problemen zorgen, maar het kan wel. Nieuwe omvormers zijn soms echt efficienter dan de oude. U kunt ook overwegen de panelen met andere samen te voegen tot een nieuw systeem.

   To our Podcasts

Extraeconomical Investment

The case for extraeconomic activity 

Earlier we wrote climate action will be most effective when it is ‘extraeconomical’. This means it removes itself from the economy at large, banks, money and markets. This is a hard sell because most people think it harmless to look for investors for a project, write a business case and deliver some product of economical value. Our point is that that is exactly the problem, because a product of economical value helps maximize the utility of fossil fuels, the core purpose of 20th century economics. Fossil fuel and credit are inextricably linked in the ‘carboncredit’ system, and you can’t escape it from within.

Another reason to go for extraeconomical is that you can’t use fossil fuels to solve the climate problem. You would run out and/or make it worse. You have to use renewables, solar, wind, wave energy, biomass. To do what? Capture carbon while keeping yourself alive. It is possible, but it either takes a lot of manpower or a lot of machines (hence our concept the ‘Roboeconomy’). Extraeconomical activity creates assets without looking for a price, it looks to establish a process that has a positive impact on our climate and environment.

How to invest extraeconomically 

No proces or activity starts from scratch, but that is not a requirement to be extraeconomical. The key requirement is that you can sustain your process autonomously, without interacting with a market, especially not with the fossil fuel market. Thus an extraeconomic project proposal looks different from your average business case : It has capex (capital expensenditures), but no opex (operational expendtures), debt or yield. You may wonder "but what do I get out of it?" You get the option to go to the market, without having to at all time. That is a stark difference compared to most if not all current enterprises.

An extraeconoical project has to outline how it uses natural resources including energy to sustain it’s operation. So lets take a wave energy based ocean fertilization field, one that generates ocean life, captures carbon from seaweed and algae (for instance by pyrolizing and sinking it to the bottom). This operation requires a significant investment in robust wave driven pumps, the monitoring infrastructure, materials. It poses a challenge as it does not produce everything needed to sustain itself, but it can sustain a community of land based people that eat the fish and seaweed and have the industry to maintain, repair and perhaps even expand the field. An extraeconomic model quickly arrives to be diverse with autonomous expertise.

Another example : Ocean based farming on floating rafts of bamboo. Our so called Bambooya project. The fertilzer to feed the bamboo is found around 200 meters deep, there’s plenty of water, the expansion can be done by growing bamboo on the rafts, fresh water can be secured through the micro climate you create, and you can expand and mix with fish and algae farmes until the Pacific and Atlantic are covered, converting enormous amounts of CO2 into Carbon and cooling our climate (which results in addicitonal on land growth and preservation of biomass according to studies). Capex? Very low.

Apart from innovative uses of technology you could do the same for deserts. You use either contour trenches (Peter Westerveld) or controlled grazing to get the land back into its carbon sequestring mode, and you run it just for the sake of that effect. Creating green pastures and forrests that cpature clouds above, increase albedo, biodiversity, clean the air but are not food on anyones plate except those that run it.

With new technology (and old tech as well) it is possible today to use the enormous stretches of near empty land and ocean on earth to do extraeconomical projects. The only issue is the encroachment of the carboncredit system on next to all resources on earth. It’s a carbon fueled machine that eats everything, the people involved forming its ‘bloodstream’, the money that changes hand in the process of consuming the carbon. It has to be kept at bay. For that reason it would be good to create ‘Extraeconomical zones’.  

If you are investor or know someone interested in starting extraeconomical projects, let us know through  

The importance of an extraeconomical response to climate change