Author Archives: admin

Wat zijn #IndustrieTerreinNL en #WerkKampNL


Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

Nederland heeft een samenleving. Dit is de oorsprong van Nederland, dat we als boeren burgers en buitenlui voor elkaar zorgden en het land deelden. Van oudsher ging dit met veel handwerk en vakmanschap. Elk dorp had zijn boeren, zijn smeden en slagers, kleermakers en bakkers. Het belang van iedereen die iets nuttigs produceerde was reel, meer vaardige mensen zorgden voor meer waardevolle producten. IJverige wijze boeren zorgen voor eten voor iedereen. Iemand die niks nuttigs had ook weinig recht op een aandeel of om gehoord te worden. Het land en de mensen er op was een bedrijf.

Dat was natuurlijk niet altijd zo, voor millenia ging het om stammen en dorpen die door rondtrekkende bendes werden belaagd. Er was een hele klasse rovers. De vikings kwamen langs en zelfs op wijk niveau in steden had je bendes. Een positie verwerven was dan ook iets reels, als je slim was zocht je verdediging en bescherming en zorgde je voor anderen zodat deze zich niet tegen je zouden keren. In periodes was een deel van de mensheid het overleven ontstegen, vaak ten koste van het eigen volk, de vrijheid van slaven of van mensen in kolonieen.

Voor sommigen is het belangrijk te begrijpen dat een maatschappij draait op zijn industrie. Dat fietsen en auto’s van metaal gemaakt worden dat beschikbaar moet zijn, dat er daarom hoogovens zijn en industrie terreinen die de boel vervuilen. Deze mensen zien Nederland als een product van zijn industrie (waarvan zich een flink deel in het buitenland bevind). Zij zullen ook zeggen dat we bv. de luxe van het naar vrienden zoeven over de snelweg echt te danken hebben aan oliemaatschappijen en mensen die snelwegen aanleggen, die lantarenpalen maken, die allerlei dingen doen. Voor die mensen is Nederland een bedrijf waar je als je je gedraagt aan kan deelnemen. Het is een aangenaam werkkamp, waarom? Omdat er werk aan de winkel is! Men wil vooruit!

Wat mis gaat is dat mensen zich soms een prestatie toe eigenen die ze niet toekomt, dat ze het doel de middelen laten heiligen en dat ze een soort Stockholm Syndroom ontwikkelen voor de geweldenaar industrie. De boosdoener is geld, want geld kan van alles betekenen. Voor iedereen die droomt van een bepaald leven kan geld het middel zijn om er te geraken. De relatie tussen geld en bezit wordt 1 op 1 gelegd. Ik heb geld ik kan die TV kopen. Ik verkoop 10000 fidget spinners ik heb nu zoveel geld over. Maar geld is een ruilmiddel. Als niemand zijn bezit voor jou geld wil ruilen is het waardeloos. Of : Als niemand iets voor je wil of kan maken in ruil voor je geld is je geld ook waardeloos. Stel je voor dat je met 100 euro aankomt in Japan en er is geen mogelijkheid je geld te wisselen, dan heb je niks aan je 100 Euro. Dit klinkt stom maar het is om aan te geven dat geld als doel iets heel kwetsbaars is. We zien dat nu met 15% voorspelde inflatie en stijgende huizenprijzen, met te korten aan grondstoffen in de bouwsector. Wat is je geld waard als er niks te koop is?

Als ik klaag over industrieterreinNL en werkkampNL dan is dat omdat weelde uit het oog wordt verloren ten koste van winst. De weelde van een bruisende stad met gezellige bewoners wordt voor de winst van de huur investeerders geruild, en steden worden nu tot werk kampen gemaakt omdat je niet kunt kopen of huren zonder inkomen, en als je huurt kun je na 6 maanden worden gewipt als je geen baan meer hebt. Ook de industrie die geld als eerste levensbehoefte heeft plaatst zijn belang boven de weelde van de werknemer of de leefomgeving. Omdat mensen zich graag volproppen met vlees moet de leefomgeving van burgers in de veehouderij gebieden worden opgeoffert. Ook het leven van het vee, dat van de slachters de chauffeurs is ellendig, aan de kant van de consument is het een net lapje in het schap.

Wat misgaat is dat cashflow van banken de belangrijkste drijfveer is geworden om dingen te doen. Banken romen die cashflow af, ze krijgen steeds een beetje ervan, en willen dus altijd meer. Als ze 1% afromen klaagt niemand, maar dat betekent wel dat ze voor elke Euro die ze verdienen er 100 moeten laten stromen. Ook aandeelhouders die nergens recht op hebben (behalve dat ze een aandeel in een bedrijf hebben) worden steeds gebruikt om winsten op te jagen. Dat is omdat banken verdienen aan aandelen transacties en verkoop (het is een goede manier om mensen te belonen). Dat vervreemd gebruik van aandelen (speculatie, flash traden enz.) was nooit de bedoeling. Waar het om ging was dat burgers bedrijven konden steunen in hun bestaan en ontwikkeling.

Daardoor gebeuren er allerlei processen waar niemand iets aan heeft, die voorbij gaan aan de noden en de kwaliteit van levens. De huizenmarkt is een goed voorbeeld, huizen bezitten voor de winst is oneigenlijk gebruik. De bewoners worden lijfeigenen van de verhuurder, presteren zie niet dan kunnen ze wieberen. Banken willen meer verdienen en drijven van alles de prijs op. Dat heet dan inflatie omdat actie en reactie op een lastig te volgen manier plaatsvinden. De ECB geeft banken 1,5 Triljoen Corona steun, de banken geven miljarden aan hypotheken tegen bijna nul rente. Dat veroorzaakt inflatie, mensen komen in de knel, moeten hard werken of verhuizen. Alle sociale woningen voor de intermenselijke sfeer die geen geld opbrengt moeten wijken, en iedereen moet tevreden zijn met cashflow intensieve producten (die van ver komen en veel fossiel gebruiken) en zich op een dure bank in een duur huis de les laten lezen door reclames terwijl ze zich emotioneel laten meeslepen door het nieuws van de dag.

Niet alleen de banken willen afromen, ook de overheid wil dat. Daar zit ook wat in alleen is de dienst de de overheid ons zegt te bieden die van veiligheid ook tegen andere landen. Daar kun je vandaag de dag aan twijfelen. Het is ook relatieve schijnveiligheid als het economisch goed gaat, want er zijn geen grensonrusten met Belgie en er is ook niet veel te halen zeker niet bij burgers. Een oorlog is meestal een van industrie vs industrie, ook al wordt de burger iets heel anders wijsgemaakt. Ik denk eigenlijk dat de industrie en de overheden zullen besluiten oorlogen voorgoed uit te bannen tbv de strijd om klimaatverandering te overleven. Maar misschien verbeeld ik met te veel dat overheden werkelijke macht hebben. Veel staan zo ten dienste van industrie (om de reden die ik hierboven uiteenzet) dat ze vooral bezig zijn die te bevoordelen en gewoon nul komma nul nadenken over risicos. Je kunt sommige dingen nu eenmaal alleen goed doen als je nergens anders aan denkt. Dit is het idiote van Rutte die volgens Marjan Minnesma helemaal niet had begrepen dat er iets was met het klimaat (nu met die overstromingen wel kennelijk).

We worden door de industrie verplicht geacht hen te dienen, zij geven ons onze producten en welvaart. De banken denken er net zo over. De overheid vind dat het ons veilig houdt. Burgers negeren de industrie grotendeels. Banken vinden ze strontvervelend. De overheid heeft een inspraak organisatie, de tweede kamer waarin we onze kamerleden kunnen kiezen. De industrie kan echter onze media zo spekken dat wij de verkeerde figuren kiezen (de meerderheid van ons) die dan de industrie weer spekt en vooral de banken. Het aantal puur ideologische besluiten valt vast in het niet tegen de zakelijk voordelige besluiten. De zakelijken (rechts) hebben nu iig de macht en houden daar gewoon aan vast (demissionair) en aan hun moraalloze zakelijkje held Rutte.

Je kunt dus zeggen dat Nederland een industrie terrein is, en dat de regering de bedrijfsleiding is. Dat burgers door oa Stef Blok in werkkampen wonen (steden) waar ze uitgeflikkert worden als de industrie hen niet meer nodig heeft. Je kunt stemmen wat je wil maar aangezien de door de industrie gespekte media de burgers zuur heeft gemaakt tav hun eigen verstand, de zogenaamde verrechtsing en aangezien mensen graag in het werkkamp Amsterdam, Rotterdam etc. wonen met mooie levens etc. Is ook elke burger deels mens deels lijfeigen. Gek genoeg geeft dat voldoening en die is ook terrecht, want we willen ons graag nuttig voelen en een bijdrage leveren aan deze maatschappij. Echter het winstbejag van banken verpest de boel, want banken zijn nooit verzadigd en ze zijn sterk voor fossiele energie (centrale opwekking mag ook) want ze leven van cashflow. Ook industrie probeert voordurend geld weg te kapen bij de ‘nuttelozen’. Links vertegenwoordigt in hun ogen de niet bezittende klasse die ook wat wil. “Werk er maar voor!” Zeggen ze dan.

Waar sociale partijen het meest over klagen is dat er geen rekening gehouden wordt met mensen en hun dromen en wensen. Wel als er munt uit geslagen kan worden (aan de universiteiten) maar niet als ze werkend zijn in de industrie. Ook wordt er geen rekening gehouden met de gevolgen van vervuiling. Dit komt voornamelijk doordat er geen verband is tussen veel activiteiten, en omdat detectie en handhaving ook mensenwerk is. Maar vervuiling vindt ook plaats omdat dat de enige manier is om winstgevend te zijn, en dan gebeurt het omdat banken en bedrijven hun cashflow willen behouden. De fatalistische houding is een die veel geld op brengt. Als voorbeeld : IndustrieTerreinNL dumpte decennia lang zijn giftig afval in bunkerolie die op zeeschepen werd verbrand. Nelie Smit Kroes heeft daar nog bij geholpen in de 80er jaren. Wie op de klimaat catastrofe durft aan te stormen is momenteel de lieveling van banken en industrie : Rijdt in een SUV, vlieg veel, eet veel vlees en wil vooral heeel rijk worden. Dan ben je een “horse chomping at the bit”. Een goede werker in WerkkampNL.

Wat kun je hier aan doen? Dit is niet in details uit te leggen. Elke voorgestelde specifieke aanpak zal worden tegengewerkt want rechtse mensen kunnen dit ook lezen. We zien vandaag al dat FvD een leger lijkt te willen mobiliseren, daarmee voor zijn op linkse mensen die zoiets wel zouden willen, een revolutie starten. Wat gaat een leger van Baudet doen? Helemaal geen klap want het zijn wannabe’s die in een grachtenpand willen wonen. Tips om IndustrieTerreinNL en WerkKampNL meer naar je hand te zetten kun je vinden in mijn post Easy Antifa over hoe je antifascist kunt zijn zonder zwarte kleren te dragen of je door ME in elkaar te laten slaan op het Malieveld..

Waardeer je dit stuk? Wordt Patreon

A Question For Economists : How to reliably create wealth using renewables


Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

There is a real conundrum showing up in our economy as renewables become cheaper to deploy and capacity grows : the cost of renewable energy drops. In Holland wind energy can have negative prices at times where there is strong wind but no demand (and there’s still a bunch of fossil power plants online). -200 Euro per Megawatt. Like negative interest rates you get payed to use the energy.

Wealth = energy x skills x raw materials (notice money is not in this formula)

Economists, analysts and right wing politicians view this as a problem. Banks say “how can we invest in Wind if we don’t know if its going to be able to pay its interest!” and for this reason some say that the number of new renewable energy projects will go down. This seems to be a mistake, but you won’t find any attempt to puncture the appearance of ‘worthless’ renewable energy anywhere in a world still dominated by fossil energy.

The problem comes from the fact that fossil energy is its own storage medium, while renewable electricity from wind or solar is not. Renewable energy will have to be used when it is generated. Therefore an overproduction of fossil energy only leads to a tanker full of fuel, while overproduction of renewables means the energy is lost forever.

It isn’t even the price that is low it is the fact a price is made at all, this makes it clear what demand is, and at some times the demand is so low that it seems you will have to pay to get rid of your renewable energy. Of course a wind turbine can be shut off and a solar park shut down. But the energy hits the market because there is another motive to produce it : To replace fossil energy. Part of the surplus and negative prices is a result of stubborn self interest of owners of fossil energy generation (gas or coal fired power plants) who should make way for clean energy.

Nobody seems to care about this motive however. What is puzzling to me is why manufactureres and so many other industrial businesses don’t protest the waste of wealth potential caused by the resistence of the fossil owned financial system to renewables. Always calling them intermittent and wasting the surplus energy by not adapting or including storage in the system. This is pure power politics. Once renewable energy is treated like energy to use with priority the game of fossil and of the fossil economy is over.

Economists can not be expected to think about this and produce a clear strategy to maximize wealth creation from renewables (a goal I think should be on everybodies mind) because they have always been lakeys and marketeers of the fossil credit system. Economists will always disagree with this charactetrization because it blows their cover and exposes their racket. They know they are full of BS, but they want to keep talking to learn how to hide it from you! The fossil economy is unsustainable. Growth is just a borrowed word from our farming heritage, what they mean is fossil credit cashflow expansion. This in turns means banks have more power over your life.

What we need, now and in the future, is the stuff we need. We need bread, shelter, shows, clothes etc. Those have to be made and that production requires energy. There is no difference between bread from an gas heated oven or one from a solar electricity heated oven. Therefore when it comes to bread the price of solar energy should be at least the same as gas energy to the baker. Maybe you feel where I am going? If the market prices energy negatively while the energy in use is equivalent to its competitors than maybe the market is the problem, not the energy type.

The challenge is to store renewables for those that produce wealth. The system pretends to know too little of what happens to the energy that is bought to fix the waste of renewable surpluss. As a result investment in renewables could drop while in fact it is near free wealth potentialIf you redefine your economists calling from being a fossil credit economy advocate to being a societal wealth maximization engineer, what would you advise? It seems to require real physical investment and action to maximize utilization of renewable energy for wealth. It is clear simple low cost storage of energy so that it remains useable is certainly a way to break apparent decline in value. What are your ideas?

Mine :

  1. Heat gravel in rail trains and transport the heat to where it is usefull
  2. Cool water in rail trains and transport the cold to where it is usefull
  3. Deliver the energy to homes to heat a heat store underground, or cool a cold store
  4. Store it as compressed air
  5. Run a cable down shipping lanes so ships can use the electricity to help their ships cooling or heating or propulsion (based on hydrogen or ammonia)

Concepten voor Drijvende Zonneparken


Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

https://solarmagazine.nl/nieuws-zonne-energie/i17800/energieverkenning-ijsselmeergebied-ruimte-voor-duizenden-hectare-zonnezandbanken-en-zonne-eilanden

Zonne atollen https://solarmagazine.nl/nieuws-zonne-energie/i22687/zonne-atollen-bij-ijsselmeer-onderzoek-toont-grote-kansen-voor-eilanden-met-zonnepanelen

https://www.trouw.nl/duurzaamheid-natuur/noord-holland-ruikt-kansen-voor-zonne-atollen-in-ijsselmeer~bc7db3a1/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Energie tuinen op het IJsselmeer https://d66.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Voor-energietuinen-op-het-Ijsselmeer.pdf

Trouw https://www.trouw.nl/duurzaamheid-natuur/nieuw-plan-voor-zonnepaneel-atollen-in-het-ijsselmeer-is-ook-goed-voor-vis-vogel~bd169206/

Natuur en Milieu https://www.natuurmonumenten.nl/noord-holland/nieuws/opinie-binnendijkse-natuur-ijsselmeer-met-zonnepanelen-echte-groene-energie

IJsselmeer vereniging https://ijsselmeervereniging.nl/2020/06/25/drijvende-zonnepanelen-op-het-ijsselmeer/

What does “A disorderly transition to renewables” mean


Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

I read that according to a report from Verisk Maplecroft an orderly transtion towards renewables is no longer likely for the G20:

“Because the G20 is way behind, that raises the prospect of more dramatic and disruptive policy action in the relatively near future. “[K]eeping the 2°C Paris Agreement target in sight will require widespread government intervention over the coming decade,” the report says.” (bron)

1.5 degrees warming will likely be reached by 2025, and so this spells 2 degrees warming is in the cards and stopping it will be hard.

“Our data underscores that it is clear there is no longer any realistic chance of an orderly transition”

But what does that mean. If the effects of warming will take hold, this means floods, famines, heatwaves, torrents. We see them today in Russia, the US. 48 Celsius temperatures in the arctic. The weather extremes will become such that it will be hard to survive or even have a functioning society. Even though warming is already 1 on average, local extremes can mean +15 degrees or more.

A small but powerfull tornado tore through a Leersum this year. These storms pass in minutes but leave a warzone

The problem with the above is that the disorder can be explained in two ways. First it can mean sudden severe restrictions on fossil emissions and certain industries. Secondly it can mean that society breaks down. This is not unlikely if there is no food, no water, too much heat. As the warming proces and its extreme effects are real, this consequence can also be real.

Should we pretend there will be a society in 20 years time and do what we allways did? Earth is not the same planet anymore. The conditions for this evolutionairy shift are quickly slipping away, and so will the life that it brought forth. It seems the “”Big Dying” will get a repeat. The question is how quick will we fail to cooperate as we do today. It is not scary but existential and imporant to consider. Already it is hard to get help of many kinds the way you could 20 years ago.

There should be a definite simulation of the future according to the worst case scenario, or maybe a modest active scenario. What it produces is what will happen. Then we need to act on what will happen, everyone individually, and perhaps we need to organize in order to deal with it. If we trust the government we will see that it will be all about money, nothing else. It will be about jobs for people that turn over a lot of fossil fuels. This is what our system is based on, our system of banks, of government of industry. How do we get out of this run away train?

Artificial Convection Cooling Geoengineering


Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

We need to cool the planet, or at least the populated areas. It’s necessary because the freak week with 50 Celsius in Germany is no longer unimaginable. People will die, plants and animals will all be slowly cooked. The reason for the fast warming seems to lie in the oceans no longer being able to absorb more heat. The imbalance is reported to be 1 Watt/m2, which is double from what it was only a decade ago. This means heat is building up in our atmosphere and it has no way to escape.

Geoengineering is a big term that has been made very scary such that it causes a pavlov reaction just like “communism” and “holocaust” even if they are used wrongly

In order for Earth not to turn into Venus, due to runaway processes like methane release and widespread forest fires and oxydation of soil carbon, drastic measures are needed. The economy is not capable of it because its goal is to maximize fossil credit cashflow (as discussed in other posts). So what measures -can- be taken without too much obstruction?

Can the Starlink constellation be repurposed for sun shading? A few % can already make a difference!

Shading : SpaceX is developing rockets that can hurl hundreds of tons of cargo to orbit or anywhere in space really. We need shade, because the cooling effect also enhances the carbon capturing power of plants on land. This could take the form of gigantic stretches of Mylar or some other material, maybe even sourced from the moon or other places. By the time this kind of initiative gets going it will all be automated, designed and run by AI. The stratospheric sulfur meme is still around (has been since the damn 50’s) but we moved on from that (I hope).

Maybe the starlink constellation can add a few % solar occulsion in due time. Plants get plenty of light and warmt to grow. Shading during the day and not blocking outgoing radiation during the night can double the effectiveness.

But what about bringing the heat from the ground up to the edge of space. The atmosphere will, as it warms up, of course rise higher because the warming gas molecules want to occupy more space. This is already noticable to satelites that experience more (atmospheric) drag in their orbit than before. But this heating and expanding will be a stale business after a while (and winds will actually die down as we all swelter and then broil in our atmosphere). It is better to break this so called “stratification” or layering.

Stratification has a history of being a problem. Oceans have stratified several times, meaning they developed a nutrient poor but solar intense hot top layer over a nutrient rich and dark rest. Of course this put the tools for life in the wrong place, and oceans that reached that state have often remained dead for thousands of years. Only tectonic shifts could change currents and mix the layers again, giving a new chance to life. There are many stratified “dead zones” in the oceans today and it makes sense to mix the waters there as well. I have written about that before.

A hurricane is a natural process by which ocean heat gets released into space..

But what would happen if we created a piece of land, preferably the middle of a desert, where we concentrated a lot of heat on purpose (like with a solar tower) and caused convection (maybe even aided by turbines). The air would rise due to relative boyancy, and would be able to cool against space. At ground level air would be drawn into the region, maybe humid because it passed over water, and carry that humid heat to the top of the atmosphere where it would cool removing the heat from the ground.

It seems we have a natural version of this, called the hurricane tornado or cyclone. The best version is the huricane that is over hot water, where it loads up with heat energy which is then turned into the movement of air and water (and cows and sheds) and dispersed, also partly into space. Hurricans die over land, because the land does not store or give off heat that easily. I have written about this process, which start by breaking a saturated layer of air above the water (stratification again) which prevents more evaporation. Once that happens more water evaporates, causing an upwards convection which in turn breaks the saturated layer : The genie is out of the box.

A solar tower installation can help heat air or power turbines that pump hot air up..

I have written about an actual solar tower in Spain, which has been in operation between 1985 and ’94 or something, generating power by heating air which would rise through a chimney, which would then drive a wind turbin in that chimney. It worked fine, but the fossil industry killed it like it has killed so many answers to the menace we experience today.

The solar updraft tower that was generating electricity until it was demolished for no reason..

As you can see from the above picture, to get energy from the updraft you need a chimney, if your goal is merely to cause convection you don’t need the chimney. You can probably use some of the case study calculations to see how much convection you get. The ground below it was made black but a lot of heat would still radiate back. The advantage of this design is that the air gets heated gradually. It would be interesting to see if there was any cooling effect in the region.

If you like this content become a Patron!

How To Wind Down the Fossil Fuel Industry


Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

In life you can come across nice products, like a chair, that look nice and are comfortable to sit on. Then there are chairs you can buy for a lot of money that just blow your mind because they show you what a sitting exprience can actually be. All over the world in companies there are people who just try to get passed the next performance review and those that are simply obsessed with perfecting some aspect of what they do or create. They will tell you things about the pittfalls of the optimization process you never would have guessed. They don’t waste one second contemplating any of your ideas because they have already done so long ago.

The same goes for the process of winding down the activities of the fossil industry. It is a new thing that needs to happen, and you can do it sleepwalking or you can do it right. The reality is that nobody is yet doing it, and nobody understands how to do it. I have seen no paper on how shut down use of fossil fuels on a global scale. Sure you can set a “net zero” target that will reduce consumption of fossil fuels. The dutch energy company Eneco announced it will no longer facilitate natural gas use by 2035 which is quite an amazing step. But of course a lot of societies functions run on fossil fuels, there is gestrategic order based on fossil fuel control, wars fought about it, endless lobbying for it, an entire political side (US republicans and conservatives) that are primary lakeys of the fossil industry.

Having thought about this challenge a lot in the recent decade one of my suggestions was to start by splitting money into three currencies (in Europe for example), the Euro the Auro and the Joule. Simply put (you can read more here) you need the Euro if you want to buy fossil fuels, the Auro if you want to buy labour (human effort) and the Joule if you want to buy renewable energy. This is a method if you can not get all the oil companies under global control. This suggestion will have to get the support of the ECB, national banks which is unlikely. What it would do is isolate the fossil fuel dependent economy, because you need Euro’s only to buy products that are made with the help of fossil fuels. It facilitates the emission of Joules by renewable energy generators (with a very location dependent value) who could sell their energy to central storage (at a discount of the energy loss). The Auro’s can simply be a fixed amount related to the total human work capacity in ‘circulation’. This method would still be very hands off the fossil industry.

If you decide to touch the fossil industry you have a challenge, as we have seen from Shell this week, the company needs to reduce the total emissions it causes by its production and sale of oil and gas according to a court judgement. It has now sold off its Shale Oil operation in Texas also because it has a high methane pollution factor (methane emissions in the US are off the chart due to fracking, methane can cause brain and heart seizures and some fracking wells are venting 100% due to the high cost of logistics). You see that in a free market world for fossil fuels someone else will simply get to the oil and sell it. It is good to see this demonstrated though. What is the expert response? It involves a lot of pieces of the puzzle at once, a lot of cooperation. A global sessasion of full scale war. Many other large changes that can only be decided by those in real power.

All this is happening against a background of growing chaos due to the application of AI and internet, drones, satelites. It seems the chip shortage may be on purpose to not facilitate terrorists needing sophisticated chips to make their bombs. A more down to Earth explanation is that crypto mining and gaming ate all the reserves. China is trying to steal ASML’s cutting edge tech, every time again a lack of cooperation and trust is ruining the order needed to fix things. Everyone wants to fix his/her personal life. Looking beyond it is too hard. The way to fix this seems to be to detach from the global production machine that eats fossil fuels and resources, not through rioting in the street, but by becoming “Easy Antifa” as I coined it.. There really needs to be a doctrine that has many aspects of life that people need to adopt in order to accelerate the growth of renewable energy capacity and reduce the power of banks over our lives.

The Global Climate Fire Sale


Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

You can be a poor country and not know what is going on or what will happen or not even care at all, that happens. Especially when you have uneducated religious minorities and low technological development, no exported resources that you get money from (your country may be in debt). You can also read (if you care about it) that climate change will make your country a living hell pretty soon. With no means or organization to protect yourself or your people what do you do?

If it is up to the fossil/nuclear goons the world will divide into comfortable air conditioned high-tech elite and an poor, abused and obstructed rest. For some time renewables might give people hope but the fossil credit system will not die and changes may occur so fast nobody can really get advantage. Ironically in a nuclear war scenario the people most likely to surivive are the ones running a nuclear power plant (who can use its electricity to grow food). This all sounds very dark but what do we see today? Promises to reduce emissions but no ability to break away from the banks or the fossil fuel industry.

Honestly, who cares about this land? Most of it is uninhabited and useless (although there is water underneath). Sell it to climate change tech companies. 1% of the land in this picture could already power the entire world!

So I already suggested to divide the world into pieces of land and give them to each of its citizen, or to divide the world and give it to the one that cares the most. Land can be very cheap indeed. The problem is that electricity is not everywhere and Shell is keeping Thin Film solar off the market (in a perpetual promising research limbo). Still it makes no sense to let people unable or unwilling manage land that could be used to save both the people on it and the rest of the planet. A better solution can be decided by the military leaders, which is pretty simple indeed.

Really who cares about bums with kalashnikovs? Why aren’t there remote metal detectors? Just ban large metal objects.

Why not divide the world and sell the parts to the group or people with the best plans and resources. This may be a naive thought because maybe this is the way it already is, but there seems to be a lot of land nobody is interested in where nothing is happening because it is owned by a country that has no means or interest to develop it. Development for climate protection may also look very different from any economic type (which always involves investment of fossil credit and expansion of the use of fossil fuels).

Lush green countries will also dry up. Growing “economic crops” may not be the best thing for them to do at all!

It is a pity the islands like Tuvalu and Vanuatu are in the grip of some bigger authority, either China or Australia, and can no longer be sovereign masters over their territory, because otherwise they’d be a prime example of land owners who sell their land to someone that does want to help them. It is only the anti-social scarcity creating fossil economy that immediately starts to exclude people from land, seldomly the social life promoting renewable powered people, so they would be in good hands. Mark my words, soon you will be able to buy land to fix things, there may even be a website where you can look up places where you can take effective climate action in return for authority. We need thin film solar though, that will make a huge difference!

Roadbots Revisited


Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

Tesla is charging ahead not only with its cutting edge electro motor designs taking the efficiency and performance of its cars to new heights. It is also developing chips to run its AI algorithms, as well as continuously improving the quality of AI. I wrote about so called Roadbots and how they will change the way we can manipulate our environment, do maintenance and supply emergency help. The combination of on board AI and the availability of a massive amount of energy (in the tesla battery) seems to create even more possiblities than I imagined at first.

The first general purpose Roadbot, opening a plethora of use cases..

If a Tesla self drives (let’s say the Cybertruck) to a location where some manipulation is needed, you’d be tempted to say an electric pickup truck arrived and that’s it. But a Cybertruck (or for that matter any Tesla) is also a sensor an compute platform. This means that in the near future you could see bipedal robots get out fo the damn truck, for example powerd by compressed air, and controlled by a combination of the on board computer and one they carry themselves. If you say the truck has a compressed air storage tank it keeps at pressure the bipedal bots can go up to the truck and refill their tanks every so often, then leave for some manipulation of whatever is needed.

Tesla’s compute platform. Its geared towards running AI algorithms, which with some tweaking will be exchangable to fit a certani need..

You don’t think we can have pole scaling bots that can detach from the rear of the Cybertruck and get up a pole and fix some cable? And what about drones? They can take off, be observed by the cars cameras and piloted, they can return video footage themselves (where one core of the cars computer runs control and the other switches to some tuned visual recognition algoritm). This way you can have all kinds of functions performed by one car, and you can have humans in the loop as well. Perimeter patrolling? Of course! Search and rescue? Of course!

Cyberdrones controlled, chanrged and assisting a task for a roadbot cybertruck

Some pretty dystopian image come to mind if you image an angry roadbot cybertruck trying to catch some “terrorists” where drones leave the driving car packed with explosives or lasers or spikes and all before you know it they are shooting through the back window etc. You’ve seen the movie. But this will be real pretty soon.

Roadbots can go anywhere, certainly when they are linked to the starlink constellation. One that starts in Holland can basically drive all the way to Egypt to do a task and then come back. They can be used to build solar charging stations where nobody ever goes, and start fighting climate effects or increasing the viability of land where nobody is looking.

It will already be amazing to have full self driving cars. But see what happens if they stop, an android gets out, climbs on your roof to fix a shingle, gets off back into the car and your problem is solved. Same with cleaning the house. Same with painting spots on wood fences. The list can be pretty long if we assume there will be some kind of walking (sub) platform, because that really allows it to get almost anywhere. How about planting trees. Soon enough Aircos and other equipment will be desinged for robot fixing, but also soon enough the robots will know how to fix anything.

Make roadbots part of the new infrastructure bill

This is all a good thing, because we need robot hands to reduce environmental impact of humans, as well as to help fight climate change!

Earlier posts :

A First Application of Roadbots : Potholes?

Bidirectional Charging, Grid Stalling and Roadbots

Roadbots

Fixing the “Jobs” in Economics


Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

Right wing politics is inspired by industrial requests for changes in laws. The top of that food chain consists of banks and the fossil industry, who have to be served by changes no matter what (as far as they can control it). The goal is to create consumers and use fossil fuels to allow as much cashflow to occur in the economic system (as consumers consume all resource using fossil energy, including fossil energy).

One way to sell projects to people is to mention jobs. This airport creates 2000 jobs! This is because most people are in jobs, which are not very secure (Right wing politics always reduces job security as it executes request from industry!). Telling them there will be more jobs is telling them there’s less risk. It also talks to the rest of industry : If you support this project you will get a piece of the action (because employees buy products), not only the state that taxes our income.

But this is a blind economistic argument “jobs”. What about jobs in a highly polluting chemical factory? Or Jobs at casino’s? There should be a way to qualify jobs as to their effect on the rest of the economic ‘ecosystem’ (weird juxtaposition). Not all jobs are equal. Not all jobs are desirable. Some expose workers to toxins. Some lead to waste of natural resources or addiction (tabacco).

The value of a job should be seen as the sum of all its consequences for the real world, not its effect on the economy

So one can say that any job that is created should be counted in relation to the effect on the overal wellbeing of people in using the products or services created. This can almost be calculated. Now jobs are only qualified from the perspective of industry, on how much they cost, what education level is required, where they are located. For products there are some tracking options that will tell you if it has been produced sustainably, but I have not yet seen this for jobs. How would you calculate?

  1. Energy gain/cost per hour on the job
  2. Fossil fuel gain/cost per hour on the job
  3. Biomass gain/cost per hour on the job
  4. Water gain/cost per hour on the job
  5. Education level gain/cost per hour on the job

The above is not a strange process in economics. But if you take the example of a local baker compared to a big bread factory for a region, that factory will have less jobs. Those jobs will be energy intensive because these people need to drive to the bread factory, but the bread itself will be made less energy intensive because of the use of a large baking oven. Maybe the flour has to be transported less times to the factory than to the baker. You can see that fossil fuel cost quickly translates into production cost, so the idea to minimize costs as the economy does is not entirely stupid.

Jobs at a big supermarket quickly become undesirable because everybody needs to drive to it, in all kinds of old vehicles. How is that better than having local stores that are closer to the end consumer?

A farmer using fertilizers and GM crops and diesel as fuel is putting 10 calories into producing 1 calorie of food (this is an old statistic, may bave improved). He holds 1 job, but maybe 10 farmers with less sophisticated methods will be energetically and environmentally efficient.

An airport may create 1000 jobs and people will say they bring cash to tourist destinations, but that means that for the pleasure of the tourist call kinds of emissions are produced in these destinations. Some are good some are bad. Car miles are saved, but airco hours are gained.

Building an oil pipeline which makes fuel available to millions may be seen to create a lot of jobs, but all those jobs will depend on emitting more greenhouse gasses. So then those jobs would get a negative score.

It is clear that modelling of the value of jobs is more complex the more you want to tie it to actual real life consequences, instead of just a number in a bank account (salaries which will become turnover in local stores and online). Still this would make it easier to see if, when jobs are created, they are jobs we actually want.

How to do AntiFa Right (or “Easy Antifa”)


Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

Antifa or Anti-fascism is a title given to a mixed bag of people, some insane, some sane, that are generally unhappy and distrustfull of government. They show up at protests and some have real rational motivations, others are just excited to do anything and others again are thugs or right wing infiltrants that are supposed to make the movement look bad.

Musolini was both semi criminal, easy to anger and a good writer. He invented fascism as a system by which the people are rendered slaves of anger to be directed where he wanted, serving the industrial agenda.

To deconfuse what anti-fascism is : It is a movement against fascism (haha gotcha!). What is Fascism? Its an invention of Musolini, copied bij Hitler. It primarily consists of the rule of industry over the people. Industry generally does not care about human lives, so in order to gain political momentum it has to make people hate themselves, this is done by making them angry and unhappy and blaming it on some subgroup, you know the story. But to go back to the core, it is when industry calls the shots.

Today the core of fascism in our system lies in its financial system. It works very hard to be inescapable, cash is phased out, your transactions shared with companies. You as a consumer or citizen are not only punished for crimes (which the law does) but also directed and influenced against your needs or interests on a daily basis. Facebook is industry, Amazon is industry, Google is industry. No matter how lofty their ‘values’ are, they look at a financial bottom line, people do not figure in the equation. Even if they say that they tailor the experience to be most attractive to the user, they have no idea when the user becomes addicted or his/her use of the services becomes a problem.

Industrial international corporations dominate for a simple reason, they are big organizations that have programmed our minds well, we have been conditioned to like them and buy their products reliably. Banks like that. They rather finance a company that turns over 1.000.000 cans of soda reliably than two that turn over 600.000 unreliably. The numbers speak for themselves, they also make people greedy because how can numbers change in a positive way? Only by going up! Once people rely on for example Coca Cola sales to feel secure they stop caring if Coca Cola steals fresh water or dumps plastic in our oceans. My mantra is : Industry does not care about your life. The world is full of business models that ran out of control. The fossil industry is an example. And these business models defend themselves, with help of banks or out of fear for them.

Fascism is also the conditioning of people to work wel with industry. So many people at Shell think they landed a dream job, they show exceptional self control to not be thrown out of this mamoth organization with its neatness and expat culture still very much alive and kicking. On the flip side workers are put in perpetual uncertainty so they basically stare into a social abyss most of their low wage job carreer (which can end instantly with some injury or new robot or AI tech being introduced)

So the core problem of fascism is that you are governed by ideas produced from an profit motive which we call economic thinking, which is detached from both the means it uses and its effect on human and physical resources beyond what is can be observed by financial transactions. Even if a Ikea wants to know what you think of the Likerakko (name altered so I’m not sued) inorganic neck support pillow, it is because it wants to be turning over products and see higher financial numbers. If the pillow happens to be stuffed with a toxic sedative and 99% of respondents tell Ikea they sleep much better since they use it (but die of cancer 10 years later), Ikea will make more of them!

From this it follows that Antifa is a much bigger movement, which can be summed up by people who think about what they experience and feel and conclude there is something wrong with the products and institutions they have to choose from, in that it makes them think of suffering, risk to their own lives or others and long term damage as well as unnecessary social isolation and unfair treatment of certain groups of people.

People that never think about such things are not Antifa. There are plenty who will say “these mittens where made by children’s hands in Myanmar Haha!!” and slap another slice of bacon on the grill. People make choices about what they care about. Some never think about anything because all their choices are dictated by their peer group or the media they consume or their financial desperation.

So does it help to be a mob wearing black in a field being confronted by police with water canons? Does it help to be perpetually angry and find new ways the system is screwing you to rage about? The system may be doing that on purpose you know. It is a self defending industrial system with every means to its disposal. Sensation media are just enraging narratives to keep the people from focusing their energy on what will improve their lives. People that have very good lives are not angry every day (except when they are industrial indoctrinators like Rush Limbaugh). In fact the people that ‘escape’ the system are varied probably above average intelligent. It is not hard however to be Antifa at all.

You can not simply say ‘Antifa’ is Democrats or ‘Antifa’ is left wing politics. Industrial interests are represented by politicians of every political color. Some may be raging against deforestation, the murder of forest protection activists, but they will then fly back home where they have a mortgage and give their kids all the trappings of modern industrially created wealth. Like getting rid of fossil fuels is hard when every damn thing runs on it, it is hard to become non industrially governed when the government is clearly 100% pro-fossil fuel industrial economics. But it is possible.

Being Antifa can be a game. The principles are simple :

  1. Own stuff, own land
  2. Buy stuff you need from local sources
  3. Buy products you understand
  4. Cooperate with anyone you can learn to trust
  5. Avoid mass media and don’t get angry over what you read or see or hear
  6. Use as little money as possible, help others save money
  7. Vote for people that want to use renewable energy to create wealth, because ownership of such energy sources is easier to distribute
  8. Learn a skill that is usefull, get in shape.
  9. A tricky one : Go bankrupt. Shed debt and help others shed debt.

Far from being some kind of unhinged rage habit above choices are simple and can be part of a peacefull existence. Still if this agenda is followed by the majority of the country you will see smaller producers thrive, you will have a better chance to monitor any negative consequences. Banks will not have a massive “brand” they can park anywhere, because you have local tastes. You know your fruits (figure of speech), your life is not too complicated. You don’t need industry, you are silently bleeding the life out of it to death and the capacity of local energy sources (and thus the wealth that can be produced locally) grows.

This is antifa done right. The response of industry will be to try to make you love some product that draws you back into a “lifestyle”. You will be shamed and branded poor and fringe and socialist and antisocial. Industry will find people to anger and make them hate you (this is what you can see with the hatred against communism and socialism). So stick together. Form communions and don’t let anyone in that pretends to have big bucks. The fast cash strategy that ravaged Greece and Spain and Portugal in recent decades is losing steam anyway it seems, it is all fossil fuel dependend. That is why adopting renewables is such an important part of “Antifa Done Right”. Try it. Its easy. Call your self an practitioner of ‘Easy’ Antifascism