But we have know about it for more than a century…
General Electric even gave a perfect explanation
The phenomenon was mentioned in the movie Soylent Green, with the added correct prediction that by 2019 the oceans would not produce algea anymore! (the reason why Soylent Green is People)
F. Rincker
What is Extraeconomics
Extraeconomics is a new kind of economic thinking, fit for the renewable energy age. Traditional economics as it is now practiced around the globe really constitute a fossil fuel marketing strategy and can be defined in short as “The maximization of the Utilization of Fossil Fuels”. It is immediately obvious that if fossil fuel streams would stop flowing today, the world would crash in a week. This to anyone analyzing the situation would seem like a major flaw.
Extraeconomics doesn’t intent to fix traditional economics, it proposes a way to create units of robust existence based on renewable energy sources //outside// the economic environment. Instead of trying to trade it proposes to create units, territories with their inhabitants, that do not trade with anyone except for specific items. The reason why trade is limited if not prohibited is that whatever trade supplies can be made within the territory. Also whatever the territory produces should not be destroyed/used outside it, to prevent energy and waste stream inbalances.
Extraeconomics is the key to solving the climate crisis. If the climate crisis is handled purely economical then a power plant colony in the Lybian desert will be build using fossil fuels, carry an enormous debt and thus have to supply its energy to the economy at large, basically powering the machines and appliances, homes that further destructive consumption of the ecosysytem.
The climate problem can not be solved by using fossil fuels. 1. It only increases the problem. 2. It’s not going to be applied to such goals, 3.You will run out of fuel before having any effect. Therefore normal (fossil fuel based) economics can’t solve the problem.
Would the power plant colony be build using extraeconomic principles the building would not create a debt, the energy produced could be used to capture carbon (basically transforming the electricity into carbon storage), and this process could sustain itself indefinitely while outside the colony economics continued to exploit and destroy the ecosystem. Even with that destruction the extraeconomical unit would be a safehaven for its inhabitants and beneficial to the planet.
Of course extraeconomical units or colonies can produce wealth for the economy at large, but in general this economy doesn’t like that as it depends on our struggle for our share of fossil fuel wealht, distributed through our monetary system. We need money to buy gasoline, food, shelter, to pay our debts and our freedoms. This is the economic system. This is why extraeconomics needs to be defined seperately : It can not evolve from present day fossil fuel scarcity dependend economics.
General principles
The first principle of extraeconomics is that it is the law in a specific ‘zone’, territory, area. Inside the ‘zone’ no other law applies. Trade can only occur (if it occurs at all) within the zone, NEVER to anyone outside the zone. A zone is 100% selfsufficient. People that live in the zone can not migrate in or out, can not maintain bank accounts outside the zone. They can travel and communicate.
The second principle is that it must be possible for renewable energy to power all activities in a zone. Fossil fuels are not avaiable except perhaps in the startup. Energy must be available in sufficient amounts in the zone for people to survive comfortable, for there to be farming, fishing, production of goods and services and for extraeconomic production of forrests, or carbon capture. This principle informs the amount of people that can live in a zone. Technology can help with this challenge if it is a challenge.
Third principle is that the purpose of the zone is capture carbon to combat global warming, strengthen the ecosystem and bring about vitality and beauty of our planet and its inhabitants. Other purposes can be to clean up specific pollution, to breed plants and animals to be released elsewhere. The purpose is never to gain access to goods or services in the ‘outside’ economy.
Wealth = Cybernetic agents X Energy X Raw materials
Designing an extraeconomical zone
Normal economics operates based on investments and market value of whatever is produced with the investment. Market value is ultimately only the value to the supplier of fossil fuels, and as a result economics produces enormous amounts of waste. Intermediaries in the fossil fuel tokens (fiat currencies) do not care how the fuels are applied, although it is in their interest to do it ‘efficiently’. Extraeconomics can’t operate with the same mechanisms, it requires carefull design before a zone is declared.
A zone is not designed with money in mind, but with resources. The resources are invested in the zone and one can say it buys the livelyhoods of the inhabitants. Typically only a fraction of the wealth created in the zone will be from outside resouces, and sometimes even none at all. Elements that are needed repeatedly in every new zone can be defined as building blocks to be provided, and it can be such that some zones produce these building blocks for other zones.
The intermediaries in the traditionally economic zones will try to exploit whatever is produced in the extraeconomic zones, and so there can be no involvement of any party from regular economic zones in the creation or management of an extraeconomic zone. Money is of no value to extraeconomical zones. To protect the zones a governing body outside the zones must be established to protect them from raids and plunder.
Most military blocks are now serving fossil fuel interests, because most weapon systems depend on fossil fuels. There are clear initiatives to use renewable sources to power weapons, but in general the need for a strong army disappears once renewables are embraced. This means that only an enlightened military can be found willing to protect an extraeconomical zone. Most extraeconomic zones will have to be created at a distance from civilisation at first.
Technology
All technology can be applied in an EE zone, regardless of patents, and regardless of it affecting fossil fuel use (because fossil fuels won’t be used). Normal law does not apply in the zones. Renewable energy techology, but also robotics and automated systems can all be used to maximize wealth provided the principles are adhered to. These technologies can be created in the zone, without outside help, or by sharing knowledge between zones.
Wealth being a function of cybernetics x energy x raw materials means that when humans or machines have the energy to process raw materials towards our desired goals (cybernetic feedback) they can create things that constitute wealth. Wealth can be defined as suporting the real needs of living human and other beings so they can live healthy, happy lives.
Government
Extraeconomical zones are designed to provide for themselves and serve the purpose of ecorestauration or carbon capture. As such they are closed economical systems where resources are applied optimally to the chosen ends. A currency can be used to allow inhabitants freedom to chose the kind of wealth they want to enjoy. All enjoy a basic income for their role in the zone.
Why money is not debt
Money today is not what it used to be at the start of the fossil fuel era. In the time manual labour was still the dominant factor in production of wealth the amount of money had to keep pace with the amount of skilled workers, and if something big had to be initiated it required that something als was not being achieved. Production of one thing meant not producing another thing.
This all changed with when industrialization happened based on coal driven steam engines. The machines broke the limitation set by the number of hands or horses able to help, and the value of labour became harder to determine. Unlike after the plague in England, when the noblemen and royals had to give in to the demands of the workers, because so little where left, now it was possible to wage wars slaughtering hundreds of thousends of men without ultimate negative impact on wealth for those left behind. In fact, fossil fuel driven wars became something ‘economics’ was very positive about.
When the amount of money was fixed, also because it was gold, and when our existence was predicated on many people cooperating, then money could be owed, or a debt. In fact most people intuitively feel debt when someone does something for them. That person is not free to enjoy his life while he performs the service, and so this means to recipient of the service should feel a debt to make sure he will do something back someday. Money helped shift the debt around so it could be repayed sooner and with more effect. This is the primary function of money.
It is easy to see that storing money even in this age would not be storing value, because a plague or other event could wipe out all people and who would then (even want to) provide services in return for money? Also many initiatives would invlove no money at all, or involve the creation of some kind of money independent of prevalent currencies.
Money as we know it after a century of fossil fuel industrialization no longer means manual labour. It means fossil fuels. Banks no regulate the amount of money to keep pace with the amount of fossil fuels available for production of goods and services. If they would not do that prices would fluctuate constantly, because demand (based on consumers with money) would not be in tune with supply (limited by the amount of fossil fuels available). This intimate link between money and fossil fuels is completely overlooked in modern economics, yet it is the absolute basis of its validity. Without fuel the economy would grind to a standstill in days.
This means one important thing : Profit is an illusion. Why? Because all gain in goods and services comes at the cost of a loss of fossil fuels (as the enabling resource). You are always left with less even if you make a Ferrari or you feed 100.000 children. Profit from fossil fuel investments mean money is taken out of circulation, at least as much as is spend on the project. This still doesn’t mean anything is gained, only that the loss is contained, the loss could have happened because of other processes (like people spending money to drive cars), but the money ended up in the pocket of the project.
What does it mean that a person that borrowed money from a bank to invest in a project has to pay that money back? The money is being spend on fossil fuels and other resources, it ends up mainly in the hands of these producers (fossil fuel, food, raw materials). The fuel is burned and the product is sold and all money gained except the profit has to be payed back to the bank. The question is : Why? What does it mean. The bank provided the money, but a debt in the true sense is not owed to the bank, it is owed to the suppliers of the fuel and materials needed to create the product or service. Somehow they accepted the money, especially the fossil fuel supplier. Why could the project not be done to the profit of the fossil fuel supplier and the other raw materials suppliers? That would make much more sense. Instead the bank pretends to have a right to both the money back and a piece of the action (interest).
The only reason one can think of why money should be returned to the bank (and this can be a way to aknowledge a debt) is that the bank wants money to remain scarce and more importantly (the real reason) because the bank wants to control what happens with the fossil fuels, how much of them are used how. If the bank allows money continue to circulate endlessly more and more would circulate and this would mean both inflation, but it would also mean less control over the projects that are initiated. The type of projects could be undesirable, and we all know what projects those are : Ones affecting the dominance of fossil fuels!
In economic theory money is created as debt because it has to return to the bank, because control over the amount is crucial for management of the fossil fuel consumption rate as well as the power of the banks. It is not debt in the classic sense because nobody in any bank loses sweat and no oil worker loses income over you not repaying it. It is a mere instrument of control.
If money really had to be repayed, the oil also would have to be unburned
On a small scale, locally money does play the classic role, but only because people really don’t think about whether there is still gas in the pump tomorrow, or whether bread will come to the bakery. So from the individual perspective it seems a mortgage is a debt to be repayed. It is not. Saying you need money to start something is like saying people can’t move except for money. They can and have and will.
The most imortant thing to keep the majority convinced money is the means to everything is to keep the fossil fuel based production machine going. If it is using renewables it has to be from a position of debt, not for free! This is why we need extraeconomical zones and thinking, because economics is bound to fossil fuels, and depends on our illusion of debt.
Update : China to implement a social credit score
“The Chinese aim is far more ambitious: it is clearly an attempt to create a new citizen”
Everyone is aware of the creep in personal data retention by the almost every business or authority around. The NSA, Google, banks and companies all want datasets and/or direct knowledge concering your whereabouts. Smartphones seem to be expressly developed with GPS (something nobody really needed before) so owners can be tracked. Banks openly discuss selling your transaction data to companies so when you buy at particular store, the competition gets notified..
To make a list of types of data being retained we have:
One can argue that this data collection is for commercial reasons, partially it is. Part of it is industrial espionage. What happens is hard to tell, there is no way to police the spread of your data as long as the privacy of companies is protected, and states remain sovereign. Simple information maximization results in enormous amounts of data being stored, looking for a use.
U.S. Agencies Said to Swap Data With Thousands of Firms
There are several problems with this trend. The first is that it turns the market into a planned economy, because it is clear what is needed where and by whom most of the time. Second, it opens avenues for political influencing, something that was reported by the University of Bath. Multinationals use private intelligence companies to gather data on possible political opponents, and actually infiltrate their ranks to either push them over the edge of legality or harm them in other ways.
“Large transnational corporations (TNCs) faced with political or consumer campaigns have a long history of countering criticism with dirty tricks, including: spying on activists and infiltrating their groups” (source)
The question rises, what is the role of the government in this. The answer is that the governmental institutions create forced trust that is abused by corrupted politicians. It is a willing host to parasitic infestations of non-democratic, malign and ill minded survaillance and enforcement. But due to the weakening of laws companies can now choose from an endless array of private companies (set up as part of ‘homeland security’) to help them spy on and subequently disabuse law abiding citizens.
But what world does this create? One in which you never know if what happens to you is an accident. One in which your internet is different from that of everyone else. One in which you can’t insure against genetic weakness. One in which your political choices influence your career. No matter how fragmented the buildup of this data mesh is, its ultimate effect will be one of either inclusion or exclusion for specific individuals. It creates a whole new landscape to navigate.
The first use of big data was by Hitler, who used IBM computers to track down and destroy the jews of Europe. (source)
This all does not happen in a neutral environment. The worlds resouces are being depleted and affected by climate change. Peak oil forces ever more polluting types of fossil fuel to be brought onstream. Scarcity is already pushing people into poverty on a massive scale, you can list the ‘revolutions’ that all don’t lead to a solid answer (more renewables), but instead can only amplify suffering. It is obvious why there is no relief achievable through the application of renewable energy, because most financial and real conflict aim to maintain fossil fuel as the dominant energy source.
The people that control the resources, whether they are armies in service of governments or individuals, all have the same dillema : Use the fuel (sell it at a price that people can afford) and have a society of some sort, but also get rid of those using the fuels without improving society, because that lengthens the period of possible enjoyment. Not selling it is not an option because the financial system will replace anyone with a mind to stop fossil fuel exploitation, even if it takes a war. Money flow is 100% contingent on fossil fuel flow, stopping it would kill the ‘carboncredit’ economy instantly and cost a lot of bankers their bonus.
The disconnect between the people and the elite lies where people become disinterested in laws, or where lawmaking is made so complex it is impossible to pinpoint those responsible for a law. This is the case in the US, where drafts of bills can change even after the final vote.
The challenge of the elite is to have a desirable society with less and less energy supply. The alternative (renewable based society) is avoided (fought tooth and nail) because it has an inverse power structure, it creates a patchwork of small ‘states’ that are relatively autonomous (although it will ultimatly adapt to its permanent and enormous energy surplus).
Using solar we can enjoy 2250 times the wealth we now get from fossil fuels.
How is this not going to lead to eugenics? The pressure is in favour of the most marketable people. This is because they most easily sell and perpetuate the consumer economy. Those that don’t look attractive, healthy and active don’t deserve as much investment, because they don’t generate as much cashflow.
NASA analysis “With a larger depletion rate, the decline of the Commoners occurs faster, while the Elites are still thriving, but eventually the Commoners collapse completely, followed by the Elites.” (source)
Medical services will be constrained to people with the potential to live long healthy lives. This is translated to high insurance fees and outright rejection. Jobs will be offered to people checking all the boxes.The waste of resources becomes increasingly problemantic as fossil fuel scaricty grows. Every weak country will be stripped of its assets, first weakend by financial sharks, like f.i. Greece and Italy, or the so called Piigs. Whole peoples will be pushed back into a more treacherous life, increasing death rates, forcing stronger effects of natural selection.
The data gathering we see (or accidentally discover) today all helps create a world in which your chances of succes are no longer in your hands. Your reality can be changed, your options changed, even your mind because the information you are exposed to is not accidental, but tailored to have a specific effect with you. The only way to counter it is to extract yourself from the information environment, but that does not help you apply for a job with a company that knows your history and kan easily find dozens of alternative less tainted applicants.
Many political parties on the right believe it’s your own work that brings you success, and everyone has equal opportunities. This is an old philosophy that serves those that are already successfull. It is true it used to take a stong man to master others and generate a stable and wealthy houshold, especially when lifespan was still about 40 years and most work was done by manual labour. These days the accomplisched rule machines, and indoctrinated people. They are mere machinists, soullessly watching dails, hiding weakness with arrogance.
The biggest problem ultimately is that there is no human-related goal in a carbon economy. The goal is to sell as much fossil fuels as possible. Beauty, life, children or happiness are not goals. Only the few people controlling the mechanical process will ultimately have to be satisfied and happy, but that’s only a tiny fraction of the total population. All the rest has to suffer in the mechamism serving fossil fuel monetization, or be rejected by it (which is more efficient and altogether more pleasant for the elite). Chances are your person has been rated, weighed and found to be a burden. Maybe you will feel this is right, as you see someone more healthy and beautifull thrive. But this cruelty is unnecessary. Your move has to be to disable the mechanism by destroying ‘big data’, reverse it’s creation, delete records kept on you person, and become the sole owner of it again.
Nazi Eugenics started with the help of IBM
In a piece in the Guardian it’s asked whether a couple of rich entrepeneurs like Bloomberg, Brandson and Grantham could buy out all coal mines and shut them down to stop carbon, heavy metal and radioactive pollution for good..
The idea of buying out carbon fuel producers seems straightforward, but it really isn’t. In the case of coal right now it might work, because our dependence on coal has shrunk so much, only power plants, heavy industry and people heating their homes use coal. Close down the mines and these players will need to pay more because market supply drops.
It is easy to see that buying mines to close them down is not the favoured option for power plants and heavy industry, but it is also not the favoured option for banks. It means on the one side that banks can create less credit because there is no way to use the credit to produce (if production requires coal). Less credit because credit extended for projects involving coal fired power plants and heavy industry will become less viable.
Carbon credit
The basic mechanism in our economy is that credit allows producers to buy the energy they need to produce, mine, transport their goods and services, and most of that energy is fossil fuel. Without that energy the credit in the system can’t be used to buy it, and production stops. Hyperinflation would be the effect if we shut down all fossil energy suppliers today. Money is intimately linked with the fossil fuel supply. This is what we call the carboncredit economic system.
Shutting down one carbon source may be possible, we may for instance simply not frack. But if the producers don’t shift their type of energy then the value of money, credit, is immediately affected. To replace the carbon type energy source with a renewable one we would again need (primarily) fossil fuels. Nobody is preparing to make renewable energy with renewables because the market is dominated by fossil credit. So just shutting down fossil energy only causes a drop in overal production, wealth, income.
Because shutting down coal means a dissapearance of cashflow however, one can predict that the banks will make sure it never happens.
How to do it right
To shut down coal it should be used to set up a renewable powered production line for coal replacing renewable energy sources. So the mines can be bought, and when that is done the coal is used to make these new energy sources. Coal is now used to make solar panels for instance. To make renewables with renewable energy should be the ultimate aim, and when that happens coal can be shut down, and renewables can grow without limitations, and at almost zero cost.
To put pressure on the coal, oil and gas industry money could be used to buy out experts in it. Money could be used to take apart the network supporting it, to smear people in it. But the fossil fuel industry is the most powerfull in the world, so the better strategy is to simply build up the renewable capacity, with money (which means you can use fossil fuels). Then coal, oil and gas can all die a slow and deserved death..
A piece to explain why extraeconomics is a neccessary thing to escape carbon pollution and climate catastrophy. See Extraeconomics.com
Money today is not what it used to be at the start of the fossil fuel era. In the time manual labour was still the dominant factor in production of wealth the amount of money had to keep pace with the amount of skilled workers, and if something big had to be initiated it required that something als was not being achieved. Production of one thing meant not producing another thing.
This all changed with when industrialization happened based on coal driven steam engines. The machines broke the limitation set by the number of hands or horses able to help, and the value of labour became harder to determine. Unlike after the plague in England, when the noblemen and royals had to give in to the demands of the workers, because so little where left, now it was possible to wage wars slaughtering hundreds of thousends of men without ultimate negative impact on wealth for those left behind. In fact, fossil fuel driven wars became something ‘economics’ was very positive about.
When the amount of money was fixed, also because it was gold, and when our existence was predicated on many people cooperating, then money could be owed, or a debt. In fact most people intuitively feel debt when someone does something for them. That person is not free to enjoy his life while he performs the service, and so this means to recipient of the service should feel a debt to make sure he will do something back someday. Money helped shift the debt around so it could be repayed sooner and with more effect. This is the primary function of money.
It is easy to see that storing money even in this age would not be storing value, because a plague or other event could wipe out all people and who would then (even want to) provide services in return for money? Also many initiatives would invlove no money at all, or involve the creation of some kind of money independent of prevalent currencies.
Money as we know it after a century of fossil fuel industrialization no longer means manual labour. It means fossil fuels. Banks no regulate the amount of money to keep pace with the amount of fossil fuels available for production of goods and services. If they would not do that prices would fluctuate constantly, because demand (based on consumers with money) would not be in tune with supply (limited by the amount of fossil fuels available). This intimate link between money and fossil fuels is completely overlooked in modern economics, yet it is the absolute basis of its validity. Without fuel the economy would grind to a standstill in days.
This means one important thing : Profit is an illusion. Why? Because all gain in goods and services comes at the cost of a loss of fossil fuels (as the enabling resource). You are always left with less even if you make a Ferrari or you feed 100.000 children. Profit from fossil fuel investments mean money is taken out of circulation, at least as much as is spend on the project. This still doesn’t mean anything is gained, only that the loss is contained, the loss could have happened because of other processes (like people spending money to drive cars), but the money ended up in the pocket of the project.
What does it mean that a person that borrowed money from a bank to invest in a project has to pay that money back? The money is being spend on fossil fuels and other resources, it ends up mainly in the hands of these producers (fossil fuel, food, raw materials). The fuel is burned and the product is sold and all money gained except the profit has to be payed back to the bank. The question is : Why? What does it mean. The bank provided the money, but a debt in the true sense is not owed to the bank, it is owed to the suppliers of the fuel and materials needed to create the product or service. Somehow they accepted the money, especially the fossil fuel supplier. Why could the project not be done to the profit of the fossil fuel supplier and the other raw materials suppliers? That would make much more sense. Instead the bank pretends to have a right to both the money back and a piece of the action (interest).
The only reason one can think of why money should be returned to the bank (and this can be a way to aknowledge a debt) is that the bank wants money to remain scarce and more importantly (the real reason) because the bank wants to control what happens with the fossil fuels, how much of them are used how. If the bank allows money continue to circulate endlessly more and more would circulate and this would mean both inflation, but it would also mean less control over the projects that are initiated. The type of projects could be undesirable, and we all know what projects those are : Ones affecting the dominance of fossil fuels!
In economic theory money is created as debt because it has to return to the bank, because control over the amount is crucial for management of the fossil fuel consumption rate as well as the power of the banks. It is not debt in the classic sense because nobody in any bank loses sweat and no oil worker loses income over you not repaying it. It is a mere instrument of control.
On a small scale, locally money does play the classic role, but only because people really don’t think about whether there is still gas in the pump tomorrow, or whether bread will come to the bakery. So from the individual perspective it seems a mortgage is a debt to be repayed. It is not. Saying you need money to start something is like saying people can’t move except for money. They can and have and will.
The most imortant thing to keep the majority convinced money is the means to everything is to keep the fossil fuel based production machine going. If it is using renewables it has to be from a position of debt, not for free! This is why we need extraeconomical zones and thinking, because economics is bound to fossil fuels, and depends on our illusion of debt.
Centrales stoken steeds meer biomassa bij omdat dit een groen imago heeft. Biomassa is een verzamelterm voor alles wat van ooit geleefd heeft. Meestal wordt hiermee massa van plantaardige aard bedoelt, maar daaronder valt hout, algen, overproductie zoals bieten, groente afval, etc. Dierlijk materiaal laten we even buiten beschouwing, maar vet brandt goed, dus slachtafval en bijvangst wordt vast niet gemeden.
Het probleem is de netto CO2 neutraliteit van biomassa. Die is niet gegarandeerd. Neem de volgende voorbeelden:
1. De biomassa is afkomstig van intensieve landbouw. Dan is er veel CO2 vrijgekomen bij de verbouwing en logistiek, daarbij ook de emissies van kunstmest productie meerekenend. De fossiele investering is meestal een veelvoud van de calorische inhoud van het gewas (de energie van de zon die met 5% efficientie is vastgelegd). Verbranding is dus een ongewenste genadeslag na een al grondig gemaakte CO2 vlek.
2. Biomassa afkomstig van bossen en organische materiaal dat her en der wordt opgescharreld is ook niet neutraal als deze gewassen niet worden vervangen. Iedereen weet dat dit niet of nauwelijks gebeurt. Als dat wel zou zou zijn zouden we als het om hout gaat een ~12 jarige cyclus kunnen hanteren op een eindig stuk land (waarvan er genoeg is in Europa), want dan hebben bomen hun groeispurt wel gehad. Slimme oplossingen zijn niet welkom, er wordt voor miljarden aan turf verbrand in Azie (tbv van de aanleg van palmolie plantages).
De enige acceptabele biomassa is afkomstig van organisch verbouwde gewassen die specifiek voor dat doel worden verbouwd. Als dat al gebeurt voor bv. bijstook in centrales, is deze vast niet ‘rendabel’
Biomassa voor biogas
Lijst van afval dat mag worden vergist
De meeste mensen weten niet dat biogas gewoon suiker vergisting is. Er zit wat suiker in mest, dus mest is een van de bronnen, maar als het beetje suiker op is komt er als zn. digistaat uit, een vloeistof die veel (schoon) verbrandbare nitraat bevat die we echter uitrijden op het land met alle negatieve gevolgen van dien.
Rapport over de onbetrouwbaarheid van oorsprong van materialen voor covergisting
Dit betekent dat bij 75% van de 8 geïnspecteerde handelaren of leveranciers van
coproducten sprake was van kleinere tot grotere overtredingen. Bij veel stromen
kon niet met zekerheid worden vastgesteld dat deze niet op de bijlage Aa van de
Uitvoeringsregeling Meststoffenwet (URM) voorkomen, omdat verificatie-inspecties
bij de ontdoeners (met betrekking tot aard en samenstelling van de oorspronkelijke
afvalstof) buiten de reikwijdte van dit project vallen.
De biovergassers worden soms gevuld met zoals hierboven genoemd organisch verbouwde gewassen. Maar meestal wordt er tot het maximaal toelaatbare aan landbouw overschot bijgevoegd. Dit is nodig om het suikergehalte hoog genoeg te krijgen. Dit landbouw overschot is echter zelden organisch van oorsprong, dus de CO2 neutraliteit is dan alweer van de baan. Voor elke eetbare calorie wordt volgens sommigen 10 fossiele callorien ‘geinvesteerd’. Pure waanzin. Biogas op deze manier is slechts een poging het verloren gas (dat bij de kunstmest productie is gebruikt) terug te winnen. Netto CO2 uitstoot neemt door gebruik ervan dus toe.
Biobrandstoffen
De lakmoes test voor een biobrandstof producent zou moeten zijn dat deze geen enkele fossiele input gebruikt, niet voor de voertuigen, landbouwerktuigen, niet voor de kunstmest productie. Dat zou een (door mij zo genoemd) voorbeeld zijn van een extraeconomische activiteit. Maar zo vind biobrandstof productie niet plaats. Het is een fossiele aangelegenheid met een 5% rendement vanwege de fotosynthetische plant processen. Dit om het vervolgens in een 20% efficiente auto te verspillen. Biobrandstoffen kunnen dus wel, maar wederom alleen organisch.
Conclusie
Biomassa is een mooi idee, maar de industrie die zich er mee bezighoud moet absolute regels worden opgelegd zodat het netto CO2 rendement negatief is. Dit is momenteel niet te handhaven omdat onze overheden worden ingepalmd door bv. de Gasunie, een bedrijf dat GAS wil verkopen.
We weten ook dat het ETS systeem, dat over CO2 rechten gaat, zo slecht werkt dat er wordt voorgesteld de doelstelling ervan te heroverwegen. “We doen het ETS omdat … [het goed is voor de kabouters? vult u maar in] “. Wie dus over CO2 rechten en certificaten begint kun je hard uitlachen.
Onze aan keynsian economie verslaafde PVDA en VVD en D66 beseffen niet dat dit type economie slechts werkt met fossiel, en hebben dus ook niet door dat al hun ideen en plannen eerst door een pro fossiele filter worden gehaald. Hebben ze dat gehad dan ontmoeten ze de gas en olie lobby, die omdat ze de basis van de economie zijn altijd genoeg geld hebben (schaliegas pot is > 700.000 aldus @schaliegasja). Dit bepaald het financiele beeld en zo het beleid dat desastreus is.
Oplossingen?
Nemen we de zuidelijke europese landen in de arm in plaats van ze de verachtten om daar biomassa te verbouwen, dan bestaat de kans dat blijkt dat dat helemaal niet de meest efficientste oplossing is (efficient in de zin van warmte aldaar verpakken in een brandstof voor gebruik alhier). Misschien is de productie van NH3 (ammoniak) met wind of zonlicht wel slimmer (komt helemaal geen CO2 bij kijken). Of productie van warmte uit wind in Nederland ( zoals wij voorstellen in windheatingsystem.com ) ! Of P2G in Spanje (hoewel men daar de zonnecentrales wil sluiten om gas rendabeler te maken).
Het is duidelijk dat er eerst een hoop politici met ondermaats IQ moet worden vervangen en lobbyisten worden weggestuurd alvorens we tot verstandig gebruik van biomassa kunnen komen.
Een gezondheids studie bij de Diablo Canyon Nuclear Reactors in Californie (VS) laat zien dat er negatieve effecten zijn.
“The major findings of this report show increases in various rates of disease and death in San Luis Obispo County, as compared to the state of California, since the 1980s (before plant startup and during its early years of operation). This includes increases in infant mortality, child/adolescent cancer mortality, cancer incidence for all ages (especially thyroid, female breast, and melanoma), and cancer mortality for all ages.
In addition, official vital statistics show that certain morbidity or mortality rates are rising more rapidly in the nine (9) zip code areas in San Luis Obispo County closest (under 15 miles) from Diablo Canyon, vs. the other 10 zip codes in the county, and vs. the state of California. These health status indicators include babies born at very low weight (below 3 pounds, 4 ounces) and all-cause mortality.” (pagina 30)
Meer kindersterfte, meer kanker bij jong volwassenen, meer schildklier, borst en huidkanker. Babies worden te jong geboren. Oude centrales zijn veilig toch?
“These findings strongly support the hypothesis that elevated radioactivity in the environment −and hence in the diet−is a factor in the rising morbidity and mortality rates in affected populations living near Diablo Canyon.”
Ergo, de kleine hoeveelheden radioactiviteit die ontsnappen zijn genoeg om mensen rond de centrale te doden. Wat moeten we verwachten van de enorme hoeveelheden radioactiviteit die in Fukushima vrijkomen?
“Energiebedrijf Tepco zegt dat het lek vanochtend in een routinecontrole is geconstateerd. Twee afsluitkleppen van de opslagtank waren onterecht opengezet.”
“