Greencheck.nl

Many countries claim to have a democracy and hopefully you live in one. The main tenet of the process is purportedly that you choose your own officials, which in a fair election allows you to prioritize certain ideas over others. Of course freedom, jobs, less taxes etc. are general ideas everyone will support every time, and this gets a lot of people elected. Lately a new brand of politician has arrived, which seems to be fully supported by niche beliefs which sometimes contradict. Patriots, fascists, racists, all kind of small groups can be identified and addressed through social media. Campaigns of others can be undermined.

But this is not what democracy was originally. Originally it was just people coming together in a town square to make group decisions, with voting deciding the outcome. Originally the vote of a previous day could also be overturned by the group. The advantage was that in a socially coherend city like Athens everyone knew the ideas and passions of others and a majority vote meant you knew you could shut up about an idea voted away.

Modern society is way more complex. Now we have extremely strong interests being defended, and there is so much knowledge to have about what goes on (about industry) that lobbyists, or advisors with industry knowledge are essential. But of course democracy was never meant to decide on what industry does. As a result most of what industry does is weighed against the idea of profit, financial gain. That standard is more powerfull than that of wellbeing of the population, because there is no group who can independently think and take a strong position for that, not even the medical sector (because it is also an industry).

The cult of personality allows people to have no actual thought process, vison or ideas, only a personality you like.

Banks and fossil are the strongest powers in society by far, and its clear they run dutch politics at least. They strongly push in EU politics as well, for nuclear and ‘green gas’. The dutch kabinet is no longer reliably supplying the parliament with information. The policy for the next 3 years has been set in stone in an untransparent process behind doors, without votes. The new kabinet of ministers is larger but has the same people in it that where send away because the tax office commited gross abuse by demanding money back from people without reason or recourse, destroying lives and possibly even killing people. Of course industry and banks are used to that, they don’t care about it, and this kabinet was 100% in their pockets under Rutte.

But as said earlier democracy was not meant to be this sideshow where politicans are more bussy seeking ways to make the public approve what industry wants then to represent subgroups of people shape laws for all people. The guidance to make improvements would be to state that democracy is a thought process. It is the nation thinking. It is the nation testing ideas. Some of this happens in politics, so for instance an idea is lauched by a minister (a testing balloon).

The way the thought process should work is that the public talk to local politicians about what they want, then these talk to other local politicians to see if they think the ideas make sense, then this gets lifted to the politicians in parliament and minsters who may decide to prioritize the ideas. This is not how it works. The right wing majority of dutch politics is anti democratic. They get their ideas from industry and banks, and of course there are many sycophants who want the favor of banks and industry around the country who simply take their cues and repeat the mantra’s (also found in books of the WEF or other right wing writers). Its about lying to keep the left intimidated and weak. Who works the hardest? Not the banker. Who cares the most? Not the industrialist. Who adds the most value? Not the CEO (usually) but of course the engineer, intern, PhD student. But no, these people work so hard! Of course you don’t have to work hard if you can influence politicians, which is what right wing politicians are for.

The media keep inviting right wing talkingheads so the thought process gets sabotaged because people allow their minds to be scripted based on the cult of personality based trust

Democracy tries to work as a thought process, but fails almost immediately between the citizen and the local councils. In the case of the Meta Datacenter near Zeewolde the local politicians agreed with the energy guzzling (climate unfriendly) project only to say it regretted it shortly after. In a real democracy that would mean the project once again would be blocked. It doesn’t seem that happened. In other places the anti-fossil Left simply stopped being parties in the council maybe because it no longer made any sense to always lose. The main reason for these phenomena is banks and the fossil industry.

It used ot be that you could earn a honest day’s work by working honestly for a day. That is no longer true, you can work and not earn enough to live, you can not work and earn plenty. You can live in a city and never see a plant or animal yet eat plants and animals every day. You can work an online job (many have to now) and just be detached from the entire rest of the planet. For years. This bubble society (post coming) is a real problem. We don’t need each other, we don’t see each other, we can’t help each other, we have no shared thought processes. Most public affairs are inaccessible because they are locked behind bureacracy and nobody gets rewarded to keep an eye on what really goes on.

To fix all this we need to lear how to facilitate the thought process again. We need to speak our minds in all cases, prioritized based on the effect on our community, not on our wallet. We may have to make the incomes of politicians hypertransparent. A fixed fee for speeches for example, no means to earn later for services rendered, no lobby jobs after your politicial term. Items on agendas must be brought in by the public (We had a prime minister that asked to cut Shells dividend tax, and no party ever asked for it, which shows you his fossil/banking puppet nature). A member of parliament has to speak about problems of real people that came in through the local and regional councils. It would be very easy for citizen to indicate with issues they thought where actually important to them (through the DigID environment).

It seems the current right wing paralysis of politics is entirely because of corruption. The false belief in economism as the way forward for the next decade is terrifying. The idea to allow 24 datacenters without also requiring explosive expansion of renewables seems to indicate a desire to burn US and Russian gas, which can only lead to more animosity which the EU being a stakeholder may suffer the effects from. We almost had a war (and may still have it) in Ukraine because of the idiotic desire to use fossil energy. That is without talking about how banks destroyed the home building industry, social housing and build up a large group of nitrogen polluting farms who’s owners have to face the possiblity of shut down. So much is going wrong all because of economists, WEF globalists. How many of those live in dutch cities? How did they get their agenda through their city councils? They didn’t.

The goal of the economistic Right is to screw up our idea of democracy so we have no place to start. The ranks being cleaned from lobbyists and people without actual constituents would be a good step.

like a dog on leash or a horse with a bustrens being controlled by a few persons our politics is run by politicians that listen to a few advisors. The mantra is simple : Make sure fossil energy is used, This will protect both the power of the fossil sector and that of the banks. The latter can trade anything for the fossil fuels, they create the money. So we get US gas, the US gets to buy some dutch companies, we get russian gas, Russia gets to buy some dutch companies. No doubt the Meta datacenter was pushed through to get gas from the US?

Because of climate change the above reads like everyone lost their mind in Holland. It proves really hard to increase right wing policing because people in Holland are so reasonable, in spite of the Right (without any citizen asking) to increase the pain by driving up home prices, reducing what can be rented etc. etc. The people with thoughts should help restart the thought process : No talk about topics nobody brought up (this is what eliminated Rutte’s dividend suggestion), and no politician that doesn’t have a reason for his ideas. Right wing politicians always expose their manequine nature because if you ask them anything about their position they just don’t know. Rutte famously said he doesn’t have a vision. He also said that he will break the law if it pleases him (let’s hope its nothing creepy he did). In a democracy thoughts trickle up (you could interpret the trickle down economy as one where thoughts are blocked from trickling up by money, so corruption institutionalized). And they can then be tested for their rationality and effect on others. Farmers can’t keep producing 7 times more meat than Holland needs. But what can other farmers do to reduce emissions? Etc. And anyone who can not defend his/her idea on its own merit or indicate its origin in facts or social impact has to simply abandon it.

We often forget how we got to today. Once there where no fossil fuels and no engines, not even steam engines. Everything ran on food or fodder and the occasional wind and water flows. The wealth people created came at a considerable effort, healthcare was weak and so was the social fabric of society. Banks had a simple job, keep money safe, hand out money to people that had good ideas how to use capital (money was NOT capital in those days) to produce wealth more efficiently. This all made a lot of sense.

Coal was discovered, the steam engine invented, the lathe to work metal and produce precise copies of mechanisms. Suddenly we could produce more wealth than before, limited this time by the number of steam engines and of course the job of hauling coal to where the steam engines where (but that was solved by steam trains). Suddenly heavy loads could be moved over enormous distances, steel could be mined and worked to build more machines that ran on coal steam.

In this frenzy of development banks learned a quick lesson : You can create money, that money buys coal, that coal creates products, which neutralizes the inflation your money represents. The money ends up with the coal producers, who have no reason to spend it. More wealth going around meant more need for money. But the limit was the value of gold and silver, the currencies where backed by those metals. That represented a restriction on money creation, a restriction that had to be removed.

When oil came along in the eary 1900s and the diesel engine was used (originally invented to run on vegetable oil) the same dynamic got hold on the world, of course the countries that quickly armed themselves with diesel warships could put a lid on other countries trying to get to the new found black gold. The banks saw the same process playing out, but this time on a ridiculous scale. More engines meant more use of oil, meant more wealth creation, comfort and ‘progress’. The correct word however is ‘modernity’ which is the needless replacement of old habits to accomodate for the oil ‘pressure’. The fossil-economy and the mentality of economism was born.

What is economism according to me? It is the idea that you finance the use of fossil fuel (enable, because the money you create is worthless if you -can not- buy fossil fuels with it). This then allows for the purchase of engines, to produce wealth, new products etc.

• If this is a succes then this means more fossil fuel use, more cashflow
• If it is a failure there was initial fossil fuel use and cashflow
• The winners can be rewarded and the losers punished through the use of debt
• The whole system is backed by the armies who would not be able to fight modern wars without fossil fuels

The above system serves the fossil fuel industry and the banks. It is build into the economic theory. It is a game. All players that should not produce must be in debt, all producers that fail will become non-producers, and of course anyone who wants to try to become producers can, banks and fossil ALWAYS win. If you do well as a player you are welcome at the WEF.

The above ‘game’ has had a lot of benefits for many in the world. No doubt. But it also has meant there was constant ‘pressure’ to burn more fossil fuels, which would be called economic develoment and growth. This in turn caused and is till causing massive emissions, and this is why this game is a problem.

Now there is talk of a Great Reset, which is really not a reset at all, according to Wikipedia it denotes an industrial revolution based on most recent innovations in the fields of AI, Quantum computing, nano technology. The WEF and Klaus Schwab do not want to end the fossil/banking game, they see no harm in it maybe, but of course no matter how much Quantum computation and Nano technology you use, you’re not going to develop enough renewable energy sources as long as the economistic game is not pointed out and worked around.

Now to create renewable energy sources we still need to use a lot of fossil energy. This means the players of the economistic game have to agree with the transition, and they DONT. This is clearly demonstrated by Manchin’s behaviour vs. the Build Back Better act in the US. He is a fossil lobby controlled republican pretending to be a democrat. There are many such shills on the political left : Why not after all, you can steer you leftist friends towards economism and feel good about yourself. Some more hardline economists are on the right. The whole political spectrum, at least that part with power, is pro economism, because it has a tight grip over so many lives.

It is clear though that expanding fossil use and/or replacing fossil use from coal to gas or from gas to hydrogen (made with gas) are all variations of the same game described above. So many people are involved that only think in terms of money that this system has reached high rigidity.

The added difficulty is that armies are dependent on fossil fuels, and thus the availability of them is a national security issue, and although nuclear can replace fossil in ships and submarines, on land there’s no clear alternative (small reactors have been proposed). Earlier I concluded that armies are also there mainly to secure fossil, so if the world would switch to renewables the need for wars would deminish. Facing climate change you would think war would be lowest on the agenda, but for people trying to keep a fossil game going they are they put it the highest. Its a fatalist game but players think they will be able to escape the negative effects and they don’t care what happens after. It is a dead end mentality run by sadists who hope to get away in time.

What is the alternative? Renewables of course, but those can be anywhere, and are not easily controlled and limited by banks. In fact, banks are going to lose all control, their entire franchise in a world without fossil fuel. Only forced cartels or restrictions can build a new hierarchy as we have today. The big obstacle to the alternative of economism is of course economism, you are asking to use fossil fuels to exit from fossil fuels! This is why there needs to start a shadow ‘Roboeconomy’ networking renewable producers and users outside the influence of the global economy. This sounds impossible but it is not. You can have solar fields in france feeding into a rail based battery system that then drives to Rotterdam to deliver its energy. You can have private grids to carry wind power on shore. But most importantly you can have many small energy producers that deliver to local manufacturers. This concept is of course fought at every level by the same powers that thrive in the economistic game.

In another post (which got lost during an update of WP) I pleaded for a new currency, the Joule. This should be a currency next to the Euro, with quite specific rules that localize its value. Batteries are literally energy banks and can do much to level out value differences in combination with the grid and other energy transportation solutions. Hydrogen is out of the question because you lose 70% of your input, which means you build 70% of your renewable energy sources for nothing. That makes them 3 times more expensive, and causes a lot of emissions you are trying to avoid.

Will find the post and insert a link here. The website is https://joulecurrency.org

Do we live in a simulation? Elon Musk thinks the chance is reasonable. His argument is that as our games today are approaching uncanny photorealism, with physics engines and stuff behaving as if it was the real world, how can we tell an earlier intelligence has not designed a huge gaming rig and our world is the current game being played?

I have argued against this idea on the grounds of our knowledge of physics. The energy of the vacuum is just too random and detailed to be run on any computer, although the edge of science is now at a point where it thinks some digital fundamental nature of reality is likely.

Psychologically a simulation view of reality fits our brains perfectly, as they have evolved to simulate reality to identify risks and opportunies in our future. This is the primary use of our brain, to select outcomes that maximize the chance of our future experience of what we love. The later is clear from people that survived all kinds of ordeals (like bitter cold on the Himalayas), its always love that keeps them going.

A dutch astrophysicist proposed a theory that the information content of space is limited and that if one area contains a lot of information this depletes resources from nearby space. This was his way to explain gravity. It would also make sense to a gamer who wanted to render a scene. He/she would attempt to use the computational resources to maximize the quality of the render on parts of the scene the gamer would focus on, and use less to draw the rest (which our brain fills in anyway most of the time).

I think spacetime is an amazing medium, with indeed unimaginable computational power. Its all additions of states (on a planck level), that render density fluctuations (by imho collapsing either space or time), that then make up the particles photons etc. The best analogy is that of boiling water, a seithing ocean of turmoil on the tiniest of scales. Our physicists try to name all the whirls and waves in it, and are surprised one particle mutates into another, but its like studying smoke and naming al the vortexes.

The basis of all that dynamism is an incredible ability to resolve to the next state. The system never gets stuck. Boiling water also never gets stuck nut it exists in a spacetime that already doesn’t. Would boiling water in a perfect elastic container (one that gives all the energy back to the liquid) stay boiling eternally? Our spacetime is like that. It is lossless, energy never gets leaves. It gets spread out though over more more spacetime. This suggested the idea to me that if the calculations of reality somehow don’t add up the problem is solved by creating more spacetime. The expansion of the universe is what enables this simulation to ‘run’.

Maybe its only our lack of imagination that we can’t envision this absolutely immeasurable spacetime we exist in as an illusion resulting from some meta-device. But we may try because 1. Its not possible to disprove it and 2. We may hope for some meta-physical assistance in our puny lives. Our primitive minds project all kinds of fears and hopes on inanimate and animate objects, basically on everything we deal with. Why not on reality itself.

It was Tesla that said that there’s something in ‘smoothness’ of transformations between types of energy (mechanical, electric). Nature doesn’t like to be abused, so a quiet battery and a seemingly static rotor in a magnetic field is better than exploding gasses deforming metal pounding the eardrums of bystanders etc. etc. Similarly we may be better off accepting the possibility we are just an illusion created for the entertainment of a meta-lord (or baron), because in our mind we are that meta-lord, we simulate our world to understand it, so we are simulations in a simulation. No friction between the two perspectives..

There will always be more people that want to improve our existence in this simulation than ones that want to destroy it (those usually kill each other). So as long as there are people there will be those that will imagine a better world using their own simulation, translating the bigger simulation into one in which they can live in more happily. If they don’t see themselves as gods but as mere waves in an ocean held together by love, the simulation may let them whirl to every one of its corners eventually.

You can donate to the church of simulationism by being kind to strangers..

We should all have learned by now that there is nothing more imporant on this Earth than airtravel. It doesn’t matter if the world is fighting a pandemic, the airtravel industry gets bailed out and can skirt the rules, lie about airborn airquality and literally telling governments ‘checking for Covid is not our job!’. Holland today may have sacrificed many lives because the KLM and Schiphol thought nothing of restrictions to their activities. We have no choice to submit to this tyranny..

Funny then that this vastly polluting industry, burning billions of gallons of fossil fuel every year, dumping many tons of half burned soot around airports (and chemicals used to prevent molding in the fuel), that this industry is looking for alternatives. Spoiler : There is none in the short term.

But who would have guessed humanity had such a powerfull ally in the search for non-fossil, non-greenhouse gas emitting fuels! Apart from this strange desire to use Hydrogen as a fuel, which also requires 70% more energy than batteries, which then of course needs to be produced. Its strange how these legacy industries produce such pressing demands for rapid deployment of renewables. And perhaps a blessing?

The options are several, but in any case this promises real action on growing biomass in new ways or generating sizable amounts of renewable energy. The world now uses almost 3 TerraWattHour of energy to fly. That is 3.000.000 MegaWattHours (MWh). You can produce that energy with 3.000.000 hectares of solar PV panels, which takes about 30000 km2. So if you cover 3/4 of Holland with solar panels our country could power global airtravel. Sadly there is 70% loss in the proposed use of Hydrogen, so we need about 20000 km2 more, so we end up with 1.2 times the surface of Holland covered with PV. Ok, Let’s do it!

You’d say “But Biomass!!”, and true, this is also a great idea. Seaweed farms could grow a lot, its been known since the 70’s and was one of the first topics I wrote about on this blog. Of course this takes a lot of time and work to scale up, and of course energy to convert. Its more complicated than solar PV for sure. Wind same thing. Of course nobody will complain if the air travel industry steps into growing seaweed big, like say spend $100 Billion on actually growing seaweed in the pacific.

For now it seems these are just promises to keep people from shutting air travel down to minimal proportions until electric air travel becomes practical. That is what is needed. We should all have learned from stupid CCS projects that never go anywhere, or not maybe (aaargh).

I think that we can see electric airtravel over say 700 km pretty soon, for small planes (~50 passengers) and so to get to the USA from Europe yo’d have to make 6/7 hops? So with 6/7 floating airports in the Atlantic the trip can be made. Of course its easy to put floating solar power plants around those airports to generate the electricity. In case the option of seaweed is taken seriously (which it must be right?) creating floating habitats cheaper than complete ships will likely become an industry. Also a win! In any case, its good to have such a powerfull industry on the side of massive deployment of renewable energy!

Banks want you to hate billionairs. You may think billionairs steal from you, but wait until you have thought about what banks do, and how vast their financial reserves are. Banks are backed by a central bank or federal reserve. Their funds are unlimited.

There is a reason for this being made a problem today, because before we would chear on the super rich, as a symbol of success. Now somehow billionairs are a bunch of criminals. What happened?

To make it super simple : There is now an exit route from the bank dominated world. There is a way to cut your credit needs and costs to zero. This means you will reduce your need for loans and support, even though prices have been maximized by bank loans in the market you are operating in. How? By using renewable energy. If you own all the energy capacity you need to manufacture what you want, then your need for credit drops to zero. And BANKS DONT LIKE THAT.

Now what are billionairs really? Peope with more than $1.000.000.000 in the bank? Often this is not the case. Often the number is derived from sale of the stock position of a billionair at the current stock price. But of course once you start selling the stock the price drops, after all whowever wants to buy wants to pay the lowest price, and you want to sell so you need to drop the price. Then you may still not find a buyer. Because the trading ‘channel’ of for example the NASDAQ (where TSLA trades) is quite narrow, a 50k share sale can drop the price if nobody is buying. 50k shares of about 993 million shares in circulation. Elon dropped the price of TSLA 30% recently by selling about 1 mln stock. So a stock – billionair is not as rich as it seems.

Many companies are totally owned by banks in the sense that they can not operate without the continuous consent of banks. What banks want is to own cashflow generating operations, but not really run them of course. They watch how companies develop and if they see a winner they push them into debt. All major car companies have been bailed out and are leaning on banks.

Who don’t? Tech companies mostly. You can easily spot it by the different attitude most of them have. Their capital costs (investments) have been low compared to add revenue they generate. These companies are doing things banks don’t like for example build large renewable energy installations, or like Tesla, start an energy company. Still because most of industry is in the pocket of the banks, maximizing profit and thus cost in any project, banks get a fair share and they can stifle progress in a zillion ways.

What they can’t stop is a person with cash. They can inject stupidity in the form of a bank-loyal CEO or other employee to make the startup waste money, but they can’t really stop it if the company owner is paying attention. Here you had Elon Musk that decided he wanted to start a financial services company with next to no money (couple of million), potentially undermining all of banking with Paypall (X.com) Yikes! He sold it, and went on to start an EV company called Tesla and a space technology company called SpaceX. The EV company almost got tanked by someone bleeding money until he was fired. SpaceX is still fought but has close ties with NASA and the Pentagon so what is a bank going to do..

Value comes from two factors : Whether you create make it or protect it. You can grow food, but if your lord has a weapon and can take it from you, I guess you’re a peasant paying 10% tax. Also if that lord doesn’t have a castle and can’t protect his stuff he will be run over and all his posessions will end up with people who can..

Banks used to create value by offering protection. This value was then abused mainly by making sure people do not cooperate and think they need money all the time (money creation was made super easy by the same banks and still is dead easy). Simple divide and conquer. Sow mistrust, don’t let people help each other. They where so good at it that kings and queens had to beg them because they where caught in wars they didn’t start or couldn’t afford.

But billionairs don’t have to care. They can whip out a 100 million and move millions of people in one direction or another. They can buy so much fossil fuels that a whole country runs dry. They are the real kings today, and they do pay taxes!

Bernie Sanders keeps hammering on his “pay your fair share” and then focuses on Elon Musk but Elon pays more than 50% tax. His companies pay lots of taxes (permits, licenses, road tax, customs) all his workers pay some tax, he pays VAT. In a way a company is just people working towards a limited set of goals, but tax wise they are not much different from a city full of entrepeneurs working towards many different goals. There’s just maximum cooperation.

Bernie wants you do hate the only people that can improve your fate, because if banks wanted to we would not have any climate change problems. Instead banks maximized fossil credit cashflow, and will try to keep doing that. If they fail (because renewables have become dirt cheap) they will be obsolete!

If you want to hate billionaris pick the right ones, the ones that are fully funded by banks. The Koch brother, those that drive fossil consuption, those that actually do the wrong thing. But beware, a billionair -can- do the right thing, a bank who has much bigger financial means, -can not-. Banks never do what is against their interest, which is to keep the fossil cashflow flowing, and in fact, they will attack and undermine anyone that may be a threat, including billionairs with your help.

We live under bank tyrants that have pushed humanity into an overburdened, polluting, resource depleting lifestyle that will soon crash due to its consequences. Then we have billionair kings that can move people, resources and intellect to find solutions to the risks we face. People without the means have no way to help anyone. So we should support our billionair kings when they do what we think is good. Not blindly attack them as if we don’t have a mind of our own.

Algemene informatie over drijvende zonnecentrales

Drijvende zonnecentrales nemen de vorm van verschillende soorten drijvende ondersteuning met daarop zonnepanelen. Dat zijn nu nog zware panelen, maar in sommige gevallen al lichtere dunne film panelen. De drijvende structuren kunnen bestaan uit een plastic zeil dat als boden van een grote circulaire ponton dient of individuele blokken waarop de panelen gemonteerd worden.

Er is intussen veel ervaring met dit soort centrales, ook met de snelle uitrol ervan, dit kan doorgaans vanaf de kant. De drijvende blokken kunnen dan op hun plaats worden geduwd en genankerd. Grote centrales van 150 MW zijn geen uitzondering meer. Hieronder een aantal links naar projecten.

Biggest ‘floating solar park’ in Europe will open this year in Portugal

Shining Bright: India’s Largest Floating Solar Power Plant

Europe’s largest floating solar plant opens in France

German firm builds floating solar plant on quarry lake

Floating PV for unused swimming pools

Malaysia’s water reservoir to host 150 MW floating solar plant

GCLSI used in Albania’s Largest Floating Solar Project

#mmzc_voorbeelden_drijvende_zonnecentrales

Technische Details voor de MarkermeerZonnecentrale

De markermeer zonnecentrale zal niet alleen een zonnecentrale zijn. Andere functies kunnen onderdeel uitmaken van het uiteindelijke ontwerp. Dit kan er voor zorgen dat er voor alle stakeholders een win te behalen is. De stakeholders zijn oa:

• Alle nederlandse gemeenten
• Vissers
• Belangen Waterrecreatie
• Woningbouw project ontwikkelaars

Kosten en Omvang Zonnecentrale

Groenleven bouwt nu 1,45MWp op 1 Hectare voor 1 Miljoen Euro. Omdat het vermogen van gas centrales anders wordt uitgedrukt betekent dit dat 40 MW gascentrale equivalent kan worden gerealiseerd op 30 Hectare, dus 1,3 GMW/Hectare. Dit betekent dat de berekening wordt aangepast.

Rekenen we dit om naar de capaciteit van alle Nederlandse centrales dan komt dit op het volgende uit :

• Vermogen (MW) : 25,000
• Oppervlak (Hectare) : 18750
• Kosten (Euro) :28.125 Miljard

De huidge CO2 emitterende centrales in Nederlands produceren zo’n 25 GigaWatt per jaar. Om deze volledig te vervangen met (drijvende) zonnepanelen op basis van dit voorbeeld. Deze 40 MW centrale beslaat 85.54 Hectare en heeft 120,000 zonnepanelen. De kosten waren $45 miljoen.

• Vermogen (MW) : 25,000
• Oppervlak (Hectare) : 47474
• Kosten (Euro) : 21 Miljard

Anders gerekend (volgens deze gegevens), met 17 panelen per huishouden en 10 miljoen huishoudens kom je op 170.000.000 panelen. Die vertegenwoordigen 48.295 MW en 347.727.272 m2 of 347 km2, dat is bijna de helft van het Markermeer.

Dit oppervlak is 61 % van het totale oppervlak van het Markermeer. Dit rekenvoorbeeld is echter vooral bedoelt om te laten zien dat de ambitie haalbaar is. Alle centrales in Nederland kunnen worden vervangen door een centrale op het Markermeer. Overigens draait een van de huidige centrales om bv de netverliezen op te vangen en bestaan andere voor de export of om piek belasting te bedienen. De totale capaciteit is dus niet de capaciteit die echt nodig is. Daarbij zullen de zonnepanelen op het markermeer niet de enige zijn.

De capaciteit van zonneparken verschilt nogal en bij het project in Barger Compascuum wordt bijna het dubbele vermogen gehaald. Het markermeer is maar 4 meter diep, dus als een systeem mogelijk is waarbij de panelen niet drijven maar op palen zijn opgesteld (die zelf in hoogte verstelbaar zijn ivm met de waterspiegel stijging) is ook denkbaar. De techniek staat niet vast, als deze maar direct te realiseren is en bijdraagt aan het gestelde doel.

Techniek

Drijvende zonnepanelen zijn er nu van verschillende leveranciers, dwz het gaat om drijvers waarop zonnepanelen gemonteerd kunnen worden. De lijst vind u via de referentie link. Het is denkbaar dat er in Nederland een systeem voor drijvende panelen wordt ontwikkeld, bv. het bedrijf Van der Valk heeft een soortgelijk product.

Voor dit project is het denkbaar dat de panelen in een speciaal voor dit doel gebouwde fabriek gemaakt worden. Dit hangt af van de investeringen. Er zal echter niet gewacht worden tot zo’n fabriek er is. Als een van de stakeholders een deel van de centrale wil neerleggen (met bepaalde leveranciers) dan kan dat, omdat drijvende zonnepanelen altijd te verplaatsen zijn.

Inbedding

Het doel is om tegelijkerijd zo snel mogelijk delen van de centrale operationeel te krijgen, en een plan te ontwikkelen voor de nevenfuncties. Hierbij kan gedacht worden aan geintegreerde natuurstroken, vogel plaatsen, maar ook drijvende jachthavens, hotels, visboerderijen enz. De centrale hoeft niet recht en hoekig te zijn maar kan een soort eilanden groep worden met rietkragen enz. waar je met je bootje tussendoor kunt varen.

#mmzc_technische_details

Boston dynamics has been shown to know how to crack the code of fast movements of arbitrary ‘systems’ of actuators. It’s probably thanks to the speed of CPUs and enormous amounts of memory that its robots can trigger the right control based on their position vs gravity, their own mass, elastic effects and actuator lag and power curves. Complex, but if you make lookup tables of everything not impossible. The algorithm that navigates all these control signals will probably be a standard part of any real AI..

It is fascinating how one lab can achieve so much and many others are left in the dust. The Ford (we thought Amazon) digit robot walks but is not as agile. It has the advantage of being a product made for a real purpose. What happens if these become more lightweight, if the controls are minimized and internalized and turn out to be doable with generic hardware. The challenge with AI is often training the system, that process requires a lot of cycles, energy and time. But once the resulting weight matrix has been developed it can be really lightweight and fast.

Now there’s a real attempt to make these things not look to much like humans, because our innate reflex is to project emotions and intentions on whatever moves around us. Japanese are the most sensitive culture in this respect because in Japan machines can have souls and can be considered to be alive. This is not a weird position, we are after all also biochemical mechanisms. The rub is that we have different needs from machines.

The big challenge of the next 20 years is to remain on top of robots and AI. To keep them from being servants of egos, from destroying our planet because somehow someone made them strive for self preservation without also makeing them want to see us around. If we manage we can have a renewable powered society where robots can do nearly anything, robots, road bots (Tesla’s with autopilot with a robot mounted on it for example). Once these devices can roam freely outside, running on solar/electric energy that does not run out, our options to survive climate change increase. Our job is to not start loving them, not try to give them a soul that wants to survive, because that’s how we’d lose our freedom to them!

I has been the perception of many for decades that trying to save something will help save it. It never does. People don’t like to be hero’s and what needs to be save is weak, so why put energy into it. The slogan works with people that have empathy for the weak, but most leaders don’t or they would not be leaders.

Shaming goes a lot further towards motivating change, but it is a negative motivator. It requires someone to take the role of victim, one that acuses the pollutor, and a victim is weak so does not get empathy. The whole process of accusation is something most people dislike. It is ( to be sexist ) very feminine. Justice in general is feminine and for the weak. The world is run by people who are strong and do not call on justice but simply do what they can get away with even if it is a crime.

What does work imho is a grading system or classification of leaders as to their ability and achievments regarding conservation and restauration of nature. Just like we as a civilisation are not yeat on the Kardashev scale, but can aspire to, all countries and municipalities should be put on a ‘health scale’, where every aspect of its nature is rated compared to the possible optimum. A bit like a golf course where every hole has a handicap.

There is such a rating in terms of carbon offsets or carbon emissions, but that has not prevented Holland from developing a nature cripling Nitrogen emission problem. CO2 and NOx are winning in Holland because there is more money in it, and because it can’t be brought up as a topic of pride or shame in a decent conversation.

Drought is an issue in Holland. Rain shortages are about 200 days worth and growing. This could mean a downgrade of the country as a whole on the Standards and Poor ‘health’ rating of our country. Apparently we can’t achieve better performance under our stupid Mark Rutte government. This and the Nitrogen means that people have red eyes, beathing problems, are more succeptible to Corona virus, and nature can’t really cope with the changes.

If you view Holland as a big open floor restaurant right now the kitchen waste is dumped in the middle of the hall and the cooking fumes are blown into the faces of the guests. Apparently the suppliers are running it, not somebody who cares for the customers. Of course there are many ‘development’ ratings and ‘eco’ ratings, but those don’t communicate you are better off in the dry heart of Spain than in beautifull Limburg.

We are talking here of a measure of natural healthyness of a country or region or city. Simply put if there where no civilisation at all, how healthy would a place be. This includes its support of mental health, so no cruelty or absence of trees, green medows etc. (of course when measured against the potential of the land). Then when you have a drink with people from other countries you can boast about it or be shamed, and then maybe you will vote for leaders that see actual strength (not fossil credit cashflow) as something important.

Cities are grown on opportunies. Whether it was a bussy harbour or a rail hub or a river or a place people would choose to rest. Once established they would attract people based on the activities. LA is for aspiring moviestars, NY is for aspiring stock traders, Amsterdam for aspiring potheads (only joking). But cities are traps if you can’t find a place in the economic mechanism, and the economic mechanism that has grown into existence the last century is all fossil based. It’s run to create cashflow (this is the basic and only goal of banks). Fossil always causes cashflow because you buy it, burn it and have to buy it anew.

To fix ourselves for the hot future we need to fix cities. Either fix them or abandon them. Reasons to fix them are that they can be (sometimes) easily adjusted to deal with extreme heat. You can cover streets so for example. Reasons to abandon them is because banks make them extremely expensive to live in, because you can’t grow food, because the banks prevent radical changes or even utilitarian repurposing of for instance building walls to grow ivy against. You’re constantly stuck between the frustration of home buyers who can’t afford homes and the home sellers who insist on getting the maximum out of their sale. It constantly leads to paralysis of the market that is then fixed by giving banks even more power and freedom.

Dense cities will need power plants to exist. Now you have a power plant and you buy the energy with the money you earn by being usefull to the city economy, usefull to the cashflow desire of the banks. It is much smarter for a city to won its own power plants, especially renewable ones, because then it can make the city an attractive living environment. It can grow crops underground with LED light to keep the citizen alive. It can still maintain a free market for homes, but those homes will be much more attractive. Now because of bank cashflow hunger, homes are like islands, not intrinsically connected, usually in highrises because people don’t like the needy crowd they are faced with at street level. Needy because of banks! The city should make people less needy and now, with super cheap renewable energy it can.

We should rate cities based on public beauty, and then not apply a standard that is defined by Mies van der Rohe. The extreme of barren architecture has relaxing qualities, it’s like sitting on a slab of rock, enjoying nature and solitude, but this does not comfort people who are already fighting to exist. It does not inspire them with hope or make them thankfull for what they recieved. Architecture used to be more of a gift to the population, something that became less relevant when we all became dependent on money and banks.

I guess we should rate cities on a couple of indicators

1. How much do tourist like it
2. Can you enjoy it in summer or is it too hot
3. Can you grow food close by
4. How many animals do you find in it besides rats
5. Do you feel comfortable at street level
6. Does the city own its own power station and is it renewable

What are your suggestions? You can tweet to use at climatebabes