Greencheck.nl

We live in an accomplished world today. In the developed world you can recieve medical care second to none in known history. We can (with some drawbacks) fly anywhere, although the umbrella of security once enforced by the USA seems to be degrading fast. One can say that in the period that the International court of Justice and human rights enjoyed wide support we have seen the best we will achieve. From now on, due to climate change and peak fossil fuels, nature’s degradation etc. it is all going to be downhill.

Quite a depressing thought that Millenials might be the generation that grew up in the peak of what humanity had to offer. Quite arrogant also to pretend to be able to determine that. There are many who do. They argue we are to much people on this planet, we need to throttle back. They see resources running out, as do we, but why do they not see the clear dawn of something better than we can imagine today?

Technology is not at its peak, especially technology that can make the use of fossil fuels redundant. They flared up after the oil crisis and because of alarming analysis regarding the climate in the 70’s. The first large scale solar power plants where being build. Since then big oil and banks have steadily burried all kinds of technology, from low energy desalination to alkaline metal solar thermal power generation. You won’t know, but we do. Even today the breakthrough for shipping is the application of Lithium Ion batteries. Of course ships don’t need light batteries, but heavier Potassium Ion batteries have been burried or moved to research limbo.

So one reason to expect improvement (if we can beat fossil and banks) is because we have technology we are not using. If we use the technology a lot becomes possible, near zero cost desalination and irrigation for instance.

Another reason why we think we are not near the peak of human civilization is that there is so much more energy to harvest from renewable sources than we squeeze out of fossil fuels today. It is 2500 times as much each year. We can run 2500 world economies in terms of manipulation, logistics, internet, construction etc. etc. And we are only doing one (1) now, and a very inefficent one for that matter.

Another reason is that robotic systems are developing at an accelerated pace, due to advanced modelling, 3d printing, neodynium magnets etc. AI is a component of that, better understanding of engineering and materials is another. We are close to mass production of usefull robots, not toys, with inbuild safe behaviour and easy interfaces.

Other technologies like quantum computing and pharmaceutical labs on a chip are not even needed to improve the lives of billions. The main obstacle is that there is no goal to do so, there is reasoning from a ‘100% renewables’ perspective in 2050 maybe, because the fossil fuel industry and banks keep politics ‘well oiled’ and humanity impatient or distracted. The fossil industry and banks are not only the problem because they keep us from responding to climate change faster and stronger, they also push forwards, maybe even out of our lifetimes, the benefit of plentifull renewables.

We can see clearly that EVs are now much better than combustion cars, and we also know that GM killed its EV program 20 years ago. What if it hadn’t? Where would we be now. How much faster would LithiumIon batteries have dropped in price? What would that have meant for the world economy? Electric trucks? Not only less emissions, but also less running costs. More wealth per human manhour spend toiling (which may be a good performance indicator, even though its a subjective one).

If we are pessimistic about the future it is because we do not know what our options are. Once we do we can see we need to get this fossil industry under strict control or it will keep delaying improvements in our lives we need. We need energy to deal with climate change, we need energy to produce food and comfort for the elderly. Fossil fuels are like an annoying guest that never leaves, a bad family member that guilt trips you with all kinds of social issues to distract you from seeing them out the door.

Renewables are dropping in price so fast that some calculate the US could be on 90% solar and wind in 2035. But why not 200%? Also you have to make them with renewables, not with fossil fuel, to be absolutely sure.

The position should be : Good al this luxury and fine you want me to consume etc. But lets also maximize the growth of the renewable energy sector and use batteries, solar and wind at every turn. The more we do the less everything will cost, at least, if you keep fossil and banks out of cooking the numbers!

We letten te weinig op het welzijn van mensen en te veel op geld. Banken zorgen hiervoor, zij lenen ons geld, zij winnen aan macht als we geld nodig hebben en hebben ons geleerd winst en geld als goede indicatoren van succes te zien.

Geschatte kosten van deze feature is zo’n 20.000 Euro, email frits@rincker.nl als u ons die opdracht wil geven.

Hierin zit een denkfout, als wij winst maken en dit op onze rekening zien zullen we inderdaad ons geluk kunnen vergroten, op vakantie met de kids, een nieuwe motorfiets etc. Dit komt omdat we vrij zijn de producten en diensten te kiezen met ons geld. Onze kwalitatieve ervaring bepaalt dit, en onze smaak is nauwelijks in cijfers uit te drukken. Hoewel het aardig lukt mensen via reclame, films etc. te programmeren zodat het koopgedrag voorspelbaar wordt, is het geen perfecte situatie, getuige de vele fringe groepen, hobbies en trends.

Een groot gat zit ook tussen wat er met onze omgeving gebeurt en wat we graag zouden zien. Van oudsher bouwde je als rijke handelaar een “mooi” pand, met werklui uit je eigen stad, waarmee je aanzien verwierf. Tegenwoordig is het bijna tegenovergesteld, je bouwt (gechargeerd) Capelle Scholevaar om de dromen van mensen kapot te maken, zodat ze geloven dat ze gelukkig zijn in de fabriek en achter de treurbuis.

Hoe kunnen we onze smaak tav het bestuur en inrichting van ons land doen blijken? Via politieke partijen? Dat is voor de naieven. De enige partij die een ziel lijkt te hebben in DH is de Partij van de Dieren, de rest let alleen op Geld Geld Geld. Groen Links is voor biomassa waar mensen ziek van worden. Op basis van geld kun je zelf wel keuzes maken, je kunt het bedrijven naar de zin maken, maar zo kun je de kwaliteit van mensenlevens niet optimaliseren.

[Plaatje DigId, verwijderd ivm copyright]

De oplossing is simpel : Vraag mensen hoe ze zich voelen. Maak hier een landelijke kaart van. Waar mensen ongelukkig zijn is het zinvol om te kijken wat ze gelukkiger zou kunnen maken. De vragen hierover zouden via de kamer als motie kunnen worden ingediend. Het medium om dit vast te stellen is beschikbaar : DigId. We hebben allemaal een DigId, we kunnen allemaal inloggen. Er kan makkelijk een scherm bij of een paragraaf waarin je een aantal vragen kunt beantwoorden op een schaal van 1-5 sterren bv.

1. Woon je goed
2. Eet je goed
3. Heb je genoeg gezelschap
4. Voel je je vrij
5. Voel je je veilig
6. Is je omgeving gezond
7. Heb je genoeg kansen
8. etc.

Het aantal vragen met beperkt zijn zodat iedereen de tijd heeft ze te beantwoorden, of speciefiek voor een bepaald doel (met dezelfde privacy als een verkiezings stem). Dit weergeven in een kaart die constant openbaar is. Dan heb je feedback tav je beleid waar je de financiele aspecten tegen kunt waarderen. Onder de VVD is ons land eens stuk ongelukkiger geworden, en de strategie is uitzichtsloos tav het klimaat. Het wordt dus tijd de mensen weer voorop te stellen, niet partijen of wensen, maar hoe ze zich werkelijk voelen.

Trouw kopt een artikel over Oceans of Energy op de gebruikelijke misleidende manier. Titels van krantenartikelen of stukken zijn vaak zo in elkaar gezet dat ze de werkelijke boodschap beter doen beklijven dan waar het over gaat. Een simpel principe is dat we het begin en eind van een tekst altijd beter onthouden. Dus als je een tekst begint met “Hoewel Shell de 20e eeuw voor een groot deel mogelijk heeft gemaakt” en dan uitlegt dat als gevolg van de ijver van Shell onze Aarde in Venus zou kunnen veranderen, heb je gefaalt.

Oceans of Energy website

Het stuk in Trouw gaat over zonnepanelen op zee. We kunnen ons afvragen wat het voordeel is van panelen op zee. Er is veel ruimte, dat is een groot voordeel, maar de zee is ver weg (voor het grootste deel) en dat is een nadeel. Stel je wil energie op zee opwekken, dan heb je lage landkosten, maar hogere transport kosten (of Roboeconomisch gezegd, verliezen).

Als je stroom van drijvende panelen op de Noordzee komt heb je ook tussenpersonen nodig, namelijk een energie bedrijf en en financieel systeem, of iig een manier om de stroom op de markt te bregen. Daar zijn dan bedrijven bij betrokke, geen burgers (de meeste mensen verwachten dit), hoewel je natuurlijk ook een drijvend zonnepark in burger eigendom kunt hebben.

Zou je zonnepaneel meer opbrengen op zee? Dat is mogelijk maar niet waarschijnlijk. De opbrengst van een paneel hangt van een paar factoren af

1. Orientatie tov de Zon
2. Hoeveelheid zonuren
3. Temperatuur

Een drijvend paneel zoals in Trouw bedoelt wordt ligt plat op het water. Onze grond in Nederland en het water op de Noordzee bevind zich in een hoek van ongeveer 35 graden tov de zon. De zon staat in NL nooit recht boven ons. Een paneel dat plat op de grond ligt brengt dus minder op dan een paneel dat in een hoek van 35 graden tov de zon staat opgesteld, vandaar dat je dat bij zonneparken doorgaans ziet. Het kan zo’n 30% in opbrengst schelen. Daken hebben vaak een scherpere hoek, op platte daken kun je kiezen welke hoek je de panelen geeft, ivm met de wind die ze kunnen vangen en de ballast die dan nodig is.

Hoeveelheid zonuren op zee zal verschillen van die op land. Aan de kust van NL is het zonniger. Er zijn natuurlijk grote delen van onze oceanen die constant in zonlicht baden. Daar is de opbrengst net als in de woestijnen groter. Dit merken we ook aan als een grote kans om nuttig werk te doen op die plaatsen, nuttig voor het klimaat en het leven op aarde, nuttig voor de logistiek op electriciteit.

De temperatuur van zonnepanelen beinvloed de opbrengst. De fotonen die de electronen uit het silicon over de halfgeleiderbarierre ‘kaatsen’ worden tegen gewerkt door warmte, die de electronen weer ‘terugkaatst’. Deste warmer het paneel, deste vaker de electronen terugkomen en deste lager de opbrengst. Dit effect is bekend voor elk paneel en verschilt weinig omdat het vrij fundamenteel is. De zogenaamde “Power Temperature Coefficient” van een typisch paneel is -0.29%. Dat betekent dat met elke graad Celcius boven de ijktemperatuur (waarop de performance van het paneel is gemeten) de opbrengst met 0.29% daalt.

Plat drijvende panelen brengen bij gelijke temperatuur als op land even veel op als panelen op een schuin dak

Panelen worden getest bij 25 graden Celsius, en ze worden op daken flink warm, tot wel 60 Graden of warmer. Dus dat kan 10% in opbrengst schelen. De vraag is of dat op zee anders is. De panelen drijven op een met lucht of schuim oid gevulde basis, en die basis isoleert dus minstens zo goed als een dak. Bovendien zit er altijd ruimte tussen het dak en het paneel zodat de warme lucht die achter het paneel ontstaat weg kan. Alleen als je (zee) water gaat circuleren tegen het paneel kun je ze koel houden, en dan kun je als opbrengst winnen. De werkelijke temperaturen van de panelen in het artikel in de Trouw zijn echter niet bekend.

” De uitkomst liegt er niet om: drijvende zonnepanelen presteren veel beter dan zonnecellen aan vaste wal. Per jaar kunnen ze 13 procent meer stroom produceren, ontdekte Van Sark. En in sommige maanden zelfs 18 procent. De verklaring: ­koeling. “Het rendement van zonnepanelen neemt af als ze te heet worden”, zegt Van Sark. “Door ze te plaatsen op koel zeewater krijg je het optimale rendement.” Op zonovergoten dagen warmt zeewater slechts traag op, zoals bekend. En dan staat er vaak ook nog een bries die extra afkoeling geeft. “

Wat je hierboven leest kan waar zijn, ook al is er vaak geen bries bij warm weer, ook al liggen de panelen niet op zeewater maar op hun drijvers. De zee onder de panelen warmt nauwelijks op omdat de panelen alle warmte absorberen. Als dat 13% oplevert is het mooi, maar ze liggen plat en dat kost ook 13% (zie overzicht hierboven) en transport van de stroom lijdt tot verliezen dus dit is geen selling point.

Feit is dat het niet zoveel uitmaakt hoeveel het meer of minder opbrengt. Zonnepanelen, zelfs de zware onhandige silicon panelen die nu de wereldmarkt domineren en met 30% belast worden in de EU, worden spotgoedkoop. Energie is weelde, zie beneden, met meer energie help je de economie, NIET met meer geld om ergens fossiele energie te kopen.

We zijn groot voorstander van zonnepanelen op zee, maar tevens groot voorstander van zonnepanelen op daken. We promoten ook zonnepanelen en huizen op het Markermeer. Het punt is dat we moeten waken voor manieren van stroom opwekken waardoor we afhankelijk blijven van private centralisatie en distributie van stroom. Die macht is ons nu funest aan het worden omdat het niet wil stoppen met het verkopen van gas, olie, kolen etc. Die macht kost ons zoveel hulpbronnen, omdat ze is verweven met de banken en hun manier van kredietverstrekking, die tot allerlei destructie leidt.

De krachten van fossiel zijn nog lang niet weg, ze nemen alleen steeds andere vormen aan. De huidige vorm is om de opbrengst van panelen te minimaliseren en mensen zoveel mogelijk geld te laten uitgeven aan alles behalve meer optimaal ingezette duurzame energiebronnen. Om meer controle over deze duurzame (en voor banken verlies veroorzakende) energiebronnen te krijgen moeten ze zo ver mogelijk weg worden gehouden van de mensen die ze nodig hebben, dus ver op zee. Dat is al met windturbines gelukt, en nu zullen ook zonnepanelen aan de buurt zijn.

We zitten met traditionele spelers die NIET WILLEN. Er staat dat ” TenneT is hartstikke druk met de grote windturbineparken” en er is geen subsidie voor zon op zee en er is geen vergunning voor kabels naar drijvende zonneparken, kortom de lobby heeft het danwel dichtgereguleert, danwel zal het in eigen beheer gaan exploiteren. Wat dat betreft is onze economie 100% dysfunctioneel, wat zeer schadelijk is voor onze welvaart. Weelde = energie x skills x materialen, maar we mogen energie in NL slechts met grote moeite opwekken. Banken staat zeker niet te springen voor zonnepanelen met een rendement van 8% wat ook laat zien dat ze totaal dysfunctioneel zijn. Vandaar ons pleidooi voor de Roboeconomie.

Laten we regels maken die zeggen dat iedereen die stroom wil opwekken met duurzame middelen (zon, wind, geothermisch, golf) in NL dit mag organiseren, of het een gemeente is, een hockeyvereniging, een bedrijfsschap of bank. Willen ze het op zee dan zijn het een soort vissers, energie vissers. Moet er een kabel naartoe dan kan IEDEREEN dit leggen. Moet er een veerdienst met batterijen gaan varen dan MAG DAT OOK. Willen ze er waterstof van maken dan moet wel gekeken worden naar de EROEI, dwz wat is het werkelijke energie rendement voor ons land van het plan. Tennet en andere falende clubs moeten meedingen naar kansen, niet als een dikke idioot op de wipwap zitten en de boel voor anderen verpesten.

Het is overduidelijk dat Nederland wordt gedomineerd door een leger fossiele lakeien en slakken die niet snappen waar welvaart vandaan komt, en het wordt tijd dat we daar maatregelen tegen treffen, want het kost ons ons levensgeluk.

The writer of this finished AI at Utrecht University and worked at the UvA building neural network simulations of the mechanism of emotions in humans, and is up to date with much of AI’s current methods.

The AI field suffers from the same weakness as every other field with high “magic” content : Overpromising and exhageration of what is achieved. When “magic” plays a role in a field, meaning when it is hard for non-experts to understand what is being claimed, some ‘experts’ will start to exploit this space usually to increase revenue or draw attention. AI today really is not close to what I would call human intelligence, and that is not because of the lack of depth of knowledge, but of the basic mechanism by which ‘AI’ is achieved.

I would like to split up the idea of AI so that it becomes more clear what we are talking about. Some will argue I a are guilty of moving the goal posts, as has happened a lot in the history of AI development. Every time some new milestone was achieved (like a chess match being won) some would say “But this is not real AI!” and the field would have to start over. This is not a critique like that. We argue that real AI has certain qualities that are not even approximated by current algorithms, and only once they are can we speak of real AI.

The hype of today in AI is ‘Deep learning’. This is field of training a new type of neural network (LSTM) consisting of so called Long Short Term Memory nodes on datasets. This kind of system do two things : Recognizing and Generating. When used as a recognizer the LSTM network learns during multiple small adaptions based on data what output to generate in response to certain input. The nice thing about these networks is that you can provide any input and output, even whith unknown correlation, and as long as there is some consistency between the two the network will capture it eventually. This we would call Artificial Recognition (AR but sadly that clashes a bit with Augmented Reality).

The field of Artificial Recognition is highly dynamic and new methods are developed and published continously. Another proces that we would separate out from AI/Deep Learning is Parameterized Generation. What happens is that a LSTM network is build that takes in a video feed and sharpens the image. This is done by first providing a video feed that has been blurred as input and the original feed as output. The network will first compress the data in the video feed to a minimal set (depends on the image quality you wish to accomplish) and then it will take that minimal set and translate it back into an image. Another example is to increase the lighting in images. This is done by providing images that are artificially dimmed as input, and undimmed images as output. The same compression and expansion is learned by the network.

The expansion part, from a minimal set of values towards an image, is parameterized generation. If you change the start values you can generate a variety of images. Of course they will all be in the trained image space, so if your images where cats you will generate all kinds of wierd cats by varying the start values. Of course it is possible to make a system that can generate all images of a certain size, but it would be extremely large and hard to train.

Another type of Parameterized Generation occurs in 3D modelling, where an avatar or human figure is not specified completely, but simply has parameters like arm length, waist, head size etc. Most ‘Deepfake’ videos use a network that has internalized a parametric model of a face or body, and the challenge becomes to find the parameters that make the body image match a video feed, which is a much smaller challenge than learing how the pixels correlate. Neural networks, LSTM and Deep Learning algorithms can do this. The variety of examples is similar to that possible with binary representation in computers. If you ask what you can represent with bits of zero and one the answer is “Everything”.

But Artificial Recognition and Parameterized Generation are not Artificial Intelligence. The mistake made is that the process of arriving at the algorithms would require smarts in a human, a proces of changes towards a perfect output involves rejection of false outcomes, checking etc. To understand the process this is what our mind projects on the algorithms, and this is correct, but the algorithm is not intelligent. It is adaptive, to a highly detailed level we can barely comprehend (and some say we should not try to).

What is real AI then? Real AI involves action. The ‘dataset’ is not static, it is generated by the AI through its output, its movements. A real AI has internal drives, so it does not stop or start like any tool humans use. It certainly uses recognition and generation mechanisms but not the type Deep Learing is used to. They are too inflexible. Real AI gets angry. I wrote about this, a real AI system will have to push ahead with an action in spite of not having enough information to know it is safe. It will push ahead with an action when it believes it is safe but it can be wrong. Humans use a lot of energy to avoid harm to others and to themselves. The AI will have to be able to. So you can define a task like “Spot the tank in the field” and use Artifical Recognition and use the output to instruct a Warthog A-10 plane into action. You can not let the Warthog decide for itself where to fly and where to find tanks. That becomes way to complicated super fast and the software needed to make it work would be slow and unreliable.

Now it is possible to do small tasks and task repertoires with less ‘insight’ and not surprisingly this is how our society is organized. After all if you talk about real AI you talk about what humans do. The capacity of a brain is limited, its learning capacity is as well. Evolutionary mechanisms cause it to learn less quickly as you age. A real AI can at first only be allowed to work in a confined space on a specific task, or it has to be pysically very weak.

A striking feature of our memory is that one moment can be recorded in a split second, an impressive experience, an accident or moment of recognition, and then be available to us for a lifetime. This feature was one of the real braincrackers for me when I was studying the brain. How is that even possible? LSTM networks can’t do it. They also can not progress towards algorithms that can, because key aspects of it prevent it. From recent research I can claim that theoretically we are not far off, but even then the hardware is going to be a challenge. For now we may have to accept systems of recognizers, parameterized generators and ordinary code is the best we can do.

We think its good to have drones at sea, we need them, we need them to be cheap, so we can do stuff in our oceans like iron fertilizes, grow crops, generate fresh water etc. To work on that we develop a simple ocean drone at low cost. The parts of which are easy to buy. Thanks to an active tinkering community the software development is now also very easy.

We use an ESP8266 module called the D1 Mini Pro because it is easy to program using the Arduino IDE and it has a respectable transmission range of up to 100 meters (Wifi). We plan to use an external transmitter (1,5 km range) but for testing this is enough. Once it navigates we can program it to stay close to the side of the pond we will test in.

The GPS module is from amazon, the NEO-6M. It spits out the GPS data through a serial connection at 9600 Baud. It has the coordinates, spead over land and altitude if you need that data. It pinpointed our desk very precisely inside our home from about 4 satelites.

The compass module is the HMC 5883L three axis magnetometer. It has an I2C connection, for which there is an actual adafruit library, so it is easy to query. Its not tilt compensated so this might be a problem at sea. For the purpose of a first prototype to work from this will do.

As a power source we want to use a floating solar panel, but for now we use this LiPo battery and charging module. We also add an oled screen for good measure. Servo’s can be controlled directly from the ESP8266 pins. We tested all the connected devices and we get input from them and can output to the screen. I2C connections can be shared, its a bus type protocol. The GPS is read by so called soft serial input, which can be any pin.

The code below will show you the heading and turn direction (left or right) you will have to make to reach the coordinates (latto,lonto) given at the beginning of the script. Those coordinates can be found using Google Maps. They show as decimal coordinates in the address bar. The screen shows your coordinates as you move. The next steps are to make it possible to set waypoints (new destinations) and use the turn direction to actually control a small drone boat.

#include <SoftwareSerial.h>
#include <Wire.h>
#include <Adafruit_Sensor.h>
#include <Adafruit_HMC5883_U.h>
#include <Adafruit_SSD1306.h>

    // Compass Assign a unique ID to this sensor at the same time 
Adafruit_HMC5883_Unified mag = Adafruit_HMC5883_Unified(12345);

    // Oled Display
#define OLED_RESET 0  // GPIO0
Adafruit_SSD1306 display(OLED_RESET);

    // GPS
String gpsline;
String gpspos;

float latfrom; // gps current coordinates
float lonfrom; // gps current coordinates
float latto = 52.107177; 
float lonto = 4.269356;
float heading; // the direction you should go
float bearing; // the direction you are pointed
float control; // the direction 1 = right -1 = left to turn

static const int RXPin = 0, TXPin = 15; // Pin D3
static const uint32_t GPSBaud = 9600;

// The serial connection to the GPS device
SoftwareSerial ss(RXPin, TXPin);

void setup()
{
    Serial.begin(9600);

    if( ! mag.begin())
    { 
        Serial.println("ERROR : Check the compass wiring");
        while(1);
    }

    // Oled
    display.begin(SSD1306_SWITCHCAPVCC, 0x3C);  
    // initialize with the I2C addr 0x3C (for the 64x48)
    display.display();
    display.clearDisplay();
    
    //text display tests
    display.setTextSize(1);
    display.setTextColor(SSD1306_WHITE);
    display.setCursor(0,0);
    display.println("Tracker 0.1");
    display.display();
    delay(1000);

     // Start GPS
    ss.begin(GPSBaud);
  
}

// read compass
float getcompassheading() {
  
    sensors_event_t event; 
    mag.getEvent( & event);

    float currentheading = atan2(event.magnetic.y, event.magnetic.x);
  
    if(currentheading < 0)
        currentheading += 2 * PI;
    
    return currentheading * 180 / M_PI; 
  
    }

// calculate bearing from two float coordinates
float calculatebearing(float lat, float lon, float lat2, float lon2){

    float teta1 = radians(lat);
    float teta2 = radians(lat2);
    float delta1 = radians(lat2-lat);
    float delta2 = radians(lon2-lon);

    float y = sin(delta2) * cos(teta2);
    float x = cos(teta1) * sin(teta2) - sin(teta1) * cos(teta2) * cos(delta2);
    float brng = atan2(y, x);
    brng = degrees(brng); // radians to degrees
    brng = (((int)brng + 360) % 360); 

    return brng;

}

    // string function to parse GPS
    String getValue(String data, char separator, int index)
{
    int found = 0;
    int strIndex[] = {0, -1};
    int maxIndex = data.length()-1;

    for(int i=0; i <= maxIndex && found <= index; i ++ ){
        if(data.charAt(i) == separator || i == maxIndex){
            found ++ ;
            strIndex[0] = strIndex[1] + 1;
            strIndex[1] = (i == maxIndex) ? i + 1: i;
        }
    }

    return found > index ? data.substring(strIndex[0], strIndex[1]): "";
}

// Move the decimal point to where it should be
float cleancoordinate(String coordinate) {
    char ch = '.';
    String c1 = getValue(coordinate, '.', 0);
    String c2 = getValue(coordinate, '.', 1);    
    int clen = c1.length();
    String cbefore = c1.substring(0, clen-2); 
    String cafter = c1.substring(clen-2, clen);
    String result = cbefore + '.' + cafter + c2;
         
    return result.toFloat();
  
}

// translate difference between heading and bearing
// into a control signal go left or right
String getcontroldirection(float bearing1,float heading1) {

    //Serial.println("get control direction");

    //Serial.println(" bearing " + String(bearing1) + " heading " + String(heading1));

    float opposite = heading1 + 180;
    
    if(opposite > 360) {
        opposite = opposite - 360;
    }

    if(heading1 > 0 and heading1 < 180) {
      if(bearing1 < heading1 and bearing1 > 0) {
        
        control = 1;
        return "1 right";     
      }

      if(bearing1 > (heading1 + 180)) { 
        
        control = 1;
        return "2 right";        
      }
  
      if(bearing1 < (heading1 + 180) and bearing1 > heading1) {
          
          control = -1;
          return "3 left";      
      }

    } else {

      if(bearing1 < heading1 and bearing1 > opposite) {
        
        control = 1;
        return "4 right";  
      }

      if(bearing1 > heading1 and bearing1 < 360) {
        
        control = -1;
         return "5 left";
      }

      if(bearing1 > 0 and bearing1 < opposite) {
         
         control = -1;
         return "6 left";     
      }
    }
}

void loop()
{
        
        gpsline = ss.readStringUntil('\n');

        gpspos = gpsline.substring(1,6);

        bearing  = getcompassheading();

        // Only parse the GPRMC line of the GPS info
        if(gpspos == "GPRMC") {

            String slonfrom = gpsline.substring(19, 29);        
            float lonfrom = cleancoordinate(slonfrom);
            String slatfrom = gpsline.substring(32, 42);
            float latfrom = cleancoordinate(slatfrom);
   
            heading = calculatebearing(latfrom, lonfrom, latto, lonto);  
                   
            String advice = getcontroldirection(bearing,heading);
            
            display.clearDisplay();
            display.setCursor(0,0);
            display.println(String(bearing) + ' ' + advice);
            display.println(String(heading) + ' ' + String(control));
            display.println(slonfrom);
            display.println(slatfrom);
            display.display();  
            
        }

}

You can order a complete device for 80,- Euro ext btw/shipping if you mail us at info@greencheck.nl. Any requests are welcome.

The data can also be shared to your phone, by Wifi where you can have a screen to set a new target. This needs some development but should allow you to use Google Maps to set waypoints.

Next step is to add a 1,5 km transmitter to the mix, this will allow remote control from the beach or side of the water as we plan to use the controller in a floating device. We’re also looking at an RC interface.

This thought we had years ago is starting to recur to us these days : The UK is selling itself to China. It also seems to sell itself to the US, but the US seemst o have retracted because it can’t easily get the fracking and meat export expansion it wants. The UK also is liable to lose its northern oil reserves if Scotland splits off..

Boris Johnson offers residence to Hong Kong people

Why would we think that the UK is selling itself to China, that it is punishing itself in service of China. Simple : Old scores. We can all read in the history books that Britain was a complete asshole to China and India, much more so than Holland who left much sooner. The UK addicted the chinese to opium and went up their rivers with gunships when they could not pay for the porcelain in silver, as China requested. Then they grew the opium in Afganistan and this brought a lot of wealth to the island. The story of India is as warped. The people there where forbidden to find salt on the beach, and had to instead buy it from England, in return for Indian wealth. People died of lack of salt until Ghandi arrived and turned the relatively docile population into a force that the brits could no longer ignore.

So if the plan of Britain is to allow its territory to be used by the chinese, this means it can become a transatlantic logistics hub. It happens so that China is driving people out of Hong Kong in its attempt to annex it fully. Boris Johnson welcomes these people, a transmigration of a huge number of people used to work a multi language port. If even 10% would move it would still be 300.000 Hong Kong residents.

Now if you want the UK to be a Chinese satelite, then you’d like it to be outside the EU. Hence the no deal Brexit. You’d completely by pass the european ports when it comes to US logistics. Why not transpacific? Because the oil producers are in the middle of the EU route, and you want to supply the EU, which you can do though EU ports no problem.

Is this a likely scenario? Respond to Twitter @climatebabes

Groundhog Day is the name of a movie from 1993 in which Bill Murray plays an asshole reporter that seems to be destine to keep waking up on that same day until he gets being a human being right. Sometimes we feel like we are stuck in a scientific Groundhog Day, because we keep hearing promises, year after year, sometimes by universities, sometimes by companies.

 (^XIIA^2+VIB⁴⁺X²⁻₃)

One example is the perovskite solar cell, practically known as thin film solar cells. They have been around for as long as solar cells have been around, and come in many different chemistries, as opposed to the common silicon solar cells, where we have two flavours, monocrystaline and polycrystaline.

Perovskite is not a material, it is a structrure, a numeric relation between constituent atoms. They can have many interesting properties, which allows for their use in solar cells.

There are many stackings of materials that can form the Perovskite structure, and thus many types of cells. Two are shown above (upside down, the glass side should be up). The cell structure usually consists of a bottom electrode, a photosensitive material and a top electrode (often TinOxide covered glass). The trick is to allow photons to dislodge electrons from the material and make them collect on one side (the negative side) so they can be transported outside the cell to the positive side to do usefull work.

Perovskite cells are easy to make, they require less energy than silcon solar cells, even though they use glass. They can be printed on plastic as well, just like silicon cells can be encapsulated in EVA. The latter is not allowed for imported solar panels however, which adds to the cost enormously (but that’s typical in our fossil cashflow economy). This post is about the disturbing lack of serious progress on these low energy input, easy to locally make solar cells that now can have similar yield to silicon panels when they first came to market. We seem to be stuck with eternal promises!

Making a Perovskite Solar Cell is Easy

Below a number of videos from different years about making perovskite solar cells.

Buying Perovskite Solar Cells

You can buy a couple of thin film solar panels, but they are really not booming. We installed Solar Frontier Panels, that consist of a mix of Copper, Indium,Selenium and Gallium and now achieve 23% efficiency. They are hard to buy, and basically the only Prerovskite panels on the market, besides many small thin film cells. Why is this the case?

Thin Film and Perovskite are almost never used in the same context, which seems intended to make us think they are different things

The history of solar panels is one written by the fossil fuel industry. Of course they have been considered a threat from the start, so Royal Dutch Shell made a move in the 70’s to buy all patents for making monocrystaline silicon, and the factories, and the reserves of produced silcon, and then stop making it. Shell not only keeps pushing for a destructive basis for our economy, it has many times actively set humanity back when it comes to renewable technology. Patents ran out and people wanted solar panels so eventually the efforts to hold back the technology failed.

Who owns Solar Frontier? The name Shell is all over its history. You can look at it positively, that they actually did create factories and produce the panels and improve the efficiency. But is this fast? Is this hoarding of technology wise? What is so hard about it? No matter how well meant the actions of Shell seem up close, you can not trust them to do anything that goes against their business interest. Their corruption of every part of society, even up to the Club of Rome is a horrible fact of history and we are feeling the consequences in the weather paterns and food security today.

Koch Industries also owned solar panel plants in the US, with the same intent to control the growth of the technology

So we doubt that perovskite is too hard to become a product today. We just think that universities staffed with people that want to find out more, that want to do research, are researching too long. Often oil companies are telling people to find solutions, go look (which is just french for GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY FACE). We should be aprehensive of reinventions, which we have written about it several times. A new generation of gullible kids is growing up and before you know it they are told Algae for biofuels are a new thing, while in fact this idea has returned every fucking decade for the last 50 years.

The fossil interests, money and patents have been abused to stall innovation that would disrupt the current economic order. Solar is winning because too many people actualy use the technology. There is no way to stop this amount of intent.

Somehow we have to get out of Groundhog Day for preovskite cells, start makeing them in the cheapest lightest usefull way we can think off, there really can be no patent on usefull chemistries (it is required here to remark that new patents are granted on existing knowledge with tiny adjustments on a regular basis, the patent office has to earn money too you know!). We need to start asking questions to researchers and perhaps just start making perovskite solar cells.

Logical thought is hard to detect in todays energy policies. Every now and than the super obvious has to be stated just to remind those that act as if we are stuck and need fossil fuels they have not bought or hypnotized everybody. Renewables cause energy surplusses, spikes that could have been predicted a decade ago, but if you had believed the IEA at every point in recent history solar and wind would have plateaued (yes that is a word).

The problem today is a lack of batteries in the ‘grid’. Grid operators have been very clear they can see anything coming, and can anticipate a great future for any technology, as long is it is not renewable energy, especially distributed. Electic cars where also very hard to wrap their heads around, but the author of this piece was in the room when provincial regents declared it undesirable to anticipate a growth in EV, the same regent that blocked the construction of wind turbines (above 2 meter) in sparcely populated North Holland. In other words, there is a battle going on, we all know it.

Negative electricity prices due to too much being offered to the market are now a common occurance. Up to hundreds of Euro per Mwh can be earned if you just take it off the hands of the grid operators. This would be a strong stimulus if these prices where easier to access by companies, in other words if there was not a market step between raw producers and consumers. That step exists, as a legacy burden on the economy one could say. And there is a lot of debt loaded onto it as the burners of fossil fuels and grid operators recently became privately owned. A strange event because the cities selling it to the ‘investors’ where left with a couple of billions, but 10 years later that money was still not invested in anything it seemed. Would have made sense to invest in solar, but nope.

Anyway, what to do with that free electricity? We propse to generate ice which can then be used to reduce the cost of airconditioning. Just build a large tank, preferably the size of a swimmingpool under your building, fill it with water and run some pipes through there with freezing alcohol (something that remains liquid but can transfer the cold). Then during the day you run your airco cooling pipes through the same water and presto : You reduce the cost of your airco, and even more electricity will be available (the peaks come during the day).

Converting excess low-price electricity into high-temperature stored heat for industry and high-value electricity production

Heat storage can be lossy, but german tests showed it is possible. They used a large vacuum insulated concrete tank that had a pointy top to reduce circualtion, and found it cooled down slowely of course, but the bigger the tank the more heat remains in it (just like an elephant cools less fast than a mouse). We like to think about large tanks under the shared road between homes or special purpose tanks beneath fields nearby.

When a lot of electricity is dumped on the market this gives a contradictory signal to it : It discourages the building of more renewable energy sources, because how is the investment going to earn itself back if the profit is negative? This is why storage is a no no for the fossil side of the energy battle. Fossil energy is uniquely stored, highly stabile as well. It is a cornerstone of their defence to have reneables grasp for a way to be conserved for later use.

We have witnessed a number of battery technologies dissapear in the mist of fossil/banking control, like quite a few other disruptive technologies, for example freeze desalination of seawater at a fraction of the energy cost of reverse osmosis. The new (Lithium) batteries now in development will still be quite expensive, but they will last for decades. Investments in them will probably explode in spite of the awarness of banks they lose cashflow by supporting them. The holy grail however is a battery factory that needs only renewable energy and which owns its own energy sources. It can sell batteries for next to nothing. And we are not even mentioning potassium or zinc bromide batteries for stationary storage : Cheap, easy to make, killers.

It makes total sense to build a large grid battery to buffer renewable electricity. We have written about a big solar power plant in the Markermeer, and this enormous battery could be part of this project. Homes, solar, battery, recreation, nature for birds, fresh water protection in the heart of Holland. But until then there is certainly an option to store energy by keeping a cold store for your airconditioners.

We all know the story of the faxmachine : At first there where no fax machines and people said “Why would I buy a fax machine, I can send nothing to nobody”. But from the few owners the use of faxes grew and soon they where a necessary part of every office. This dynamic has repeated itself over and over again in other situations, the use of phones, the growth of Paypall (which was driven by investments).

Roboeconomics, with its simple principles must compete with the current economic doctrine (which gives energy no special role and relies on fossil fuel credit to work). There is only one Roboeconomist now, namely me as far as I know. Thomas Piketty or Kate Raworth are just moving the deck chairs around, in a counterproductive manner. They are promoted for a reason, they create a bank-protecting narrative for people to jostle with while banks go about their business as usual.

Wealth = Energy x Skills x Materials

The disruptive concept of an economy build entirely on renewables, and what this means for credit creation needs promotion too. The starting point is a redefinition of “Wealth”, “Capital” and “Money” and a rethink of what it takes to create it.

What is Wealth

Wealth is what people need and enjoy in their lives. Food is wealth, clean water is wealth, a nice home is wealth. Wealth is subjective, and what counts as wealth differs from person to person. Wealth can satisfy a person, and make him/her require no more resources to be happy. The goal of human activity is to create and enjoy wealth.

What is Capital

Capital is what you use to create wealth. A hammer is capital when you use it to build a bed or table, something people need or enjoy. Capital can be a machine that weaves cloth or a truck that moves products around. Capital can also mean knowledge and understanding. An expert on breeding plants is capital. A computer that can optimize designs is capital. Even a myth can be capital, so a fantasy in the minds of people can be used to produce wealth. Christianity in Germany is capital for example, it dictates a person has to work hard to serve God.

What is Money

Money is a token for exchange, nothing more , nothing less. It solves timing issues (the thing offered is not available when it can be accepted) in trade. Money only works if capital or wealth exists. Because of this function money can help organize activities that would otherwise be impossible, like having airlines and railsystems.

Banks like to call money capital, and say they are capitalist because they create money against assets. They also like to call money wealth, and try to make you believe people with a lot of money are very wealthy. But if the owners of wealth and capital refuse to part with it for the money of the bank, there is no way that money can pretend to be either.

Because banks know they are lying, they must put people into debt. Debt ensures the need for money. Without any debt in society, wealth and capital would be enough to make it work, the time buffering function of money can be replaced by simple IOUs or shares. We could all have railroad shares and enable a railroad system we could all use when we needed to. Of course normally this would be arranged by the biggest organization, the government, through taxes (this was the primary purpose of government besides protection).

The Relation between Money and Energy

The biggest insight that is necessary to understand Roboeconomics is that money allocates energy in our economy, mainly fossil energy. If you use money to buy a product or service, your money will eventually be used to buy energy. Even if you buy an apple from a biological farmer he/she probably used a tractor, and your money is going towards some diesel for that tractor. This specific trade, your ‘time delay token’ vs. fossil energy, is both the core of our economy and its biggest problem.

Why is it a problem? Because nobody makes fossil energy, it is found and used up, no new fossil energy is created like apples or cars or musical compositions. It is a one way process, find fossil fuel, get it to the ‘market’, trade it for money, burn it, find more fossil fuels. Until there are none to be found (in theory). We all pretend we work, but we should consider how much of our work is done by fossil fuel, how much we use it. This is like a crutch we walk with, we do not realize we can not walk at all without it, because it gives us no discomfort to use it (although smog and a dying planet).

When we think we need money, we really need fossil fuel money, because that never comes back if we spend it. If we where a 18th century town with five people, farmer, baker, butcher, tailor, doctor, we could keep each other alive with NO money. But today that would be impossible. We would all need energy for plowing, baking, cooling, sowing (not much but ok) and production of pharmaceuticals, we would ask customers for money because we could not buy supplies with credit that can’t buy fossil fuels.

The Roboeconomy sees a Light

The above has consequences :

• The power of banks is based on the availability of fossil fuels.
• Distributed renewable energy (RE) threaten banks
• Own renewable energy and you can create wealth freely
• The potential to RE wealth creation far exceeds that of our current system (2500 times!)

The Roboeconomy is about focussing on this wealth, to start organizing the combination of renewable energy, skills and materials to create wealth, preferably without any involvement of banks or outside trade (so called Extraeconomics). In the current economy pure debt free RE wealth creation results in accumulation of money without having a use for it.

About the Formula for Wealth

The formula for wealth is:

Wealth = Energy x Skills x Materials

Let’s explain the terms, so we can see it is a general formula.

The term Energy can mean manpower, solar or wind electricity, or solar heat or nuclear power or fossil fuel energy. To make a car you need to manipulate the materials (say stainless steel) in such a way it takes the shape of a chassis in all its details. The steel resist this manipulation and this requires energy to overcome. To make a cake in an oven the ingredients need to be heated to undergo chemical changes, that requires heat energy. But the mixing of the ingredients with a machine required electricity, and the loading of the machine by a baker burned metabolic glucose.

The term Skills is also general, it means the ability to choose actions to achieve a specific outcome. A skilled racecar driver is faster around the track with the same car than an unskilled driver. It is the ability to link actions in sequences, to recognize choices that need to be made, to recognize a target is not yet reached. People have skills, but machines can have skills as can computers. You need skills to create wealth, because wealth is not random. A man can create a beautifull graden or grow crops, and create wealth, but without the ability to choose his actions to reach these outcomes he would not succeed. If you consider a paperclip wealth the machine making them embodies skills as it succeeds in bending and cut a wire to make it, a sequence of specific actions. We are close to an age in which AI is so potent it will be able to imagine and create almost anything we ask it to, so ‘skills’ will become widely available.

The term materials is also general. Materials can be any input into a production process. It can be ore for steel or water to make ice cubes or old clothes to make paper. You could come across a situation where wealth itself is a material, to be recycled. Old sneakers still usefull could be recycled into new ones. Crumms of a cake can be fed to pigs to make pork.

There is a fine line between what can be used as a material and what is wealth, this is one of the biggest problems if your energy source is fossil fuels and you have banks. Because banks want to see cashflow they promote the use of fossilfuels to turn materials into wealth. They call it ‘economic growth’ and ‘the economy’. It is a destructive process. This results in wild unsustainable raising of natural materials from places that are expensive to reach. This happens because the cost of fossil fuels is arbitrary. For a plane or containership the cost of fuel is set such that it can fly and travel. In our current economy the goal is maximize fossil credit cashflow, NOT WEALTH. Banks don’t mind creating massive debt in order to secure their cashflow, they know nobody can really repay for the buring of fossil fuels. Banks or ‘the economy’ do not care about anything else.

What is a material and what is not in the roboeconomy is decided by those that enjoy the wealth, as wealth is only recognizable by people that enjoy it or dream about it. Wealth is what is being maximized, not cashflow. Money is created at the RE energy sources and distributed by the state or owner of the energy source. Excluding non renewables, leaving everything free but only monitoring average reported wealth per capita can be enough to make the Roboeconmy work. This can be an objective metric (of a subjective experience) because there is no pressure to sell anything to anyone as cashflow is not important. This is a stark contrast with today where there is immense pressure to sell fossil fuels by the banks and fossil fuel producers.

Steps Towards the Roboeconomy

• More renewable energy sources
• Reduction of debt by bankruptcies (denial of bank control)
• More debt free energy, materials and skills
• Creation of wealth in small ‘Extraeconomic’ systems
• Creation of RE based communities outside the fossil logistic network

If the above makes sense to you you can become a roboeconomist. Working with the basic principles you will find that there need to be no dense cities, in fact they are problematic. RE can be produced almost anywhere, and so can wealth especially if you embody skills in robots or automated systems. If materials are a prerequisite for wealth then it makes sense ot create more, meaning plant more trees, clean up nature, recycle plastic, etc. etc. The Roboeconomy is about maximizing wealth, and a gorgeous planet thriving with life is wealth. The upside is that it is now achievable with very little effort.

Don’t Fight them, Ignore them

The arch enemy is anyone that promotes business as usual, fossil credit creation, ‘economism’, that wants you to envy rich people or be angry if someone steals a lot of money. That is all banks dangling a promise in front of your eyes, a promise they count on you to fullfill! Ignore them, focus on the factors of wealth and build an independent network that serves you, not banks or fossil fuel companies. It is the state of the future, no matter how long the fossil/banking pressure on politics will surivive, eventually it will give in. The trick they use is to distract you in a million ways, with pain and pleasure, so you don’t realize you can be the master of your fate without them. You may realize it now, and start to practice this knowledge to your advantage..