Greencheck.nl

Veel mensen hebben geen dak om panelen op te leggen. Tegelijk zijn er veel gevels die op het zuiden liggen en ramen die ongebruikt zijn. We hebben eens gekeken of het mogelijk was een zonnepaneel zelf buiten een van onze ramen aan te brengen.

Door het matglas is het paneel te zien dat aan een houten dwarslat hangt (en op het kozijn leunt)

Hierboven ziet u het experimenteel resultaat. Het is een 50 Wp Paneel dat we aan een dwarse lat hebben bevestigd. Deze lat is met metalen klemmen in het raam profiel aangebracht en vastgezet. Het paneel rust met zijn rand over de lat, en daarnaast hebben we voor de zekerheid twee touwverbindingen tussen de rand van het paneel en het kozijn gemaakt, zodat als het paneel onverhoeds wordt los gestoten het omgekeerd aan de touwen komt te hangen. Een standaard metalen klem om panelen op deze manier te bevestigen zou geen gek idee zijn.

Een klein 12 Volt paneel kan LED verlichting voor donkere ruimten in huis verzorgen

De stroom van het paneel komt binnen via twee aders die eenvoudigweg door de isolatie strip van het klapraam worden geleid. Een systeem met 12 volt verlichting kan zo worden ontworpen dat er altijd licht is, met of zonder accu (door combinatie met een adapter). Met accu is niet zo’n slecht idee omdat een zonnepaneel ook teveel stroom kan genereren die je later wel zou kunnen gebruiken.

Daar kan in principe ook een 220Volt snoer door van een buiten aangebracht micro omvormer. Een paneel dat stroom teruglevert via een stopcontact in de buurt van het raam is dus geen fantasie. Dan is/zijn het/de paneel/en wel groter.

Huurders kunnen door middel van klemsystemen tijdelijke installaties doen

De ruimte tussen ramen kan ook benut worden, al is deze soms wat smaller dan de 1 meter breedte van een 250-350 Wp zonnepaneel van tegenwoordig. De bevestiging zou dan direct op de gevel kunnen worden aangebracht, of er zou een klem systeem om het muurdeel tussen de ramen kunnen worden geconstrueerd.

Panelen tegen de gevel zijn niet optimaal op de zon georienteerd, dus de opbrengst is lager, maar soms is de ruimte er niet en dan het de enige manier om opbrengst te genereren. Nieuwe microomvormer systemen maken het mogelijk eenvoudig buiten alles op te hangen, inclusief panelen, met een kabel voor 220 naar binnen.

Deze string van 1500 Wp en 6,10 m breed heeft een output van ~7 Ampere, dat kan dus gewoon via van de groepen naar de meter. De rode kastjes zijn de omvormers. Systemen met 1 omvormer per paneel zijn er ook. Het afschermen van de muur vermindert windkoeling in de winter en beschut tegen de zon in de zomer.

Micro omvormers tegen een dak

 

 

Our societies are under strict control of people indoctrinated in economic thought. It seems harmless to try to start an enterprise with credit and then have the ambition to make more money than you invest, but that principle only bears fruit if the investment is physical and the yield is crops grown with solar energy. Once the investment is fossil fuels (bought with the credit) we are burning more energy than we get back, even in farming we burn 10 times more than we get out of it. There is no way to win in such a system, even if it can last a long time.

Leave them in the cold

Those at the top still believe there’s nothing wrong with fossil credit, they believe it is money people ‘work’ for. But a better interpretation is that its money people control for, they don’t work, but control the fuels to be burned or converted to make products and services. The control of the consumption of fossil fuels doesn’t create them, just like frying an omlet doesn’t make new eggs. It is very hard to convince some people that their ability to control and maximize cashflow is in itself not usefull. This is possibly because the people involved feel they fight for their own survival, and we all know fighting is in itself not usefull or productive even if it is necessary. The people in charge think they can be unproductive because they are protecting the order against many threats.

The flip side is surprisingly easy to recognize. Grow an organic vegetable, and you have more energy to spend on making wealth, personally or by fermenting or burning it. Grow a tree and you can make many things, burn it for heat, use it to grow mushrooms. Build a wind turbine and you have 5 MW electricity to bake bread, drive around, electrolyse, grind, weld you name it. Years and years of wealth production are afforded and the wealth really increases, the reserves of energy if you convert electricity to methane, methanol, nh3, plastic, hydrogen or carbon. Such wealth increase is REAL.

Economics doesn’t make the distinction between adding absolute wealth and using fossil fuel resources to create marginal wealth, because economics is about the cashflows that become maximized if every process requires fossil fuels or some kind of input that you never get enough of. If the leaders of this system are so indoctrinated and unable to make the distinction they can not steer us away from depleting our resouces. As long as fossil fuel resources aren’t depleted it is assumed no other resources are. This is because the people selling fossil fuels only focus and depend on selling it.

We could lament that our only option is to fight a bottom up battle against economic depletionism but we should rejoyce. It is the only effective method and it is totally possible to do it. All small steps help, adding renewable energy sources, planting trees, farming organically. It is not the sorry second option, it is the first option. The mistake some make is to desire to be in central control at the top, while the top only exist due to a system of central destruction. Like a flight of birds, you can move in the same direction without central control, just by learning and knowing the facts and opportunities. The world doesn’t need centralized top down government, it needs well informed local government that communicates its problems and solutions to whomever wants to learn.

Bottom up is not weak against strong, it is the choice to have many nuclei of power, that can unite but are not de facto united. Top down works only if one can hand down fossil fuels, and then it makes sence to centralize control (the access to it can easily be denied any competitor). In adding renewable energy resources we become more equal and less pushed to conflict. More renewable energy sources is what feeds the bottom up localized autonomy, it returns us to a focus on change we can touch and see in our every day environment, and if we focus on it the centralized top down control will weaken and vanish as its cashflows dry up.

Of course when an enlightened mentality grabs hold of the top down fossil fuel economic thinkers, something they have pretended many times, we may use their methods to achieve the change, but as control will shift to local anyway we may as well hope but not rely on it, nor wait for it to increase renewable energy sources (and storage) where we are. The limiting factor to producing renewables is the cut it now reluctantly gets of the fossil fuel budget. The goal of the bottum up movement should be to create renewable energy sources with renewable energy, then there is no limit to the capacity nor the wealth we can unlock, and no top down way to control it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nikola Tesla was one of the most important inventors in the early nineteenth century. He invented the AC motor and generator, enabling the transportation of electricity over large distances.  Het made many other discoveries in the field of electicity and mechanics some of which are still (actively) misunderstood. Even during his life the idea to move from direct current to alternating current had such impact on the profits of existing businesses (especially of Thomas Edison) that he had a very hard time to get anyone to experiment with it. It was the special requirement of the power plant at Niagra Falls, which needed its power to be transported over a large distance, that gave him his chance to prove AC.

A lot of Tesla’s work had to do with high voltages. He invented transformers that could take low alternating currents to high voltages, able to create sparks that spaned many feet through the air. His fascination was with natural electricity, as it can be found in lightening and the earth. Stick two poles in the ground (don’t have to be copper and zinc, because that would make a chemical battery), and you will find a potential between the electrodes, resulting from an uneven distribution of electrons in the earth. To Tesla the Earth was a vast reservoir of negative electrons, and the sky a sink for positive charge (because you can ionize it, ad electrons to gas molecules, and emit electrons as photon radiation).

A few years back I was looking into static electricity and found that a metal surface will lose charge in the sun. This is a well known phenomena, and it made me wonder how it could be. To me it seemed logical that electrons where being washed from the surface taking negative charge with them. It also occured to me that one could generate a current from the ground to a plate exposed to the sun. I let it rest until I read a patent of Tesla. He invented what he called “A method of Utilizing Radiant Energy”. It has a panel collecting radiant energy.

Tesla discovered the same potential source of charge as I did, but the electron was a recent discovery. His explanation was the following:

“The sun, as well as other sources of radiant energy, throws off minute particles of matte rpositively electrified, which ,impinging upon the plate P, communicate continuously an electrical charge to the same.”

and more correctly :

 “My own experiments and observations, however, lead me to conclusions more in accord with the theory heretofore advanced by me that sources of such radiant energy throw off with great velocity minute particles of matter which are strongly electrified, and therefore capable of charging an electrical conductor, even if not so, may at any rate discharge an electrified conductor either by carrying off bodily its charge or otherwise.”

So he thought charged particles where thrown off the conductor by radiant energy, which included sunlight, x-rays etc. Now this patent describes what I imagined earlier, and as some Tesla inventions have proven superior to methods in use I thought it worth a try to build a Tesla Solar Panel.

The cleaned up diagram of the Tesla patent looks like the drawing above. P is the panel, which should be metal, shiny, and well insulated (so it can accumulate a charge).  T and C combine into a condensor, a device that stores electric charge at two sides of a membrane. Today’s condensor/capacitors can hold a lot of charge, especially so called ultracapacitors. They are easy to come by. P is the ground plate. Here’s how we implemented the device.

The panel is a sheet of aluminium foil on glass (insulator) one wire runs from it to a capacitor. The wire is connected to the positive side, because the ‘panel’ will charge positive due to the loss of electrons. The ground side is negative. The more shiny the metal, the more electrons can be found on its surface.

Accordig to Tesla the capacitor could even be damaged by the charge accumulation:

this charging of the condenser may continue, as I have actually observed, almost indefinitely, even to the point of rupturing the dielectric.

We use a 63 volt capacitor.

To implement the ground plate we used a normal grounded AC plug, but we removed the 220 AC poles to make it a bit safer. This should be a real ground connection as good as it gets.

We measured the charge accumulation, the voltage over the capacitor after different intervals. It is clear the amount of voltage is tiny, in the millivolt range, but it did accumulate (measuring it made the voltage drop, so we measured at intervals).  I.2 millivolt after about 5 minutes from a 0.5 x 0.3 meter piece of foil not fully exposed to the sun. Not yet enough to drive a LED though.

It is clear the potential came from the charged capacitor. One can doubt with such small voltages but switching the poles did swith the sign of the voltage. The longer we waited the higher the voltage. These are small numbers but they do add up to usefull amounts in today’s environment of ultra low power devices. It is also unclear whether the power can be used to drive a mechanism that may accumulate more energy over time.

Improvements :

1. Conduct in dry environment or even vacuum tube?
2. Use copper or silver
3. Concentrate radiation
4. Does the incident angle of radiation matter?
5. Perhaps creating a spiky panel will lose more electrons?
6. What if you make the panel the condensor?

Clearly heating up the metal helps free more electrons. This is called thermionic emission. It is the basis of some designs of Concentrated Solar Power plants, where solar light heats up a Thermionic element that loses it’s electrons, turning negative. The thermionic converter reaches thermal efficiencies of up to 20%. The trick to increase the output is to remove the electrons away from the emission area (plate).

It should be possible to use metal roofs of buildings to produce power. It would require the insulation of the metal roof surface from the support with rubber or some other dielectric.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The world is struggling to deal with our consumption of fossil fuels. Storms, droughts, floods, diseases, the diseasters are stacking up and becoming more frequent. Fossil fuels are to blame, and oil is one of the most important ones we use. Now suppose we where a restaurant, and we where using an ingredient, the meat, from a certain butcher, and guests kept getting sick on us, we would switch to another butcher. Why can’t we switch to another oil?

One could say there are several reasons for that, one of them is that there is no other oil. But biomass could supply oil in large quantities. Or we could make all logistics electric and we would not need any oil. This would require us to mark a moment in time that would be peak oil use and after that policies would steadily be pushing out oil/coal/gas from all activities. This is not happening.

We are not shifting away from fossil fuels, in fact the fossil fuel gas worked itself into the green fuel category. Total nonsense. The effort is to reach a certain percentage renewables per region, and not a promille more. The fossil fuel lobby is working hard to get new pipelines and gas drilling/fracking rights all the while adding trees to the diet of power plant fuels. Instead of a shift we see a gradual decline of living standards, movement of ideology to the right and always many attacks on wind turbines, solar panels, wave energy etc. etc. Where do fossil fuels get the damn wherewithall to influence so many people so automatically?

The simple reason is that our money system depends on it. Our credit system, the banks, they depend on fossil fuels to operate. Fossil fuels are not simply tradeable commodities and the price of oil is not determined by the market. You can remove any commodity from the market but not oil, coal and gas. Then the market grinds to a screeching halt and all hell breaks loose. Oil, coal and gas are pretending to be mere commodities, they are more than that, they are the oxygen of wealth production as we know it. Now you could say “Yes, we know” but there is something not right with this picture. It is the easy with which we attain oil, coal and gas. We get some money and go to the gas station, and voila, a tank full of irreplaceable fuel.

This is the miracle of the modern world. We are conditioned to see money as the gateway to everything, it is advertised as the thing to want and strive for, but clearly if someone with oil, coal and gas was not ready to sell their materials for this money it would be worthless.  How to make a Maserati without consuming coal, oil and gas? In fact, how to make almost anything without these resources, how to offer them in a shop, get them where the consumer is etc. etc. All these things require oil, coal and gas we get for mere paper money.

You can say that the oil producers gets money, and therefore can buy what is made with his/her oil. This would seem like a fair trade but it doesn’t occur. If oil,coal and gas producers would use all profit to buy all the goods made with their fuels, they would 1. Own everything 2. Be giving people money to buy more oil, coal and gas. They would be giving away their oil in return for us making stuff with it. As the combined production of the world are not all piling up in oil states we know this is not happening.

What is happening is that money ciculates in our economy as if people are creating products and services with next to no strain on resources. It is all happening as if the cost of fossil fuels is always acceptable. Some may know that 1. That is very strange, and 2. If the cost of fossil fuels would rise without an adequate response from the banks, society would sieze up.  Economist call this ‘a lack of price elasticity’. People are not themselves able to produce most things we enjoy because in most cases the use of fossil fuels is involved and nobody can make it. For some reason we do get to use it and that is a blessing, but one we need to recognize for what it is : One of the options. Because we don’t think about it correctly we don’t seem to feel strong about depending on it.

To blame for that illusion is money, we think it is valuable in itself, but it is only valuable because it is part of a system that quietly supplies us with essential fossil fuels. I call this system the Carboncredit system. It is a system ignored in economics, where oil, coal and gas are simple commodities subject to market forces. Economics is the theory that hides the real system underneath, the one that explains most of what happens in international politics. It has simple rules :

1. If you can keep oil, coal and gas flowing you do at any cost. The more money spend on it, the more cashflow and oil, coal and gas revenues are generated (more war is fine as long as you win).
2. If there is more oil,coal, gas you need to create more credit or it can’t be consumed (bought) and prices will drop.
3. If there is less oil, coal, gas you need to restrict credit or demand will outpace supply and prices will rise.

There is no real middle road between rule 2 and 3 and a desire to preserve fossil fuels. The rules of economics and the carboncredit system don’t care to preserve fossil fuels, because the banks are always anxious for cashflow. Economics main rule is “Maximize the utilization of fossil fuel”.

The rules show that for the oil, coal and gas and banking industry it’s not really important whether there is war or peace. It is not important what is produced. The only thing that is important is that money remains the symbol of access to fossil fuels, so that we focus on it’s dynamics (economics) and not that of our fossil fuels supply (which we would quicly replace).

Meanwhile we wonder why renewables have such a hard time? Banks have to manage the carboncredit system according to the rules above to survive. The dynamics of renewables can only be of negative consequence to the stability of the carbon credit system. How about building a wind turbine? You need fossil fuels to do it and you require carbon credit? Banks are not eager to do that. Solar panels made with coal, reducing future demand for coal? No thank you please. You can never achieve CO2 reduction if you have to please the banks and make your renewable solutions as economically involved (high cash flow) as possible.

Banks need to control credit to go with the ‘flow’ of fossil fuels, especially oil. Now that oil is cheap for instance, they will grasp any opportunity to create credit, something usually done by creating a boom. The ECB has a nice suggestion this time : Print money, just like the US has done for almost a decade now. That’s a coordinated credit increase. One can also trigger a boom f,i. a dotcom boom, a housing bubble a fracking boom, palm oil boom, any old boom will do to get the cash flowing. Maybe a prime renewable real estate boom, that would make double sense because 1. It would restrict renewable development and 2. Facilitate the purchase and consumption of more fossil fuels. Patent value inflation is also a bank friendly way to create credit.  Banks can simply decide on monday to value elephant turds with millions, and thus create credit. But they have to keep an eye on the carboncredit rules.

Clearly if we don’t break away from the situation where banks decide about how much credit is brought in circulation, by whom (the people they borrow to) there is not going to be a change away from fossil fuels. The only solution to this situation is the creation of a separate system for credit based on renewable energy, alongside the institution of controls over where banks invest, not through tax deductions, but directly. A do and don’t as to where credit is created, so that credit is spend on fossil fuels in a way that makes us less dependent on credit that can buy fossil fuels. We written about this in dutch in our piece ‘The Coming Emancipation of the Tax Office’

So now we know why we can’t move away from fossil fuels we can adopt two rules that will break the carboncredit spell.

1. A parallel credit system for renewables, with different rules and the tax office as issuer of credit. Investments in renewable energy sources don’t have to be payed off.
2. Clear rules where banks can invest, excluding activities that keep us dependent on fossil fuels.
3. Focus on fossil fuel replacement and energy autonomy, even though cooperation between countries could work very well.
4. Reduce waste through restriction of market dynamics (temporarily). Focus on maximizing life and wellbeing in a region instead of ‘economic growth’. L-accounting.

This won’t meet with approval of banks. The way to tackle this disapproval is to create one bank out of all banks and put a combined government at the head of it, for instance the UN. A UN bank for maximizing life on Earth f.i. The power of banks has been their ability to pretend they are competing, that they are separate. All this can be true if they own real assets, but if they only own money then it is nonsense as all banks creating a currency have to follow the same carboncredit rules.

Ultimately there will be much more energy to create wealth than we have today, so things will be better than under the fossil fuel rations we fight over today. To transition however we need to take the reigns from the perspective of the future order, and in that order banks are of no importance whatsoever and the carboncredit system will no longer exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Update : Tesla will announce a home battery system in the next month which will be based on the Lithium Ion battery systems for cars. News item can be found here.

NiFe (Edison) Batterijen

Wij zijn blij te mogen melden dat er een verdeelpunt voor Europa van de in dit artikel besproken NiFe batterij ven producent Changhong is. Het heeft een tijd geduurd om de benodigde TUV en CEI keuringen te krijgen, maar deze batterijen zijn heden ook bij ons weer voorhanden.

De importeur voor Duitsland, noord- en Oost-Europa is http://www.Grosol.de en voor Benelux en Frankrijk is dit http://www.Stafco.be .

Produkt wordt voorgesteld op de vakbeurs Intersolutions 15/16/17-01-2014 in Flanders Expo te Gent.
Waar Stafco een werkend systeem zal voorstellen als UPS-systeem voor woningen met Solardaken en offgrid toepassingen op basis van Studer toestellen en deze nikkel ijzer batterij.

Lithium Ion voor Huisopslag

A 10kWhr energy storage unit installed in a private home
InnoSys Delft BV has started a complementary product line, next to the battery and drive systems: home solar energy storage units. With this unit, home owners can use more of their own solar electricity, without feeding it back into the grid.

http://www.innosysdelft.com

Zonnepanelen zijn flink in prijs gedaald. Toch is het nog steeds een flinke investering. Bestaande leningen hebben vaak een hoge rente. Zijn er nog andere opties?

U kunt uw paneel aanschaffen door ‘zonleningen’ af te sluiten bij vrienden en bekenden. Dit zijn kleine zogenaamd ‘onderhandse’ leningen (dwz er komt geen notaris of bank aan te pas). Elke lening heeft een vaste waarde van bv. 100,- Euro of 500,- Euro en volgt een standaard contract (net als bij de notaris). Voor elke lening geldt dat u tot u deze lening aflost en/of jaarlijks rente betaald. Deze hangt af van oa de verwachtte opbrengst van uw panelen, van het bedrag dat u wilt lenen en van wat een aantrekkelijke rente is.

Stel u leent op deze manier 2000,- Euro in leningen van 100,- Euro van vrienden en bekenden, met een rente van 4%. Dan zult u elk jaar aan 20 mensen 4,- Euro overmaken. Het kan ook dat u zelf 1000,- Euro investeert en 2 keer 500,- Euro leent, dan keert u jaarlijks 20 Euro uit of u lost de lening af. Dit kan op elk gewenst moment aflossen, dan inclusief de rente over het jaar van aflossing.

Onderhandse leningen zijn weinig bekend want een notaris of bank verdient er niet aan. Voor de wet en de belastingdienst is zo’n lening verglijkbaar met een hypotheek. Dat betekent dat u wanneer u 2000,- Euro leent u deze verplichting kunt registreren bij de belastingdienst, waarna hij dezelfde voordelen heeft als een hypotheek, oa de hypotheekrente aftrek. Dit is omdat uw zonnepanelen gelden als woningverbetering, dus een investering in uw woning. Dat heeft weer als consequentie dat u de rente van uw inkomen kunt aftrekken. Dit maakt deze lening dubbel voordelig, u betaald 4% rente, maar effectief misschien maar 2%. Deze kosten worden makkelijk gedekt door uw zonnepanelen.

Als u op deze manier uw panelen wil financieren dan kunt u contact met ons opnemen via info@greencheck.nl . U kunt ook uw gegevens invoeren op de zonleningen.nl website (meedoen met pilot). Deze site is echter nog niet volledig functioneel. U kunt ook even bellen met 0644311561 naar Frits Rincker.

Deze manier van financieren is vaak ook voor bedrijven en scholen geschikt, en dan zijn er mogelijk voordelen in het kader van de Energie Investerings Aftrek. Daar willen wij u ook mee helpen.

Click image to see presentation.

Al Gore made a moving presentation at the world economic forum, showing many examples of how climate change is already reaping havoc on the world population. Floods, storms, landslides, displacing millions of people in the recent, hottest years on record.

Why is economics unable to deal with climate change?

Economics is a based on concepts of investment and return. Yet today what we ‘invest’ is fiat money, it is worthless paper and nothing is done in the market to prepare it for the emergence of new money.  So how can this work? Because the market offers fossil fuels, which can be used in motors and chemical processes to directly produce goods and facilitate services. It can be used to mine, to refine, to transport. The only thing required is the ability of the parties involve to purchase it, and the only thing needed for that is 1. availability and 2. money. It is easy to see that money creation follows the availability of fossil fuels, and not the other way around. This is the carbon credit economy.

In an economy that is not led by the availability of fossil fuels, but one that is restricted to using only renewables the rules are different. This is because when money is created it is not matched by instant new production capacity as long as fossil fuels are available. If money is created in a renewables based economy one has to hope that that money can 1. buy stored renewable energy 2. can purchase available renewable energy capacity. Both will have extremely low cost so will have been used already. Money in this situation is nothing if it comes without guarantees that renewable energy can be bought with it. Once again energy is leading, but now it is leading in a much less flexible way, simply because stored renewable energy is not lying around to be sold by banks against their new credit.

Because of these differences between a carboncredit (CC) economy and the renewable credit economy a transition from one to the other is impossible. If carbon credit and renewable credit are mixed in economic traffic the prices will be determined by the fossil fuel market, and those prices are either arbitrary if oil/coal/gas is abundant, and hyperinfaltionary if they aren’t.

The key to the renewable credit (RC)  economy is to understand that production, the existence of goods to be traded, justifies the existence of credit, and thus the energy producer has to create the credit, not the bank. In the carbon credit system the banks have put themselves in the middle by many tricks and lies and by the use of brute force. In the renewable credit system the energy producer must create the credit to buy its energy, so that the credit disappears when the energy is bought. This can be a local or national currency system but the wider the area covered the higher the losses. A key breakthrough would be the invention of energy storage systems as efficient as coal and oil, because that could recreate an economic system as we have today. Until then money in the RC economy is local, the amount of credit is restricted to energy production.

Economic growth in the CC is nothing more than the expansion of the use of fossil fuels. The more fossil fuels are used, the more credit will flow, the richter the banks get and the more the producers of fossil fuel can enjoy (they ask a price that manages demand by managing the amount of cash in circulation, in tandem with the banks). Economic growth is not robust, it collapses when the fuel supply collapses, it is something we should not even strive for, but we have to in order to serve the banks and ff companies in the CC economy. Thus the CC economy is the ecological diseaster it is.

The RC econonomy has to start small in parallel in many places, and exclude the CC economy. This is very hard because the CC economy has more power and is well trained in shaking up local economic systems so they have to go into debt and become part of the global economy. The way to implement is is for government to look at new renewable energy sources, determine their contribution to the local economy and creating credit for the owner abd themselves (a tax) to use. Economists will not suggest this approach. The target at the World Economic Forum in 2014 was 100 trillion more debt to own the rest of the world. It is evident that the World economic forum is not the place to talk about climate change. It could be the place to talk about RC economics and how to allow it to take over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Canadian Wood in Dutch Power Plants

Podcast Link

Link 1 Link 2 Link 3

In Holland the fact biomass use is chosen to provide one fifth of energy in 2050 is used to justify its use, but this is not necessary and the goal is clearly a result of lobby, not of optimal reasoning about what will prevent the most CO2.

Wanneer u een bericht op facebook achter laat of u what’s appt naar een bekende, dan worden die gegevens ten eerste door de NSA opgevangen en opgeslagen, ten tweede natuurlijk door Facebook en What’s app, en ten derde gedeeld met derden, hetzij overheden, hetzij prive bedrijven. Dit lijkt een overdreven zekere stelling, maar dat is het niet.

De NSA is veel ouder dan we denken. Het instituut begon ooit met het vastleggen van telegrammen en heeft zich sindsdien vernieuwd zodat het altijd inzicht had in alle communicatie, eerst van de VS, daarna van de wereld. Het gebruikt onder andere aangepaste netwerk  hardware die bij levering wordt onderschept, zodat de koper niets vermoedend inzage geeft. Er is een complete catalogus van producten die bestaande producten vervangen.

Het gevaar van deze structurele inbreuk in onze privacy is niet dat we dan misschien vaker een targeted add zien, hoewel dat wel de grootste drijfveer is. De informatie van facebook e.d. wordt gedeeld met marketing afdelingen van bedrijven die producten willen verkopen. Dat is onwenselijk maar kan in feite geen kwaad, we blijven er namelijk zelf bij als we ons geld uitgeven.

Alle informatie die we via internet delen komt in ieder geval in handen van veiligheids diensten

Wat meer kwaad kan is dat bekend is wat onze politieke voorkeur is. Het is bekend waar we zijn, wanneer, met wie en wat we zeggen. Dat maakt ons kwetsbaar. We hebben net de aanslag op Charlie Hebdo gezien, dat is een staaltje bot slachtwerk als je kijkt vanuit het perspectief van een NSA. Als je toch weet waar mensen zijn, wat ze doen e.d. dan kun je ze op allerlei manieren dwars zitten. Het wordt heel makkelijk om politieke oppositie, en misschien niet die van een kamerlid, maar meer van een hardliner bij de bvd, de saboteren. Social engineering heet dat als het commercieel gebeurt. Het gaat om oneigenlijk gebruik van oneigenlijk verkregen informatie.

Rechtse partijen die meer te vrezen hebben van publieke afkeuring, die vaak in bed liggen met de fossiele en financiele sector, pleiten steeds voor verruiming van surveillance, boven op wat we al delen in de sociale media. Deze informatie wordt ook echt door McDonalds, Nestle e.d. gebruikt volgens een studie door de universiteit van Bath.

The report details how corporations use their security teams, private contractors, and ex-federal agents to infiltrate nonprofit advocacy groups.

Voorbeelden van acties op basis van deze illegaal verkregen politieke informatie is het tegenwerken van protesten tegen de fossiele industrie, en daar is iedereen slachtoffer van.

Wat betekent dit voor de democratie? Het is het eind van echte democratie, want geen oppositie kan zeker zijn of het in een ongemanipuleerde wereld leeft, of dat zaken misgaan, anders lopen etc. omdat iemand daar voor zorgt. Een goed voorbeeld van hoe ver we hierin moeten denken is dat informatie diensten oa gesproken hebben over het wijzigen van teksten van digitale documenten die de ronde doen in het Europees Parlaiment. Dit is te vergelijken met clausules die opeens opduiken in de zogenaamde Bills in het congres van de VS, waar nooit over is gesproken, en na dat er over de Bill is gestemd. Dit gebeurt en is geen sprookje van Grisham.

Het is heel simpel om internet diensten in deze tot de orde te roepen. Het is lastig om met de NSA te dealen omdat overheden nu juist aan het praten zijn om zo veel mogelijk informatie te delen. Maar het commercieel uitnutten van informatie die we niet met dat doel gedeeld hebben kan zeker worden gestopt. Het meest recente voorbeeld is Uber, de taxi dienst, die met sommige steden heeft afgesproken om reis informatie van gebruikers te delen. Hoezo?

Twee stappen, waarvan de eerste het makkelijkst is :

1. Internet bedrijven mogen informatie niet beschikbaar stellen aan derden als dit voor de werking van de applicatie niet essentieel is.

Dus een autodealer die een auto verkoopt moet de gegevens van de koper delen met de rijksdienst van het wegverkeer oid. Of een hypotheek adviseur moet de informatie die hij in zijn hypotheek appje vindt delen met een bank die de hypotheek gaat verstrekken. Dat is logisch. Maar facebook hoeft uw berichtjes met niemand anders te delen dan degene aan wie je ze gericht hebt om goed te werken als facebook. U bent dan tevreden. “Ja maar we plaatsen targeted adds”. Dat is al jammer, de adds hebben niks te maken met de site. “Ja maar dan wordt het te duur”. Onzin, het kost een gebruiker dan misschien een euro per maand, breng die in rekening.

2. Audit alle hardware in bedrijven met privacy gevoelige informatie zodat zeker is dat hier niet mee gerommeld is. Maak een keurmerk en verplicht bedrijven gekeurde hardware te gebruiken. Een privacy APK.Alle grote netwerk hardware producenten zijn genoemd in de NSA tamper catalogus

Een persoon met genoeg wrok vind altijd wel een weg om een aanslag te plegen. Het is schrijnend dat de NSA bekend was met de daders van 911, zelfs wist dat ze vlieglessen volgden. Ook nu zijn de leden van cellen waarschijnlijk bekend. Niemand weer wanneer een ervan de knoop doorhakt. Spionage op dit gebied is echter iets heel anders dan botweg om andere redenen gedeelde informatie verkopen aan derden.

Facebook moet voor de rechter verschijnen voor het scannen van berichten van gebruikers.

Facebook heeft de regels nu zo gemaakt dat het alle beelden die mensen uploaden kan gebruiken in reclame uitingen voor zichzelf of derden. Dit was volstrekt niet de bedoeling van mensen die beelden aan facebook toevertrouwden, en Duitsland is het enige land dat dat verboden heeft. Maar de wet zou veel strenger moeten zijn omdat er een overduidelijke reden is om informatie delen te beperken, namelijk het is niet nodig voor het goed functioneren van Facebook.

 

Update : The Pope is preparing an edict that also identifies economic money centered thinking as the cause of trouble and climate damage.

Previously I tried to explain how our economic system in combination with easy to condition humans creates an aware AI that does not have human wellbeing as its primary objective. In order to prevent total destruction of our habitat by the unbridled utilization of fossil fuels we need to alter the ‘software’ in a subtle way, namely by making our survival a factor, by demanding that priority is given to projects and activities that maximize the variety and abundance of life, not just maximize cashflow.

The implementation ofthe ML criterium has to be done in a competitive environment, so that projects can be viable but at the same time have better or worse performance in terms of ML. The way the resulting variety and abundance of life is determined requires specification for the system to work. First of all, what is a life?

A life is an independend biological process that replicates itself and has arrived in existence today through natural selection. A life has to have a natural habitat that predates ad 1800.

Second of all what life do we expect?

Any location on Earth will have suited lifeforms which evloved to inhabit it. However, life should be introduced where variety and abundance is low as long as it does not reduce the chance of life succes elsewhere f.i. due to climate effects.

On the surface we can easily understand that a project that clearcuts a piece of rainforest to build a refinery scores very low on the ML scale, and that the extraeconomic dedesertification of an arid region scores high. So perhaps several components can be separated out of the ML ‘index’.