Greencheck.nl

“I don’t know anyone in the world who could tell us how Europe’s dependency on importing Russian gas can be changed in the short term,” Germany’s Economic Affairs and Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel said at the G7 today

So what is short term? One winter? Three winters? This declaration of incapacity may make us forget we do have to move to make ourselves independent. As soon as possible. And there are several ways to do it. Time and time again we have to realize our perception of what can and what can not be done is not reliable if we look at the market. The market is economic, meaning it has to depend on fossil fuels. Solutions that escape that dependency have not been allowed, sometimes in elaborate multi decade moves. Live without russian gas? Of course it is possible.

For Holland, first step is to give up the greenhouse industry. It’s nice, but it burns Gas for heating and CO2, which is a real waste of gas.

First the easy ones : Let’s pipe H2 instead of Gas. Let’s make that H2 using solar cathalyst, for instance with cobalt. Japan did it, but the facts of that successfull test have been carefully hidden. Below an illustration of the project.

Another option is to stop cooking with Gas altogether, converting most furnaces to induction, or mircowave, which would be more efficient as well.

Another one is Heat storage : You can store heat in shallow heat sinks, insulated with vacuum insulation panels, for instance under the streets. They can accumulate heat during the summer, release it during the winter. Phase change materials can help increase capacity.

Many heat storage experiments where cut short to show their yield, or hampered by laws limiting the temperatures allowed in underground storage. Legal objections with no practical risk can be overcome once the target of losing gas is chosen. Deep ground heat storage heat pumps are similarly cut in their performance because of rules about the allowed water temperature, turning many of them in electric heating systems.

Then insulation or the house shell/mantle. The most optimal type may be vacuum insulation, easy to implement. Insulation saves so much gas it usually pays for itself in a couple of years. The level of insulation however is seldomly optimized. Not to zero heating requirements.

An experiment with a glass roof between rows of houses. Internally it is easy to see this does not obstruct traffic or other activities, even if the span is 12-15 meter. For more pictures see here (dutch).

Wind energy can be used to generate heat, also in a utility scale. This heat can then be distributed just like municipal heat, wind heat generators can be part of the municipal heat system. Alternatively people can ‘load up’ heat storage units and take them home. This is a more time consuming system for sure, but it requires les gas, in fact,none at all.

Power to Gas may seem to be in its infancy, but it’s a technology almost a century old. It means water splitting, CO2 splitting and the use of an iron catalyst.

Vacuum solar collectors we now know are tubular ones, with relatively little surface per m2 compared to plates, but with higher performance due to the vacuum. Plate colletors that are vacuum are made by SRB energy and can make up to 400 Celsius steam from normal insolation. This is a huge difference because the higher the steam temperature, the more energy can be extracted. It can heat the home, drive a turbine, put into higher temperature storage.

Cooperation with sunny European Nations Spain and Italy can become major heat exporters, they have dry zones that are sparcely populated that can start a solar farming like the farm fruits and vegetables now. Plants are 5% solar efficient, PV is 15% so there’s much to gain for these countries. A electric cable linking Morocco with Spain is already there. The European grid however is probably much less efficient than power to gas, even if that process is not very efficient. It has the added advantage that the gas can be stored for long periods. There’s also a gas infrastructure.

The effort needs to be mandatory, not market driven, because the market is fossil fuel dependent, as is the financial sector. This is about a new foundation to wealth, one with several thousand of times more potential and an eternal lifespan. The sooner we work those that don’t want it out of the political system, the sooner we can reap the fruits of the sun, wind etc.

 

 

 

Some claim that Ford’s gasoline cars beat Edisons electric cars, which kind of implied Ford had an alliance with oil companies of the time.

We find this text online:

“When Henry Ford invented the automobile, he invented it to run on Ethanol, not Gasoline. after his new invention was shown to be a success, Rockefeller, the owner of Standard Oil (which is now Exxon Mobil) realized that the Diesel engine could run on Gasoline, as long as Ethanol doesn’t get too popular.. Rockefeller then used his connections in Congress to get Prohibition passed.. which outlawed the components that were being used to make Ethanol for Ford’s automobiles. For 11 years of Prohibition, Henry Ford continued to produce automobiles that ran on Ethanol..This was starting to cause Ford to lose money because of Prohibition, so he finally gave up and began produces Gasoline-ready automobiles. One year later, Prohibition was lifted..” (source)

“The fuel of the future, according to both Henry Ford and Charles F. Kettering,  was ethyl alcohol made from farm products and cellulosic materials.”

“The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, awdust — almost anything,” he said. “There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There’s enough alcohol in one year’s yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years.” (source)

Later Ford changed his preference to electric. Saying that charging the car with a private wind turbine would be a good idea..

 

 

Update : Wind generated ammonia as shipping fuel

Update Page 51 Ammonia ” is a bulk industrial commodity, and can be burned in both diesel engines and gas turbines.”

Update “Portable ammonia factories could fuel clean cars” Tim Maxwell

You may think ammonia is very dangerous, and it’s certainly not advised to walk into a room with air saturated with the chemical. But that goes for diesel, petrol, gas and many others as well.

Ammonia, NH3 is a perfect car fuel. It can be made using wind or solar electricity or from Natural gas, allowing the carbon to be separated and stored in the soil.

People applying ammonia in cars will often talk about difficulties, like the need for a fuel mix or more time to develop engines. That’s partly because one can optimize and take forever to reach the optimum, and partly because some people don’t want you to see ammonia cars as an achieveable goal.

Here’s a video about one guy that got stopped by big oil.

A lot of ammonia is dumped or evaporated in the meat industry. All that ammonia can be recaptured and used to power hydrogen fuel cells or be burned for heat and used in cars. The factor that stands in the way is the  self protecting money streams associated with this waste of valuable energy.

Zelf ammoniak maken

Freedom fertilizer

Update :  Salatin is coming to Holland 

Pulisched march 3, 2013

Earlier we blogged about the unsustainability of intensive farming and the risk of suddenly be without fuels to farm while the soil is utterly dead. We would starve because all intensively farmed soil is essentially depleted, so the moment you stop treating it with chemicals nothing growth. How to do it better? By viewing the soil as a battery to store solar energy, nitrogen and other nutrients, and only use it in a way that makes it better..

Joel Salatin agrees with a lot of our ideas also captured in the roboeconomic concept. Be part of life, don’t trade outside a certain logistic range, agoracentric so to say..

Joel Salatin runs a grass farm called Polyface farm. He doesn’t fertilize or plow yet the topsoil grows in thinkness each year. On the grass he keeps cows, chicken, turkey and rabbits in a smart portable system that maximizes the synergy between these species. His method is cheaper, scalable and very productive..

 

Joel on sustainability

Joel talking about soil at TEDMED

Everything I want to do is Illegal

You can farm 

Talking about ‘Folks, this ain’t normal’

Extraeconomics

By F. Rincker

What is Extraeconomics

Extraeconomics is a new kind of economic thinking, fit for the renewable energy age. Traditional economics as it is now practiced around the globe really constitute a fossil fuel marketing strategy and can be defined in short as “The maximization of the Utilization of Fossil Fuels”. It is immediately obvious that if fossil fuel streams would stop flowing today, the world would crash in a week. This to anyone analyzing the situation would seem like a major flaw.

Extraeconomics doesn’t intent to fix traditional economics, it proposes a way to create units of robust existence based on renewable energy sources //outside// the economic environment. Instead of trying to trade it proposes to create units, territories with their inhabitants, that do not trade with anyone except for specific items. The reason why trade is limited if not prohibited is that whatever trade supplies can be made within the territory. Also whatever the territory produces should not be destroyed/used outside it, to prevent energy and waste stream inbalances.

Extraeconomics is the key to solving the climate crisis. If the climate crisis is handled purely economical then a power plant colony in the Lybian desert will be build using fossil fuels, carry an enormous debt and thus have to supply its energy to the economy at large, basically powering the machines and appliances, homes that further destructive consumption of the ecosysytem.

The climate problem can not be solved by using fossil fuels. 1. It only increases the problem. 2. It’s not going to be applied to such goals, 3.You will run out of fuel before having any effect. Therefore normal (fossil fuel based) economics can’t solve the problem.

Would the power plant colony be build using extraeconomic principles the building would not create a debt, the energy produced could be used to capture carbon (basically transforming the electricity into carbon storage), and this process could sustain itself indefinitely while outside the colony economics continued to exploit and destroy the ecosystem. Even with that destruction the extraeconomical unit would be a safehaven for its inhabitants and beneficial to the planet.

Of course extraeconomical units or colonies can produce wealth for the economy at large, but in general this economy doesn’t like that as it depends on our struggle for our share of fossil fuel wealht, distributed through our monetary system. We need money to buy gasoline, food, shelter, to pay our debts and our freedoms. This is the economic system. This is why extraeconomics needs to be defined seperately : It can not evolve from present day fossil fuel scarcity dependend economics.

General principles

The first principle of extraeconomics is that it is the law in a specific ‘zone’, territory, area. Inside the ‘zone’ no other law applies. Trade can only occur (if it occurs at all) within the zone, NEVER to anyone outside the zone. A zone is 100% selfsufficient. People that live in the zone can not migrate in or out, can not maintain bank accounts outside the zone. They can travel and communicate.

The second principle is that it must be possible for renewable energy to power all activities in a zone. Fossil fuels are not avaiable except perhaps in the startup. Energy must be available in sufficient amounts in the zone for people to survive comfortable, for there to be farming, fishing, production of goods and services and for extraeconomic production of forrests, or carbon capture. This principle informs the amount of people that can live in a zone. Technology can help with this challenge if it is a challenge.

Third principle is that the purpose of the zone is capture carbon to combat global warming, strengthen the ecosystem and bring about vitality and beauty of our planet and its inhabitants. Other purposes can be to clean up specific pollution, to breed plants and animals to be released elsewhere. The purpose is never to gain access to goods or services in the ‘outside’ economy.

Wealth = Cybernetic agents X Energy X Raw materials

Designing an extraeconomical zone

Normal economics operates based on investments and market value of whatever is produced with the investment. Market value is ultimately only the value to the supplier of fossil fuels, and as a result economics produces enormous amounts of waste. Intermediaries in the fossil fuel tokens (fiat currencies) do not care how the fuels are applied, although it is in their interest to do it ‘efficiently’. Extraeconomics can’t operate with the same mechanisms, it requires carefull design before a zone is declared.

A zone is not designed with money in mind, but with resources. The resources are invested in the zone and one can say it buys the livelyhoods of the inhabitants. Typically only a fraction of the wealth created in the zone will be from outside resouces, and sometimes even none at all. Elements that are needed repeatedly in every new zone can be defined as building blocks to be provided, and it can be such that some zones produce these building blocks for other zones.

The intermediaries in the traditionally economic zones will try to exploit whatever is produced in the extraeconomic zones, and so there can be no involvement of any party from regular economic zones in the creation or management of an extraeconomic zone. Money is of no value to extraeconomical zones. To protect the zones a governing body outside the zones must be established to protect them from raids and plunder.

Most military blocks are now serving fossil fuel interests, because most weapon systems depend on fossil fuels. There are clear initiatives to use renewable sources to power weapons, but in general the need for a strong army disappears once renewables are embraced. This means that only an enlightened military can be found willing to protect an extraeconomical zone. Most extraeconomic zones will have to be created at a distance from civilisation at first.

Technology

All technology can be applied in an EE zone, regardless of patents, and regardless of it affecting fossil fuel use (because fossil fuels won’t be used). Normal law does not apply in the zones. Renewable energy techology, but also robotics and automated systems can all be used to maximize wealth provided the principles are adhered to. These technologies can be created in the zone, without outside help, or by sharing knowledge between zones.

Wealth being a function of cybernetics x energy x raw materials means that when humans or machines have the energy to process raw materials towards our desired goals (cybernetic feedback) they can create things that constitute wealth. Wealth can be defined as suporting the real needs of living human and other beings so they can live healthy, happy lives.

Government

Extraeconomical zones are designed to provide for themselves and serve the purpose of ecorestauration or carbon capture. As such they are closed economical systems where resources are applied optimally to the chosen ends. A currency can be used to allow inhabitants freedom to chose the kind of wealth they want to enjoy. All enjoy a basic income for their role in the zone.

Why money is not debt

Money today is not what it used to be at the start of the fossil fuel era. In the time manual labour was still the dominant factor in production of wealth the amount of money had to keep pace with the amount of skilled workers, and if something big had to be initiated it required that something als was not being achieved. Production of one thing meant not producing another thing.

This all changed with when industrialization happened based on coal driven steam engines. The machines broke the limitation set by the number of hands or horses able to help, and the value of labour became harder to determine. Unlike after the plague in England, when the noblemen and royals had to give in to the demands of the workers, because so little where left, now it was possible to wage wars slaughtering hundreds of thousends of men without ultimate negative impact on wealth for those left behind. In fact, fossil fuel driven wars became something ‘economics’ was very positive about.

When the amount of money was fixed, also because it was gold, and when our existence was predicated on many people cooperating, then money could be owed, or a debt. In fact most people intuitively feel debt when someone does something for them. That person is not free to enjoy his life while he performs the service, and so this means to recipient of the service should feel a debt to make sure he will do something back someday. Money helped shift the debt around so it could be repayed sooner and with more effect. This is the primary function of money.

It is easy to see that storing money even in this age would not be storing value, because a plague or other event could wipe out all people and who would then (even want to) provide services in return for money? Also many initiatives would invlove no money at all, or involve the creation of some kind of money independent of prevalent currencies.

Money as we know it after a century of fossil fuel industrialization no longer means manual labour. It means fossil fuels. Banks now regulate the amount of money to keep pace with the amount of fossil fuels available for production of goods and services. If they would not do that prices would fluctuate constantly, because demand (based on consumers with money) would not be in tune with supply (limited by the amount of fossil fuels available). This intimate link between money and fossil fuels is completely overlooked in modern economics, yet it is the absolute basis of its validity. Without fuel the economy would grind to a standstill in days.

This means one important thing : Profit is an illusion. Why? Because all gain in goods and services comes at the cost of a loss of fossil fuels (as the enabling resource). You are always left with less even if you make a Ferrari or you feed 100.000 children. Profit from fossil fuel investments mean money is taken out of circulation, at least as much as is spend on the project. This still doesn’t mean anything is gained, only that the loss is contained, the loss could have happened because of other processes (like people spending money to drive cars), but the money ended up in the pocket of the project.

What does it mean that a person that borrowed money from a bank to invest in a project has to pay that money back? The money is being spend on fossil fuels and other resources, it ends up mainly in the hands of these producers (fossil fuel, food, raw materials). The fuel is burned and the product is sold and all money gained except the profit has to be payed back to the bank. The question is : Why? What does it mean. The bank provided the money, but a debt in the true sense is not owed to the bank, it is owed to the suppliers of the fuel and materials needed to create the product or service. Somehow they accepted the money, especially the fossil fuel supplier. Why could the project not be done to the profit of the fossil fuel supplier and the other raw materials suppliers? That would make much more sense. Instead the bank pretends to have a right to both the money back and a piece of the action (interest).

The only reason one can think of why money should be returned to the bank (and this can be a way to aknowledge a debt) is that the bank wants money to remain scarce and more importantly (the real reason) because the bank wants to control what happens with the fossil fuels, how much of them are used how. If the bank allows money continue to circulate endlessly more and more would circulate and this would mean both inflation, but it would also mean less control over the projects that are initiated. The type of projects could be undesirable, and we all know what projects those are : Ones affecting the dominance of fossil fuels!

In economic theory money is created as debt because it has to return to the bank, because control over the amount is crucial for management of the fossil fuel consumption rate as well as the power of the banks. It is not debt in the classic sense because nobody in any bank loses sweat and no oil worker loses income over you not repaying it. It is a mere instrument of control.

If money really had to be repayed, the oil also would have to be unburned

On a small scale, locally money does play the classic role, but only because people really don’t think about whether there is still gas in the pump tomorrow, or whether bread will come to the bakery. So from the individual perspective it seems a mortgage is a debt to be repayed. It is not. Saying you need money to start something is like saying people can’t move except for money. They can and have and will.

The most imortant thing to keep the majority convinced money is the means to everything is to keep the fossil fuel based production machine going. If it is using renewables it has to be from a position of debt, not from cash, because then people experience the cost of it going down to zero! The forces preventing us from owning almost free energy sources can only be fought through creation of extraeconomical zones and extraeconomical thinking. Economics is bound to fossil fuels and depends on our misguided respons to the concept of debt. The whole paradigm can not be defeated, only abandoned.

Extraeconomics at climatebabes.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coal consists for a large part of trees that fel layer upon layer in swamps millions of years ago. In the oxygen poor muddy water the trees carbonized and sank, storing carbon, shifting the balance of CO2-O2 towards the oxygen side. Many billions of terrawatts of solar energy where thus stored, the atmosphere cooled new organisms that thrived in the cooler climate took advantage.

As CO2 rises O2 drops

Since humanity discovered this store of energy it has been rejoining the carbon with oxygen from our atmosphere, with many effects, the most important of which is the rise in CO2 and warming of our atmosphere. It will, as the IPCC predictably concludes, cause widespread hunger and drought. Our inability to halt carbon pollution means many people will die.

Expressing all the damage in terms of money is senseless, because who can tell if money has any value by the time the situation deteriorates. What does a 100 dollar bill buy in a Mad Max world? Money in our society equals fossil fuels, which we can allocate towards the goals we want using our money. Sadly, we won’t have fossil fuels by the time we start experiencing hardship from climate change, because peak oil is already years behind us, and we might not be given access to it. The solution to climate change can not be ‘economical’ it has to be renewable energy based, so called ‘extraeconomical’.

One solution we have looked into and believe will add greatly to help the hardest hit is to develop methods to grow trees on the ocean. We called this project Bambooya before, which is about building an island of either bamboo, mangroves or plastic bottles, but the growth strategy for the island requires a slightly different approach, namely trees growing on the water with specific spacing, to maximize growth and minimize use of materials.

Growing trees, or bamboo if it’s possible, in the pacific, allows organic expansion of the program, as well as added opportunities to grow seeweed, fish and other usefull materials in an area that normally does not produce anything. It allows incrememental capture of carbon for sequestration with next to no limit. The trees can be carbonized to recuperate the nutrients, and possible generate gas and other chemicals that are usefull for the necessary infrastructure.

There’s a hell of a lot of sun falling on our oceans. The more we reflect the better we will fare..

We have done detailed analysis and would like to start development of methods to grow bamboo and trees at sea using renewable energy and organic materials. Questions : info@climatebabes.com or info@greencheck.nl

Bamboo as substitute for carbon fiber

Mangrove Authority Dr Norm Duke

Mangrove trees under water

Pacific Forrest

about Bamboo

Bambooya is a continent made from Bamboo. It floats in one of the gyri where ocean cuttents keep things in one place. It may be classified as a ship in which case it has a captain, and it’s own laws. You can become citizen of Bambooya and help make it a real destination.

The purpose of Bambooya is to store carbon from the atmosphere. This can be achieved by growing bamboo. In order to have free land to grow the bamboo an island is created out of bamboo. The thickness and size is arbitrary and limited by the growth speed and difficulty of cultivation on a floating raft.

The project can start near the Marshall islands, where bamboo for a mega raft can be grown on land. As soon as a raft has it’s own bamboo growing on it it can be unleashed and set adrift to the center of the gyrus. But there can be smart structure to the build so the raft provides excellent living.

– Growing bamboo requires fresh water and fertilizer, both are available in our oceans.
– The area in question is a dead zone with lots of plastic floating. These materials can be cleaned up as well
– On the raft one can grow saline plant species that can help buildit up.
– Ocean water is a rich source of nutrients that only need to be pumped up from the deep.
– Solar plants and other renewable energy installations like wind farms can become integrated in the raft.

Seasteading
The Bambooya concept is not related to seasteading, although seasteading can be integrated and people can live on the ‘lands’. Seasteding has been corrupted by the usual suspects :  High cost, judicial issues, scaring people into thinking it’s wild west and corporate invasion]]. Bambooya will be “Extraeconomical” in that it will not be an economic resource in it’s setup, it will generate land without a profit motive, because profit is only definable in the fossil fuel driven economy that causes the climate problem. All grown bamboo will be ‘reinvested’ into creation of new land and making the project work, as well as keeping the poeple invloved alive.

Legal system

Bambooya will have the same civil legal system as Holland. No business can be set up, there is only one administration. Inhabitants are employees and are kept to a minimum to maximize the carbon capturing effect. The intent is to run the expansion of the island and have a positive effect on climate and ecosystem. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afGejwdZ9_4 some ideas]]

Island design
Bambooya can have multiple types of units, all sized one hectare (100m x 100m). The units can be connected (in some cases deeply) to make up the big island mass needed to withstand the weather.

‘land’
The island will be far enough above the waterline to allow a fresh water layer. This means its thickness is at least 1,2 meter, but more probably should be 3 meters. The land can be planted with bamboo, or other usefull crops.

‘film’
Within a ring of thick island elements it may be possible to have thiner sections with a thickness of only 2 meters or even 1 or less, especially when bioplastics can be used to make a salt water seperation. These can be used to grow grass, light crops.

‘fishfarm’
Low floating cages and exposed ocean surface, structural support

‘weedfarm’
Low flaotring lines and exposed ocean surface, structural support

‘seastead’
Dry floating mass of well inspected materials, with living quarters on top. Can be supplied by companies and integrated into the island.

‘fertilizer processing’
The ocean contains nutrients for plants deep down at about 200 meters. These nutrients can be extracted using seaweed, that can be dried and used as fertilizer on the agricultural units.

‘industrial’
Chemical processing facilities, charcoal factories, seaweed processing units, biogas units, bamboo processing facilities. Can be based on existing steel vessels, or bamboo support, or concrete.

Island location
The ocean currents will take the island to one of the pacific Gyri, the so called ‘grabage patches’. That is where the island is illustrated in the image above. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pRy88R-4BI A lot of plastic is available there.]]

Resources
[[http://www.bamboogarden.com/]]
[[http://www.bamboosourcery.com/]]
[[http://www.lewisbamboo.com/index.html]]
[[http://www.tropicalbamboo.com/]]
[[http://www.kimmei.com/bestekeuze.html]]

http://bambus-lexikon.de/
http://www.bamboehaag.nl/
http://www.bamboe.nl/home/
http://www.bamboogiant.nl/

http://www.bamboehobbykwekerij.nl/
http://www.bamboonurseryvivax.be/
http://www.bandus.nl/

Types of Bamboo
You might get results out of [[http://www.bamboogarden.com/Phyllostachys%20aurea.htm Phyllostachys aurea]], [[http://www.bamboogarden.com/Pseudosasa%20japonica.html Pseudosasa japonica]], or [[http://www.bamboogarden.com/Semiarundinaria%20fastuosa.htm Semiarundinaria fastuosa]], but I’m really not sure how they’d do. Anna Bamboo Garden

bambu bamboes 竹 Bambus bambou במבוק bambù ไม้ไผ่

About mangroves
Similar concepts
Floating islands
Recycle island

Het vertragen en misleiden van wetgevers om producenten van schadelijke stoffen en producten lange hun gang te laten gaan is een vak, David Michaels legt het hier goed uit.

Solar Solutions 2014 in de Expo Haarlemmermeer is een beurs voor pv en zonnethermische installateurs. Hieronder drie gesprekken met standhouders.

Top Systems

Gesprek met Top Systems Electriciteits Opslag klik hier

Triple Solar

Gesprek met Cees Mager van Triple Solar Hybride PV-Thermische panelen klik hier

Solar Spot

Gesprek met Solar Spot over daglicht systemen klik hier (audio volgt)

Jasper Vis is een bron van kwaliteitsinformatie ten aanzien van duurzame energie. Hij nam het op zich om het stuk van Simon Rosendaal te ‘Fact checken’ dwz, de opmerkingen te toetsen aan de gekende feiten. Het resultaat is zijn blog post hier. Het is interessante maar ook schokkende materie.

We zullen de analyse van Jasper hier niet over doen, maar wat naar onze mening ontbreekt is de klassificatie ‘vod’ voor het publicerende tijdschrift en ‘tendentieus’ voor het stuk van Rosendaal. Deze kwalificaties zijn diskwalificaties van de eerste orde en het is onze indruk dat mensen daarmee net zo graag genoegen nemen als met een inhoudelijk weerwoord. Maar een klein deel van de lezers is geinteresseerd in het hoe, wat en waarom van de beunhazerij van Rosendaal.

Het grootste deel neemt op wat het leest, onthoud wat het vaakst wordt herhaald. Daarin zit het grote risico van een pro-fossiele media. De media, en ook tijdschriften ‘programmeren’ de ongeinteresseerde zodat die zonder zich schuldig te voelen (het gaat hem/haar immers niet aan het hart) de gewenste mening spuit. Staat op een feestje drie maanden later “Zonnepanelen?” “Nah, levert straks niks meer op”. Daar is geen kruid tegen gewassen.

“Zonnepanelen kosten de samenleving geen miljarden”

Jasper maakt zich ook schuldig aan toegeeflijkheid. Het herhalen van Rosendaals onzin (wat we hierboven niet doen), of zoiets als het volgende.

“Simon Rozendaal laat in het artikel van 9 pagina’s eigenlijk vooral zien dat de energiebehoefte in de Nederland of de wereld voorlopig nog niet volledig gedekt kan worden door zonne-energie en dat het veel geld zou kosten als we dat op korte termijn zouden proberen.“

Het gaat om het gevoel bij een bewering. Het is de ultieme stroman om te zeggen “Dus we moeten alles met zonnepanelen doen?” “Als iedereen dat zou doen dan werd het hier een gekkenhuis!”, eis teveel en vooral te vroeg in het proces zodat iedereen voelt dat dit niet kan, zonnepanelen falen deze uitdaging. Rosendaal stelt het zo omdat dit demotiveert. Jasper herhaalt het en geeft toe dat het zo is. Maar het is volstrekt irrelevant voor de lezer die vandaag zonnepanelen zou kunnen gaan kopen, of winddelen, of iets anders verstandigs zou kunnen ondernemen. Je zou ook kunnen zeggen : De energie behoefte die Rosendaal denkt dat er bestaat, waarop is die gebaseerd. Niemand in politiek Den Haag heeft het over een volledige dekking met zonnepanelen, we hebben immers windparken, geothermie, de Energie mix etc. Waarom zou iemand de stroman van Rosendaal omarmen? Het gaat om het gevoel van onhaalbaarheid. Dat blijft hangen.

Dat is Extreem!

Overigens wordt het programma Nederland 100% duurzaam van Urgenda door Jasper ‘Extreem’ genoemd. Dat doet Urgenda ook geen dienst. Het plan 100% duurzaam is een van de vele die momenteel in de wereld gemaakt worden oa Mark Ruffalo (de ‘Hulk’ acteur) heeft er een gemaakt voor elke staat van Amerika om van het fracken af te komen. Wat wij extreem vinden is dat 100% duurzaam slechts 0,5 % van het totale potentieel is.

Rosendaal haalt het PBL aan, een niet onpartijdige bron die ook braaf de mythes tav wind energie met zachte hand herhaalt. Laten we het volgende van PBL eens analyseren..

Stelling : “Meer windenergie levert geen CO2 reductie op.”

PBL : “Binnen het systeem van Europese emissiehandel leiden meer windturbines niet tot minder uitstoot van broeikasgassen. Er zijn ook andere, goedkopere maatregelen om emissies te verlagen.” (bron)

1. De tweede kamer heeft bericht gehad dat het ETS volstrekt niet functioneert. Zo slecht werkt het dat er werd voorgesteld een andere doelstelling te zoeken! Waanzin.
2. Zelfs als het ETS functioneert betekent het dat emissies worden verplaatst, niet voorkomen.Dat is het systeem : Emissie HANDEL. maar even over de stelling over CO2 reductie, wat heeft dat met het ETS te maken?
3. NATUURLIJK voorkomt een Wind Kilowatuur de emissies van een anders gebruikte Gas of Kolen Kilowattuur. PBL is dus een partijdig instituut dat de discussie binnen vooraf geneutraliseerde perken wil houden. Daar haalt Rosendaal zijn info vandaan en daar zou Jasper meteen korte metten mee moeten maken.

We hebben hier geen kritiek op inhoudelijk niveau, maar op het gebied van prioriteit, relevantie, significantie van de stellingen die worden gedaan en door Jasper Vis behandeld. Net als men klimaatsceptici zou moeten negeren omdat ze de illusie wekken dat er een 50/50 debat gaande is, is ook deze opschoning van de zin en onzin in Rosendaals artikel te veel eer. Men kan niet rusten omdat er geschreven is “Het was maar 68 miljoen inplaats van miljarden!”. De hyperbolie en woordkeuze van Rosendaal hebben waarschijnlijk zijn negatieve impact al gehad, en dat brengt fossiel nederland de komende jaren naar de bank.

Een laatste voorbeeld :

punt 5

Het zou 80 jaar duren voor zonne-energie de ‘potentie waarmaakt’ (wat dat ook mag betekenen). Japer duikt er in :

“De termijn van 80 jaar lijkt gebaseerd op het lange termijn scenario ‘Oceans’van Shell waarin zonne-energie in 2100 wereldwijd 38% van het totale energiegebruik dekt en daarmee verreweg de grootste energiebron is. “

Ok, even denken…oh ja. FUCK Shell. Wie heeft net het Rotterdam Climate Initiative ter ziele geholpen? Shell topman Jeroen van der Veer. Wie zegt net nog 50 jaar met fossiel te willen doorgaan (Bron : Jan Rotmans)? Shell! Wie heeft de opgang van zonnepanelen met decennia vertraagd door patenten te kopen, kristallijn silicium fabrieken en voorraad te kopen, zodat de panelen industrie er jaren half dood bijhing? SHELL. Niet “Shell dit en Shell dat”, maar OPDONDEREN MET SHELL.

5. “Het kan dus best dat het nog wel een jaar of tachtig duurt voor zonne-energie haar prachtige potentie waarmaakt”

Wat “Prachtige potentie”, heb je al op de daken gekeken? 80 jaar? Weet jij wat er over vijf jaar mogelijk is? Next!