Greencheck.nl

Below video is a good example of both extremely directed questioning by fossil fuel funded media as well as locking up BETTER technology by the oil and gas industry. The Reinvented curse is applied to the vertical wind turbine, a cheaper, more productive, more stabile way to capture wind energy than the common vertical wind turbine.

Ambities voor gangbare turbines zijn niet realistisch en maken ze zeer duur :

"The major problem with a horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT) is that all materials and structural innovations will never completely remove the restrictions on turbine capacity. A desirable long term objective will be to aim for individual turbines with a capacity of 10 MW for increasing efficiency with blades 120 m long and a tower of 200 m in height. With current materials this structure is likely to disintegrate under its own load in a very short period of time. " (bron)

You may wonder why the vertical turbine is so popular. The answer is : It is more efficient. At the time these turbines where first developed the criteria set by banks where rediculous, to stop them from becoming a reality. So they had to be most efficient (even though the wind is free), they had to be able to widthstand storms (making them heavy and noisy). Even with all these safeties it stil took decennia to become investeable, simply because banks don’t like renewables. 

Interviewer : "What if you build it and it just doesn’t work!" 

The vertical wind turbine (VAWT) meanwhile was avoided, because it’s much easier to build them. The argument to not use them was because they are less efficient, but more importantly they don’t start as the wind starts. Vertical wind turbines need less wind, but won’t start automatically. The drawback can be overcome, as is done with the turbine shown in the video, by using some way to turn the axis, a motor (the generator itself) is ocean currents.

Technip floating VAWTs 

If the basic drawbacks of VAWTs are considered carefully they are easily fixed, irrelevant and out weighed by the benefits. The design of these turbines is dead simple. The heavy generator is positioned low, making it much easier to build a platform (try keeping tons of metal in place at about 150 meters against strong winds). This lowers cost considerably. Also the turbines stop automatically when winds get to strong due to aerodynamic reasons. Finaly, these turbines can be much bigger than the vertical ones and as a result can produce much more power for much less money!

What justifies the title is that the video on top is not the first time we hear about this typ of turbine for offshore, nor is it a dissimilar situation than that of Technip a french offshore oil and gas company. They designed a similar turbine, stating all the advantages which is not being build. You can imagine how much cheaper these turbines are, and how much faster capacity could be expanded. That is clearly undesirable in who’s eyes? Offshore oil and gas companies!

source

You can expect these turbines to be tested by these companies for the next 100 years, until there’s really no oil, gas or life on this planet anymore. 10 years study as the video says. 10 years to see if a fallen rock will stay on the ground, 10 years to see if a screw you screwed into a piece of wood will stay there. It’s not testing, it’s delaying introduction and use of technology. It’s time for patent reform and government control over investment choices, because if we leave it to the offshore gas and oil companies, we’ll be stuck in promises forever. 

We have written before about rediculous patents prohibiting VAWTs to be build in ‘high places’ (in dutch), basically stating that all streetlight poles, high voltage towers, traffic lights etc are off limits for any VAWT except the one described in the patent, that is barely sold. The devious trick is that based on these patents your request for premission to place a turbine will be rejected, but you won’t know why. 

Patenting a ‘high place’ 

" Generally speaking, the present inventive method and system comprise identifying an existing structure having a capability of supporting a wind turbine above the surface of the earth, mounting a vertical-axis wind turbine to the existing structure, connecting a power generator to the turbine, and permitting the wind turbine to operate. It is understood that the mounting of the turbine to the existing structure is done so as to avoid interference with normal operation of the existing structure and the wind turbine. Also, the generator is connected to the wind turbine in a manner which produces electricity as a result of the turning of the wind turbine. " (source)

Windvogel pleit al jaren voor vrije zelflevering van stroom. Het is zo simpel als wat : Er staat een windturbine ergens buiten de wijk, die levert stroom aan de wijk, en over die levering wordt geen belasting betaald. Een rechter heeft nu bepaald dat er wel belasting moet worden betaald. Dit is geen verrasing omdat de wetten door de energiebedrijven bij elkaar gelobbied zijn, maar eens kijken wat er nog meer van te zeggen valt.

Windvogel website 

Het hele proces met Windvogel lijkt een ingewikkelde poging om het geldende recht te laten zegevieren. Om geslagen te worden en dan in zielig in een hoekje te gaan zitten. Wilde Windvogel het probleem oplossen dan had het gewoon voor de nodige wetswijziging gelobbied en tot die tijd een oplossing gezocht, zoals bv. twee pendelende accuwagens of een direkte lijn (waarin we ons nog moeten verdiepen) enz. In plaats daarvan werd de belastingdienst uitgelokt tot het reageerde. Zonder wetswijziging was de uitkomst voorspelbaar.

Los van het feit dat dit niemand ervan heeft weerhouden om deel te nemen aan Windvogel is er een fundamenteel probleem met deze situatie (niet met de beslissing van de rechter, die volgt de wetgeving). Dat ligt in de ongewenste en op deze manier onuitroeibare verstrengeling van duurzame energie opwekking met de fossiel/bankaire economie.

Het fenomeen dat productie capaciteit verspreid over het land wordt opgewekt vergt een fundamentele rethink van centrale kredietverstrekking. Het leidt tot een wedergeboorte van geld als ruilmiddel

Een windmolen produceert stroom. Die stroom is waardevol want zorgt voor comfort in huishoudens, productie in fabrieken en misschien zelfs logistiek. De creatie van welvaart wordt mogelijk gemaakt door de stroom. Onze staat vindt dat het recht heeft op een deel van de welvaart die op haar grondgebied wordt geproduceerd en heft dus belasting. Dat is terecht vinden wij. De vraag is echter hoe die belasting wordt betaald, want de bedoeling is dat de belasting recht geeft op een deel van de stroom of wat met die stroom is geproduceerd. Economen zullen nu al afhaken, want die gooien alles op een hoop dmv gebruik van geld zonder te kijken waar dat vandaan moet komen. Dit dient hun wens om alles onder controle van een bankwezen te houden (de mensen die economisch denken bedachten).

Wie meer stroom zelf opwekt, moet steeds harder werken!

Stel dat heel nederland vol zou staan met deze windmolens en er geen banken waren die geld leenden voor bedrijven en hypotheken, kortom er bestond geen geld. Hoe zou men dan de belasting betalen? Kennelijk moeten de gebruikers van de stroom eerst werken om geld te verdienen dat banken om andere redenen aan bedrijven e.d. hebben geleend, om dat vervolgens aan de belastingdienst te betalen. Belasting verplicht zo tot arbeid (of het trekken van een uitkering of andere steun). Is het logisch dat het hebben van een energiebron verplicht tot arbeid? Dat deste meer gratis stroom je produceert, deste harder je ergens moet werken om belasting te betalen?

Wij pleiten al een tijdje voor de nodige rethink van belasting, niet per se omdat we vinden dat mensen die zelf iets produceren er zonder kosten zelf van mogen genieten, maar omdat de huidige gewoonte van de belastingdienst om om geld te vragen ons bind aan hetgeen we juist kwijt willen, de fossiele krediet economie. Iemand die over zelf opgewekte stroom belasting betaalt onttrekt geld aan de economie op een manier die niet door de banken is geanticipeerd. Dat vinden deze banken prima, want deste minder geld er is, deste meer zaken ze doen (mensen komen dan geld lenen). Het versterkt hun macht. Dit lijkt een onschuldig effect, maar het maakt dat 1. Mensen in de economie die door de banken wordt gecreerd MOETEN blijven werken en 2. Het vergroot de macht van dezelfde banken, leidt tot faillisementen en schulden.

De belasting neemt taken over van het bankwezen, en creert zelf geld. 

Hoe moet het dan wel? Zelfs als de leden van Windvogel energiebelasting moeten betalen, iets waar we niet op tegen zijn, dan moet die belasting met de energie uit de turbine betaald worden. Dit is de enige correcte manier van belasting heffen op die productie. Als de belastingdienst simpelweg om geld vraagt dan krijgt het beschikking over alles wat in de economie te koop is. Het heft dus in feite belasting over de hele economie. Dit is prima zolang de activiteit waar het om gaat deel is van die economie, maar de windturbine is dat niet! Dat is het pas als er geld wordt gecreerd specifiek om de windenergie te verhandelen.

Zoals we al eerder schreven maakt de belastingdienst hier een fout door om geld te vragen. Het wil een deel van de geproduceerde stroom en/of alles dat met de stroom wordt geproduceerd. Aangezien de stroom praktisch uit het niets verschijnt moet het ruilmiddel ook bij deze windmolen worden gecreert. Dat kan op een eenvoudige manier, namelijk door de eigenaren van de molen krediet te geven om hun eigen stroom te kopen, en dat krediet te belasten. De belastingdienst treed hier dus op als bank, en creert zelf geld. Om dit te doen moet het de productie waarde van de molen analyseren, net als de bank de waarde van een asset analyseert (en opblaast omdat het niet zelf verantwoordelijk is voor de waarde creatie in de maatschappij, maar slechts het ruilmiddel mag uitgeven). Deze ‘waarde’ is nog wel geralateerd aan de fossiel/bankaire economie, iets waar ook iets op te vinden is.

Voorbeeld 

Stel er zit een pizzeria in de Windvogel wijk. De belastingdienst kan vaststellen dat deze pizzeria stroom zal willen kopen van de Windvogel eigenaren. Het geeft daarop geld aan deze eigenaren, die het lokaal besteden (het geld vermengt zich met geld dat van banken afkomstig is), de pizzeria verdient het met het bakken van pizzas en betaalt hiermee de rekening aan Windvogel. De belastingdienst heft belasting over deze specifieke geldstroom. Dat doet het door een deel in te houden van wat het aan de Windvogel eigenaren zou moeten geven. Op deze manier ontvangt de belastingdienst een deel van wat wordt geproduceerd, wordt er geen geld aan de bankaire economie onttrokken en hoeven de Windvogel eigenaren niet te gaan werken omdat ze zelf stroom opwekken.

De Euro, Auro en Joule (aanpassing bankwezen aan hernieuwbare economie)

Omdat het belastinggeld, het ruilmiddel waarmee mensen de stroom kunnen kopen, alleen daar waarde heeft is het verstandig dit ter beschikking te stellen aan lokale overheden. De verliezen bij transport van stroom zijn zodanig (in Nederland draait een centrale alleen om die op te vangen) dat het niet werkt om het geld overal vrij te laten komen. Alleen met fossiele energie kun je hopen dat overal wel kolen, olie of gas te krijgen is, en zelfs daar schort het steeds meer aan. Dit heeft te maken met ons onbegrip van geld, waarvan we vaak denken dat het waardevol is, het is echter alleen zo waardevol als wat mensen ervoor te koop aanbieden, en dat hangt nog behoorlijk af van de fossiele brandstof aanvoer.

De scheiding tussen ‘belastinggeld’ en bankair krediet zorgt ervoor dat banken geen eignaar worden van elke windmolen, zoals nu het geval is. Het maakt dat de staat steeds meer beschikking krijgt over productiemiddel (stroom) en daarmee haar eigen gang kan gaan op lokaal niveau. De groei van windparken etc. wordt zo niet geremd door de fratsen die banken uithalen om geld schaars te houden. De staat kan onpartijdig zijn en zal zien dat een steeds groter deel van de financien zonder schulden wordt geregeld. Het heeft een belang bij de groei van opwekking van hernieuwbare energie, met name als die productief is.

Meer over het economisch denken voor de hernieuwbare toekomst op Roboeconomy.com

More frequent drought changes the environment for spores and fungi, some of which cause disease. Health effects of climate change can take many forms, as the warmer weather in some regions f.i. creates opportunities for parasites and insects (for instance, malaria will spread), while colder weather elsewhere can allow viruses to spread due to weaker immune systems.

"In 2030 the estimated risk of diarrhoea will be up to 10% higher in some regions than if no climate change occurred" 

Studies have been conducted to estimate the life years lost due to climate change in different regions. DALY’s counted in the image below are years of life not lived or lived in disability. A completely healthy population living it’s normal lifespan would count zero DALY’s

(source) 

So according to the above image 3 in one thousand people in Africa lose a year of their life being sick or dead, while in the Europe it would be 9 in one million.

Nine reasons stated by the WHO :  

1. changes in air pollution and aeroallergen levels

2. altered transmission of other infectious diseases

3. effects on food production via climatic influences on plant pests and diseases

4. drought and famine

5. population displacement due to natural disasters, crop failure, water shortages

6. destruction of health infrastructure in natural disasters

7. conflict over natural resources

8. direct impacts of heat and cold (morbidity).

 "global warming is already causing more deaths around the world" (NYT)

Update : Tepco’s actions have weakened the reactor it’s a diseaster that doesn’t stop.

Update : Bijna 10.000 werknemers bij de kerncentrales hebben nu aan zoveel straling bloodgestaan dat ze een vergoeding krijgen als ze leukemie ontwikkelen. 

TEPCO maakt er een potje van. De mensen die er werken verwachten een nieuwe ramp. Ze krijgen soms 10 dollar per uur om onder de gevaarlijke omstandigheden te werken en TEPCO houd geen rekening met ze. Een rapportage van de Australische TV laat geen twijfel over.

Ongeacht dat nucleare energie veel geld kost en door het minder rijk worden van de uranium erts steeds vervuilender dan bv. Wind en Solar, is het een duidelijke demonstratie van ‘met onwillige honden is het slecht hazen vangen’. De commerciele benadering werkt niet in deze ramp die serieuzer is dan die in Chernobyl. Daar werden Bio Robots ingezet, soldaten die in een paar minuten een levensdosis aan straling moesten incasseren.  

300 kuub hoog radioactief water stroomt elke dag de pacific in. Met deeltjes die normaal op aarde niet voorkomen.

De ramp in Fukushima verspreidt radioactiviteit over de hele Stille Oceaan, straling die ook de Westkust van de VS zal bereiken. ‘Hete deeltjes’ die u en ik ook al in onze longen hebben, en die elk individueel kanker kunnen veroorzaken. Het is geen lokaal fenomeen, het is een mondiale dreiging, en toevallig een zichtbare. Laat de militairen die voor gebruik van kernwapens zijn dit als een oefening in puin ruimen zien. Niemand kan met geld verleidt worden dit probleem op te lossen. Tijd voor het leger, de VN. Voor het geld is opgebruikt door een incompetente en onverantwoordelijk TEPCO.

Recently it was in the news North Dakota flares about $100 million of natural gas each month. Other gas operations also flare gas, under heavy protest. Methane should be burned when disgarded, because it’s a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but the best thing is of course not to waste it. We make this page to list all the incidents of this practice, to show the insanity of gas operations, their destructive and long term damaging effects.

The headline ‘US fracking industry ‘wasting $1bn a year in gas flaring’ is either correct, and then it has to be added to the $1,2 Billion already flared in North Dakota, or incorrect, in which case the total still has to be more than $1,2 Billion flared in ND.

"As we speak, this country flares close to $2.2bn every year and this, for me, is criminal. "

In other places flaring also takes place. Production value worth $2.2 Billion is flared in Nigeria each year.  

Globally the volume of flaring in 2011 is estimated (from analysing satelite images) to be 140 Billion Cubic Meters (source)

Why not flare?

Any time one sees a flare, this is a considerable waste of energy. It is also damaging to the environment and public health, because of the CO2 emissions and half burned hydrocarbons, as well as soot. This energy could also be used to drive a compressor and make LNG out of it, store it in tanks and ship it to some production center every now and then. Flaring is unnecessary if the investment in this compression and storage capacity can be made. However the companies that drill for gas do not care about the waste as long as they can keep the business going. There is no incentive not to flare. 

Why flare

• Because the gas comes out of a refining process at low volumes, irregularly
• No economical interest in using compressior and logistics resources
• Gas is of bad quality, no interest in cleaning it.
• Abandoned well, low volume.

So the reasons we see flaring stem from the operational considerations of the gas/fracking companies. The public effects of the decision to flare is not considered, only probably, whether it is legal. The legal system however is on the side of the fossil fuel industry, or easily persuaded by settlements in any case of damage/harm. We can’t bring a case against these companies because they kill every living thing on the planet, but we can if someone gets nausea because of fossil fuel toxicity.

Part 1 

Solar panels spit out voltages of 21-38-104 Volt at various amperages. Usually these are used to feed a grid tied inverter, leaving most of the house using the AC voltage. Inverters are expensive however, and systems with either nothing between the panels and some usefull appliance or with batteries in between are interesting for cutting cost.

We wrote about daylight systems, using a solar panel and LED lighting to light areas dark during the day. We proposed a system for that so that solar power and power from the net merge, and everything works all the time. These systems can light offices and hallways that are usually dark and require artificial lighting.

The ROI of daylighting systems is high, because of the lack of an inverter in combination with much more efficient lightsources (there’s even a code for it when used with fluorescent lighting).

Heliostats, or automated mirrors 

Another approach to daylighting is the heliostat, a mirror that directs sunlight into the house by tracking the sun. Heliostats can also be used to generate heat by lighting a (Trombe) wall, possibly through a window. The efficiency of directed light is very high, usually the mirror takes 5-15% of the solar energy, the rest ends up where you want it. Light travels without energy loss untill it hits something.

Battery systems 

There’s a huge industry dedicated to battery systems. Uninterrupted power supplies, that power digital systems are everywhere to ensure the machines keep running. The can be quite expensive. A lot is made of the way batteries are charged, because the design of the most common one (lead acid) is flawed causing it to break down and be very sensitive to abuse. Edison batteries (NiFe) don’t have these problems, but they are priced almost accordingly relative to lead acid, something banks will force companies to do to maximize ‘profit’. NiFe batteries last at least 50 years, but are three times as expensive as lead acid. We hope to build a NiFe system soon.

Our team is charging your battery 

Being stuck with lead acid means charging is a challenge, or not. As long as batteries don’t discharge fully and are not overcharged or charged to fast you may enjoy their use for the specified time. That does not require a Appollo mission control on standby at all times. Mind you a car battery does not have a small refigerator in electronics attached to it. It’s usually wired directly to the dynamo/generator.

Lead acid battery voltage when they are in use (source)

The three critical things are overcharging, charge speed, and running to low. Overcharging is prevented by setting the maxium charging voltage. The discharge voltage runs up to 12,7 Volt. To charge the voltage is usually limited to 14 Volt, which can get a battery up to 80% charged. Maximum used voltage can be 16,3 Volt. The problem with lead acid is that overvoltage causes chemical reactions that creat toxic fumes. Some batteries are sealed so apart from the toxicity this creates a risk of explosion.

Lead acid battery voltage when they are being charged (source)

As the state of charge of a battery rises and the voltage difference deminishes the rate at which it is charged also slows down. To maximize the rate of charge some charging controllers will always keep the voltage offered to the battery at the maxium possible, which may mean lower than the maximum voltage shown above. To do this the voltage offered must be changed dynamically, which can be done with electronics. If one plans to use the battery between 20% and 80% of its charge (so not as some kind of suvival store) this is not really necessary. 

The rate of charging, or current while charging, has to be limited to what the battery can take. If the normal chemical reaction of the battery can’t accept all the energy offered other reactions occur. Also the lead electrodes deteriorate faster (the ultimate point of failure of all lead acid batteries). The rate of charge can be limited by a charging converter, or by ensuring the power source can’t generate more than the safe current. The Cxx numbers in the graph actually related to the rate of charge, which can be found by dividing the battery Ah capacity by the number. 

CIS based panels in Poortugaal (roof of glass front). Some are not being used.

A simple solar charging system 

We build a system for running LED lights in the evening from panels that are part of a building integrated system. The panels deliver 84 to 104 Volt each (CIS). We decided to first turn that voltage into something more usefull, like 24 volt. We could have gone with a 12 volt charging DC/DC converter right away, but wanted to leave an option for a 24 volt busline. An important added advantage is that the varying output of the panel is turned into a steady 24 Volt. 

It wasn’t easy to find a converter in the CIS panel output range. This version creates 24 volt at 100 Watt, so less than the typical CIS panel produces (150-160). The converters are fine as long as the input voltage is not exceeded. Another option was a 12,5 Volt at 200 Watt converter, but that would not allow us to put 14 Volt on a battery for charging.

For direct use during the day one stage of DC/DC conversion suffices. But to use LED at night the 24 volt needs to charge a battery. You could say these stages are inefficient, but we are working with a surplus of solar energy and these DC/DC conveters are very efficient.  

DC/DC converter with voltage and current regulation

These DC/DC conveters can be bought off Ebay. They convert any voltage up to 35 Volt to a range you can set between 1,25 Volt and 33 Volt. It also allows the maximum current to be set. This is not possible with all CD/CD converters offered, they can be quite dangerous in fact, and fuses should always be used (also with batteries as currents from lead acid can also be a fire hazard). 

The resistance of an LED drops as it draws more current 

The step from the battery to the LED lights can thus be precisely regulated. This so the voltage and current on the LED can be set exactly right. LEDs need current control because their resistance drops as the voltage increases. So offering a voltage that is too high means they will draw all the current they can and burn. The way these DC/DC converters do it is by actually limiting the amount of energy converted, which is more efficient than using a resistor to dissipate excess current.  

Human cultures have developed, and history bears witness to many varieties, from brutal muderous tyrannies like that of Dracula to multicultural thriving economies as seen in ancient Persia. Recently a strange new dimension was added to any classification of governmental sytems, that of mechanization of labour. At the start of the twentieth century with only coal most people where in a struggle to add value to their own lives, now at the start of the twentyfirst, we have a large group that doesn’t even know the first thing about what sustains their lives.

The aggregate, the collective approach to humans, is not new. Ancient egypt had many roles for people and detailed administration of what everyone did and why. People where valuable because of their ability to work in a low tech environment. Morality had to exist if only to keep the workforce healthy. Putting people to work had many real benefits. It gave a person a social role and increased welbeing. No one knows exacly how the pyramids where build, but it is easy to imagine it was a way to put many people to work, keep them strong (in case of war) and strengten the mythology of the ruling class. 

All hands could increase wealth 

The same pattern still applies, everyone is supposed to work hard and earn money, in shiny offices, temples to the higher glory of iconic personalities at the head of companies and governments. The system creates an opportunity for spiritual ascention, as well as accumulation of material wealth. All the system needs to do is be visible for people to desire access and start their conversion and inclusion. On the backside of this process people are disowned, disenfranchised, turned in perpetual lenders and renters. The less they have the more they will reinforce the ‘building’ to which penthouse they all climb.

It seems the use of the aggregate, the collective approach, in itself is not a problem, but merely a way to make large groups of humans work together. The introduction of law/religion must have been the first aknowledgement of equal treatment for all as a subsititute of the love in close relationships of small tribes. The notion of contemplating what is good or bad and imagining punishment for doing bad things was a true innovation when it first took hold. In its core it’s the birth of the rule of a fantasy over reality, instead of the rule of actual physical force.

The law inhibits imorality, mechanization drives amorality

The Law is an example of using the aggregate ‘bottom up’. Everyone is to know the law (being taught in church or at school) and abide by it. Anyone that breaks the law is punished. This means every individual participates in his/her roles in the imaginary aggregate. It doesn’t exist in reality. There is no physical reality that demonstrates a law abiding country going about its daily work, except that it works. People voluntarily participate 99,999% of the time, and in a democracy make the laws that govern them.

Some very significant things changed in the last century, primarily the devaluation of humans as productive members of society. They where largely replaced by machines running on fossil fuels. When we use the abstraction ‘agent’ for both humans and machines to signify their role as producive elements, but also as seducers, motivators, influencers, the agents we have in our society can be grouped in two catagories : Humans and moral human inspired agents will carry the fabric of law and morality. Mechanical  or immorally inspirde agents will not. Industrialization and the advent of information technology has introduced part of reality that is both no support for our fantasy of justice and no protector of human lives.

We are at the mercy of fossil fuel driven ‘mechanization’

It is quite clear that part of humanity has been seduced by the power of fossil fuel driven machines. These people fantasize about a fully automated society, where food, shelter and social interaction are all embeded in a mechanized system. We are close to Blade Runner territory in some parts of the world. This mechanized infrastructure both amplifies desireable behaviour by presenting examples, by assisting us in constructing behaviour towards the goals it sets, and provides us with the result. Due to the incentive system (economics) goals alsways translate into use of more natural resources (mainly fossil fuels). Most of both the driving and executing part of this system has no inhibitions born out of awareness of the law, like humans have.

The same incentives that drive the expansion of the mechanized system motivate those that are part of it to prevent or hide the ammorality its existence and operation implies. There is no intention to do harm, just no inhibition not to. Human imagination can conjure up ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’ but the AK47s keeps reloading, the tanks keep roling, satelites observing, video screens showing what we should be. Many are simply swayed by this new ammoral reality and ‘want’ to emulate the examples presented. Because of the fossil fuel driver behind all this activity the goal is no longer a shared wealthy life, but execution of the optimal fossil fuel expansion strategy. 

The aggegate can be used reactively, it is not to be used proactively

The aggregate plays a pivotal role in this process, the database that allows analysis of behaviours, styles, motivated by economic incentives, to create new examples to herd people back into the servitude to the same carbonexpansionist agenda. Unlike the law, being a reactive aggregate force, we are faced with a proactive use of the aggregate, proactive because the machines run on coal, oil and gas, and they need to be payed off. People running them are caught in a choice between ‘work’ (running the machines) or poverty (caused by the machines). Machines can be actuall machines, or systems (like fertilizer/pesticide/GMO) systems. Cities are build with cars in mind, forcing people to buy them and work for fuel. 

Even though cars and machines and systems don’t necessarily kill or break the law, it is perhaps obvious that they should not obey the rules of economics, simply increasing their use and dominance while using up limited resources. Clearly there is a need to regain control over this process, to make the people that can have inhibition, that can inhibit, back in charge. May think that is a matter of becoming economically dominant. But money is only a means of exchange. Spend it and the system churns harder, don’t spend it and it will be spend somewhere else. Spend on fossil fuels the availability of which is guaranteed by wars.

Humans must control the existential need of machines : Energy

The answer to this challenge is not controlling money, but energy. Bringing energy under control by only humans and not economic motivations (‘make the number bigger and you will get a cut’). The control of machines through the control of energy should be a goal of our legal system in our name. All activities should be driven by moral considerations, and inhibited if they affect our notion of justice. 

There are several ways to achieve this control, and making sure it stays with the people. First nationalization of any power plant, and democratic review of what the energy is used for. Second, putting the generation of energy in the hands of citizen, allowing them to use it or trade it locally. Third, nationalizing the banking system to ensure credit is not extended in ways that perpetuate the system. This means without interest, with a different notion of ROI, in ways that kill commecial banking as we know it (which is no loss).

The easiest and most direct way to start this process is to build renewable energy sources and lobby for the right to freely trade it, with or without money involved. This is still difficult for governments as they want to levy taxes to pay debts to banks. The more renewable sources are in public hands, the easier it becomes to achieve changes needed. 

Wind power is seeing more ubiquitous use, it is the fastest growing form of renewables in many places, in spite of right wing resistance. The main reason is that the turbines are cheap to make, require the least amount of fossil fuels, and the companies building them are big, a lot like those building power plants. The centralized nature of Wind farm power is essential to be compatible with our (energycredit) banking system. As long as a sector has billions in turnover it can lobby and push politics to embrace it’s product, even cutting out stand alone turbines to keep to the centralized paradigm. 

We want to add something to the mix, because we think it can substantially reduce emissions and keep people alive and comfortable in the coming winters. Wind energy can be used to generate heat, and winter is a time of year with much wind.  

We read a lot about city gardens, growing your own food etc. In Cuba it was necessary and may still be, just for people to have enough food. But in the Europe and the US we can’t be serious about growing our food in the city, more food needs to come from somewhere to complete the diet, to reach the required amount of nutrients. 

Urban farming in Cuba 

The wierd situation is that we can buy that food. How come it’s wierd? Because we don’t do anything for it. We don’t make farm equipment, we don’t make diesel, almost none of us. Yet we can all buy the produce of the farm. The reason is that farms sell to the market, and have to sell to the market to make money to pay of debts. Because farmers are caught in financial obligations they will sell and will work. But we don’t induce those obligations, the banks do. We don’t buy the grain or rice or wheat, the banks do (traders using credit from the banks). The disconnect becomes even more stark if we look at GMO foods, those are grown against our will, outside our consent, and offered to us without our knowledge (labeling is fought). 

This doesn’t seem like a big deal, its just economics isn’t it. That is right, it is economics, it is a result of the system of divide and make interdependent. Most people can’t grown their food because they don’t own any land. Even if they own land they would face lots of opposition of the banks and agroindustry trying to kill competition. In the US people growing their own food have been branded terrorist! 

It is a big deal though. You will starve if you don’t have money. A farmer in africa won’t starve if he doesn’t have money. Who is better off? The absence of real involvement our food supply means we have to work to get the money to access it. It would be better if everyone had futures in produce from specific farmers. We don’t. That market is owned by banks that will sell futures for non existent food to push prices down, and farmers into their arms..

The natural cycle of economics runs from organic produced food (solar energy captured) to whatever can be created the farmers still want to buy. So you’d have all the jobs needed to run the farm, maybe fertilizer plants (wind driven), logistics to cities and whatever entertainment people liked. Pure solar farming would probably not drive the existence of big cities. But everyone could feel they earned and spend a fair wage.

We don’t think industrial agriculture is all bad, just that it should not be left to be the playground of fossil fuel use maximization. The market should be released from the grip of banks (that pretend they secure the supply, while it has been proven supply follows the weather), and returned to popular control. This could even mean one could work for ones own food on a farm, then go back to the city to enjoy the harvest. Automation and other technology utilizing renewables could make the process much greener, sustainable.

Right now farming is suffering greatly from it’s own emissions. Farming became a lot more carbon intensive, so that instead of food growth taking on twentieth of the available solar energy, it now takes 10 times the delivered calories in fossil fuels! Banks will claim the markets are necessary to keep supply up, but firstly it only means they steal supply from poorer countries by printing money, second, as predicted by the World Bank supply will leave the market, like for example russia did a few years back.

Reconnecting the market to the food producers is a wise move because it makes the current food crisis much more visible, and the source, climate change and fossil fuel emissions, much more contestable. We need to fight both but right now we read about it and then go to the supermarket like these things are seperate. They are not. The suppy to the supermarket can stop any day either because food could not grow in the heat (or flood) or because oil prices went through the roof and logistics isn’t viable anymore.

This is the story of economics, it is a system that increases vulnerability and applauds waste and destruction as an opportunitye to generate more revenue from it’s core business : Selling fossil fuels. We live in a time where the risks of this philosophy are blasting us in the face, but because we don’t ‘feel’ any movement in supply of food, nature, we don’t respond. We remain well fed by a system that knows it will collapse. 

To reconnect we need to nationalize all agricultural markets. Make it easier for people to invest in futures. Ban the existence of any naked shorts or uncovered commodities contracts, ban the derivative market only to the point that futures are for actual future harvests, and eliminate fossil fuels out of the agro business. Fossil fuels can be replaced by wind and solar fertilizer, fuel (ammonia, NH3). To strengthen corp resilience we need to ban GMO patents and domination my Syngenta, Monsanto and promote a wide variety of species, maybe grass based farming as well.

This will put power in the hands of farmers, but not much, because they can grow so much food with so little effort. It will reconnect people to what is most important to them : Access to food, and provide a new base for the value of money : Solar calories.. 

Stichting Anemoon slaat alarm vanwege de doodse staat van de bodem van het Grevelingenmeer. Het is een zoutwatermeer dat vroeger deel was van de Noorzee. Door de aanleg van de Brouwersdam is de circulatie nu zo zwak dat de bodem geen zuurstof meer krijgt. Er ontstaat een warme zuurstofrijke bovenlaag en een zeer zuurstof arme bodemlaag. Daar groeien vervolgens zwavellievende organismen die gifstoffen uitscheiden. 

Het leven in zee verandert sneller dan op land, ondanks minder snelle temperatuurstijging

Wat nu met het Grevelingen meer in het klein gebeurt gebeurt met onze oceanen in het groot. Nu is er nog circulatie van de polen naar de evenaar die zuurstof in de diepe wateren brengt, maar door de opwarming en het smelten van de polen zal deze vertragen en tot stilstand komen. Dan zal er nog maar weinig zuurstof in de diepe oceaan te vinden zijn (iets dat ook al minder wordt doordat gassen slecht oplossen in warm water).

Het gevolg zal zijn dat onze oceanen stratificeren, dus lagen vormen. Er zal een warme bovenlaag zijn met weinig nutrienten, een beetje zuurstof, en een koude onderlaag waar de nutrienten naartoe zijn gezakt, maar die zeer toxisch is vanwege de zwavelhoudende bacterien die bovendien H2S, zwavelhydroxide, produceren dat opstijgt en de atmosfeer vergiftigd tot ook op het land bijna alles dood is.

Bovenstaand scenario lijkt vergezocht, maar het is al een paar keer gebeurt in de geschiedenis van onze planeet. Plotselinge koeling of opwarming leidt meestal tot het sterven van de oceanen. De ‘dode’ periodes kunnen miljoenen jaren duren 

De enige manier om dit proces tegen te gaan is door extraeconomische initatieven op basis van hernieuwbare energie. Men zou bijvoorbeeld koeling kunnen realiseren en zuurstof productie beschermen door zeewier te kweken met gebruikmaking van diepe ocean nutrienten (is onderzocht). Daarnaast zou men koeling kunne forceren door de albedo van het water te vergroten. Er zijn veel mogelijkheden, maar deze worden allemaal gemarginaliseerd door de dominantie van de fossiele/bankaire sector die onze politiek volledig in zijn greep heeft.