Greencheck.nl

"Energy giant Centrica threatened to quit its North Sea operations today over an increase in the corporation tax rate." (bron)

A while back several gas companies threatened to close North Sea gas wells when the British parlaiment suggested it would tax (take) more of the gas produced. In the mean time battle ships sailed to the Falklands to exersize rights over the oil under the island group (and the area around it, because you can drill horizontally).Argentinia didn’t want to hear of it and send the Brits away.

Today : UK Gas prices soar as pipeline is shut down 

The problem with our modern fossil fuel dependent weapons technology is that you can’t use it to conquer carbon reserves if you run short. The country protecting the reserves usually has more and can project more damage than you. So like a starved lion, at a certain point you are to weak to kill anything anymore, and you starve to death. This creates a now or never mentality when it comes to retaining carbon age dominance by both the UK, US and other states. At the same time cooperating states will free up fossil fuels from any adversary that does not have allies it shares its reserves with (like Iraq and Lybia, Iran).

Today : 36 Hours of Gas left in UK 

A case for Wind Heating Systems for sure. Help us build one. But in reality if gas does run out, and supplies get diverted, stopped, sabotaged etc. we will see the first of many fossil fuel shutdown panics to come. People will freeze to death. The trouble for the UK is that if it’s financial hub of London loses it’s power due to the many frauds revealed the island really has little to trade with, and will need to take care of itself. As we said before trying to transition away from fossil fuels while you have none left is the most impossible thing to do. 

The meat industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Not only of CO2 but many others related to the activities necessary to farm animals intensively. From raised rainforests, the long range logistics of GMO soy in South Africa to feed cattle in industrial farms in Europe. Soot, NOx, VOC, methane, ozone the range of damaging compounds is endless. The main reason for this is protection of cashflow in the carboncredit system, the system that tries to utlize as much fossil fuel as possible.

Devestaring and unnecessary GMO soy farming 

The point of meat farming is to get animals to eat a lot, so they grow big and strong with lots of muscle, so that when slaughtered they produce a lot of meat. The idea that this is best achieved by feeding them simple diets, antibiotics and cramming them in a small space during their entire life may be a result of the incremental nature of improving production. Another factor determining the design of industrial meat farms is economic ‘loading’, meaning many parties want to be invloved in the proces, whether they are usefull or not.

Running into the dead end of incremental carbon fuel based ‘optimization’ 

The party for animals in Holland has placed animals in the forefront, redefining the challenge of farming to think from the perspective of animals instead of the end product or economic volume. If slave trade had never happened we would probably all believe animals feel and experience pain just like us. But because slaves had to be non human to be traded the idea animals did not have consciousness was taken as fact.

Joel Salatin shows how you can produce meat on a grass and grain diet. The grass is grown without tillage, plowing, and actually consists of many species of plants that together form a tasty snack for the animals. His farm model does have stables, but only for the wintertime, not as a kind of metal strait jacked in which animals are forced to grow. The carbon emissions are much less, and the soil actually accumulates carbon year on year. 

Grass based farming with organic grain feedstock could have a negative carbon footprint.

Salatins farming method combines species on the same grass, chicken and cows, piggs in the forrest, which has the advantage that pathogens run into dead ends (and have a hard time anyway because they are mostly outside).

Fund our development by sending some cash to paypall info@climatebabes.com and follow @climatebabes on Twitter.com..

Also see :

Wind Heating System Patents and Open Design Project 

Apple Stole Our Idea! Using Wind to generate Heat! 

Open Source Research in Wind to Heat Conversion 

We need funds to build a wind heating system demo. The concept is very simple, it has been picked up in a number of patents in recent years : You convert wind to heat directly using friction of paddles in a water tank. This type of renewable energy device is a gamechanger, because it can generate and store heat with little losses in heat transportation. To make things more obvious than we already have at windheatingsystem.com we build a small paper mockup. To build a big one we need about 5.000 Euro. Contact F. Rincker +31644311561

The parts shown above are the wind turbine, axle, heat storage container and the padle fixed to tha axle. You can’t see the water in the heat storage container, that heats up as it gets stirred by the paddle.

A (lossless) simulation of how a similar device absorbs wind energy turning it into heat over time. In reality the temperature will drop when wind is low.

Vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) are slightly less efficient than horizontal axis turbines, but the cost of building them is less and the size can easily compensate. What is shown above could be build at a scale of 1:10 or 1:100, the idea would be the same. The underground heat storage container will accumulate heat as the paddle churns water until the water boils and evaporates. Anyone that needs heat can either use the water directly or use a heat exchanger to pipe the heat to their homes.

The power accumulated by the device is a function of the efficiency of the VAWT, windspeed, and of the ability of the paddle to churn the water. If the water starts to move with the paddles, the power conversion will be less, the turbine will speed up until it doesn’t absorb any windpower anymore (when it turns with the wind or loses as much as it gains). Ensuring energy absorbtion by the water however is not difficult.

 

Soms blijft een naam in je hoofd hangen omdat je hij nieuw is en geen betekenis heeft..Lupine had dat effect recent bij mij. Deze plant zou een prima grondstof zijn voor vleesvervangers aldus de Vegetarische Slager. Lupine blijk ik al te kennen als Vingerhoedskruid, de plant met giftige bloemen waarmee je zo makkelijke bijen en hommels kan vangen door ze dicht te knijpen als de hommel in de vingerhoed is gekropen. 

Kennelijk zitten er niet gifdige delen aan deze plant met eiwitten enz. De gebruikte variant ziet er anders uit, heeft kleinere bloempjes en veel meer groen. De vegetarische slager schrijft er over:

"Het is een robuuste plant, die gemakkelijk geteeld kan worden zonder gebruik te maken van kunstmest en chemische middelen." 

Een veld mooie lupines 

We kochten een portie Vegetarische Shoarma, dwz lupine verwerkt tot. Ontraditioneel maakten we die klaar met wat pasta en courgette..de vraag is of je nog groente moet eten bij een vegetarische maaltijd. Enfin, het resultaat hieronder..

Deze vegoarma werdt niet heel hardt aangebakken, dus of lupine een knapperig korstje ontwikkeld hebben we niet kunnen ontdekken. De consistentie is gelijkmatig, een beetje zwakker dan kipfilet, je bijt er (te) makkelijk doorheen. Er zijn geen vezels of taai vet e.d. dus de overeenkomst met shoarma is niet merkbaar. De smaak is echter goed. Je zou het wel door shoarma kunnen bijmengen, dat zal de meeste mensen ontgaan. Toch is het maken van vleesvervangers een beetje knullig. Mischien kan beter gewerkt worden aan in kleine kip, koe of varken geperste lupine brokjes, net als voorgebakken aardappels en ingevroren doperwten, want vlees vervangen doet het prima.

Recently a new Amonix CPV (concentrated photovoltaics) plant came online in Colorado. CPV cuts cost over normal PV by using optics and special photovoltaic cells to get more power out of less raw materials. Silicon wafers are becoming cheaper through innovation every year, but they still cost more than a plastic lens that can concentrated the light from a bigger area on a smalled cell. CPV only makes sense if you also track the sun, this in itself can lead to up to 38% more output. 

CPV plant in Alamosa Colorado with $90 mln funding 

CPV has existed for decennia now, especially because the cell price was so high before. Lots of DOE funds have gone up in smoke developing systems that where not deployed. The list is quite long, and the investor capture stories easy to find, we reported on some here. The truth of CPV is that it is a lot cheaper than full silicon pv. That usually means it is kept off the market until it becomes as expensive as all the other products, so that entering the market ultimately fails.

Mirror based CPV Source

To break the market protective forces (usually the banks) subsidies are necessary. The free market is not free at all, it is divided, and the powerbase to control it is fossil feul credit. In that sense renewables are a real disruptive force, because if you have a 5 MW CPV plant, you can freely manufacture a lot without needing any credit to buy fossil fuels. 

Sp

Parabolic mirror based CPV by Cyrium, with $15 mln funding

There is several ways to do CPV. It boils down to how do you concentrate the light. Direct sunlight can be focussed by lenses and mirrors, in the case of a mirrors there are three options, in the case of lenses there are two. Mirrors can be parabolic, which causes them to concentrate all the light in one focal point or area, where the PV cell is placed. Very high concentrations can be reached, up to 10.000 sun, so the limiting factor is the thermal integrity of the cell.  

Fresnel mirror CPV system 

Fresnel mirror systems for CPV are rare, they are usually used for concentrated solar thermal applications, but also in combined systems using a parabolic trough mirror. The mirrors produce a line focus on which one can place PV cells. The nice thing is that one can keep te cells cool by running water behind them, which both produces steam or hot water and inproves the performance of the cells. 

PV cells in a linear focus CPV installation

A light guide CPV works by using lenses or mirrors to change the direction of light. Like with glass fibre, under certain circumstances light can be moved around even around corners with little loss. The most common way to do it is by funnel shaped mirrors. 

An experimental CPV device with a ball lens, but beneath it you can see light funnels 

When a lens is used the direction of light is changed by making it pass through material that slows it down. Because of the speed difference of light in air and glass for instance, the light changes direction at the edge of the glass. Lenses can be solid or fresnel. Solid lenses have a limited size because of the weight of the material. That is why fresnel lenses where invented, the earliest in light houses. The idea behind a fresnel lens is that as the light does not change direction as it passes through the bulk of the lens, you might as well leave that part out. So fresnel lenses are hollowed out and flattened spherical lensen.

Lighthouse Fresnel 

Fresnels can also be made from plastic, PET (same stuff as waterbottles) and be durable in the UV (that usually causes yellowing of plastic). Amonix uses them, and below you see another design. PET fresnel lenses are expensive as a consequence of their PV use, you pay 80,- Euro for a lens of about 33 x 33 cm. One could imagine someone collecting waterbottles to turn them into CPV fresnel lenses.

Fresnel lens CPV 

Another Fresnel lens CPV product 

Yet another type of CPV installation 

The cells used in CPV applications are usually multijunction cells. They consiste of stacked cells with different spectral sensitivity so more of the light spectrum can be converted to electricity. The cells also need to be able to widtstand high temperatures, a 1 x 1 meter fresnel lens will melt stone easily. The optimium is sought where the higher concentration of light leads to more output, while the increased resistance and lower efficiency due to higher temperatures. The cell size also determines the cost, so has to be minimal. 

Amonix multi junction cell wafer

Soitec Concentrix CPV

Solfocus CPV

Multi junction cells Solar Junction

The reality of our economic environment has amalgamated itself in what we call the Carboncredit system. Looking through its prism all economic decisions become clear, although their insanity and single mindedness remains shocking. Below a translation of an earlier summary of the concept.

Like this? Donate! 

The Carbon Credit System

The Carboncredit system is the system that distributes carbon/fossil based fuels by extending credit, it is our present financial system. Money is created if a person has a plan to produce goods or services. He/she writes a business plan and gets credit which he uses to make the product of perform the service. He is supposed to make profit part of which he returns to the bank.

Nothing is produced with money, money only allows the trade of goods and services, so in the case of a manufacturing process all the moving and shaping and other manipulations require energy with the main energy source being fossil fuels. If the credit extended to run a business would not buy any fossil fuels it would be practically worthless. We run into a hard necessary link between the price of fossil fuels, and the credit extended in society in order for it’s activities to be able to happen. This controlled relationship we call the carboncredit system.

The only money that counts is that which can be directly spend on fossil fuels 

The carboncredit system came about after Nixon left the gold standard in 1971. He had to do that because gold and silver where all ending up with the oil rich nations, because they could deliver something everyone started to use, fossil fuels. Banks saw that using a hard limited money resource did not match the then near limitless supply of productive power and shook the gold system until Nixon gave way. Fossil fuels where causing a self powering expansion in demand by increasing productivity through the use of engines resulting in a growth in the population. With the gold standard abandoned this expansion could run free, only depending on carefull dollar creation. This made all the bank intermediaries rich and matched the unavoidable trend. Economics was invented to hide the fundamental dependency, a theory with a core aim to ‘Maximize the utilization of fossil fuels’. The mantra became : "Spend spend spend", supported by the banks and oil companies. Of course one had to manage the people believing money had value, so it took deregulation and serious confusion and domination/seduction of the population to make them go along with economics.

To demonstrate the need for coordination between carbon and credit one can take the situation in wich the supply of carbon fuels is bigger than the supply of credit. In that case manufacturing will become cheaper, logistics also, and more products will be produced. To trade those products and facilitate all kinds of extra activities more money will be needed, but because this money is not created society will see deflation and the activities will stall and fail. Gas can be 2 ct while you don’t have any cash, and you’ll not be able to use it. Deflation means price changes and this influences all the loans and interest payments, so banks and their board the fed try to avoid that.

Alternatively if the fed creates a lot of credit and this credit actually ends up in circulation, this means fuel consumption will go up and people will want to buy stuff. Because the fuel is not there to buy and the stuff is not being made prices will rise, inflation will happen. It is very important to make a distinction between money in banks and money in circulation to be spend. Only the latter counts. You can add a trillion to a bank account, it won’t impact reality. Once you use a few billion of that to buy up all gasoline in a 100 mile radius the money has effect.

So to maximize the margins for the banks they like ‘price stability’ because that means the carbon supply is tuned to the money people can spend and all is nice and quiet. There isn’t any more money to be made (in terms of real value) unless some fuel supply comes on stream, fi by the Pentagon sitting on Lybian oil. Then the economists will say ‘We expect more growth’, money is created and the oil is bought and consumed at stabile prices. If fuel gets cut off, debt is used to absorb credit. This is how the financial system is managed.

The only real reflection of debt is CO2 in our atmosphere 

If there is no increase in fuel supply upcoming the banks need to cut credit. This is what has been happening since 2008. Cutting credit is greatly aided by the concept of debt, a fiction and byproduct of the old gold/silver based credit system. Carboncredit only knows debt because it allows to control the moneysupply. Because carbon causes expansion in productivity and population the banks have always been able to create more credit, have some people fail and have others ‘pay them back’, but if you don’t care about the money system, the debt would be meaningless. As we say the only real reflection of debt is CO2 in our atmosphere. 

There is another moving part wich is whether banks want you to be able to spend at all. If you’re not a good consumer, there is one better than you they rather use. 

So at the moment banks cut real credit to conserve energy. They may shove billions around in accounts, but the only thing that matters is what is actually spend on fuel. The great trick they employ is to cut credit in places we don’t care about, so the poor and the elderly. Thus the balance between fossil supply and demand (by people that can spend money) is maintained, while the rest of us don’t see any real price movement. You can give fuel any price you like if nobody has money to buy it!

The reason why this dangerous occulsion game is being played is simply to make the banks last. The moment we recognize we have a fossil fuel crisis they will be overruled and the carboncredit system will be managed openly. No more fun trips for nothing, the priority will be energy. If that happens the priority will be renewable energy. This type of energy is basically unlimited, but does not allow/require the same carboncredit management, meaning banks will be out of a job. Now you know why we are stuck in a crisis.

Wars are fought to keep the CC balance intact. This means real war but also cutting off groups and countries 

The game played is extremely dangerous, and all you need to do to see that is understand the carboncredit relationship. Banks are active in both cutting credit and forcing the oil supply to be sufficient to remain ‘free’. It would be infinitely better if their role be cut, and military style operation to build as much renewable energy sources as quickly and efficiently as possible went underway. For now a large part of the richer corporations rather enjoy their lifestyle than change things.

If Wealth is the result of combining Skills, Raw materials and Energy, we are loosing out on an enormous wealth potential for the benefit of those protecting fossil fuel interests.

Carboncredit limits economic growth, but because that growth is expressed in carboncredit terms we don’t see the limits. We always wonder whether someone will invest, but with a renewable (Roboeconomic) perspective you can ask "What does the place afford?". For instance, if a patch of a few 100 km Sahara desert can generate enough energy to power the world, how much usefull manufacturing could take place on the same footprint?

Economics doesn’t allow you to think straight about solving the crisis. ‘Investment’ means ‘Allocating fossil fuels’ 

The road to growth is not by liberating more money to fuel the same engines and processes, this is why banks try to prevent it, try to make everyone accept the detoriation that makes everyone more manageable by the same economic lies. The more chaos the easier it will be for the remaining fossil fuel based powers to assert themselves. Fighting agains austerity only helps it, because austerity or not, shortages are increasing.

We need investment rules that prevent futher waste of fossil fuels 

The solution lies in redirecting heavy investments towards renewables, whose energy can power manufacturing and creation of wealth. This allocation of resources is now still heavily controlled by the carbon credit system, so that it’s succes is seriously obstructed in each and every way possible. The breaktrough innovations lie in making renewable sources with renewables, which is equivalent to creating an oil source that spawns oil sources. The question is not whether, but when that will become reality.

Also see Euro, Auro, Joule and Roboeconomics

Dutch version

Duurzaamheidnieuws meldt dat volgens een analyse door Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) de gezondheids zorg kosten ivm kolencentrales 42,8 miljard Euro per jaar bedraagt in Europa. $42,800.000.000 Euro per jaar. Hoeveel banen zou het kosten om van de kolencentrales af te gaan? Is dat de reden dat longartsen nu pas met een protest tegen roken komen, en niet toen iedereen het nog deed? 

Wie veel warmte nodig heeft voor de bedrijfsvoering zou eens moeten kijken naar Ultra High Vacuum panelen van RSB Energy (bron)

TNO wist ons recent te waarschuwen voor een ‘te snelle’ transitie, pleitend voor een solide fossiel-gebalanceerde overgang. Maar het onderzoeks instituut blijkt tegelijkertijd een grote geldstroom te hebben aangeboord door voor Shell onderzoek te gaan doen naar Aardgas in het kader van diens ‘Gastransitie’ strategie.

"Verhaal TNO onjuist en misleidend" (Martijn Blom en Frans Rooijers)

In het stuk waar de quite hierboven uit komt verwerpt Martijn Blom en Frans Rooijers de schattingen van TNO tav de fossiel afhankelijkheid van belasting baten. Hij stelt dat belastingen voor het grootste deel niet kijken naar de oorspong van energie. Dat alleen de gasbaten overblijven. Helaas herhaalt hij daarna het mantra "We gaan alle gas verkopen" en "We hebben gas nog lang nodig" wat pertinente onzin is als je het niet wil.

De economische waarde van gas, de waarde als grondstof en productiemiddel, moet als we van gas afwillen vervangen worden. Dat kan met behulp van het resterende gas. Dat kan niet als het gas inderdaad uiteindelijk op is. Wederom zien we dat waneer we ‘economische’ belangen slikken als onaantastbaar we het eigenlijk hebben over fossiele belangen.    

The military has pundits in the media, often openly ‘former pentagon official’. They promote the military industrial complex, a conglomerate of companies that keeps itself alive by making itself necessary apart from being the major instrument to securing fossil fuels and nuclear. 

A number of initiatives and reports have come out of the Pentagon and other defence organizations around the world concerning climate change and energy. The above video shows the positive attitude and targets concerning renewables which is also slightly confuseing. The US navy is experimenting with algae fuels for it’s fleet and airforce. The issue of energy seems to be separated from climate change, informing different analysis.

While the korean penisula is turning into a nuclear powerkeg, the video above is about the effect of ice melting from the Arctic. The transportation route that opens up becomes a sensitive connection to the US. This is somewhat far fetched concern because it’s questionable whether global trade will be as extensive as it is today. For many this new sea route is a financial Walhallah.

 

Sealevel rise may be 6 feet in this century because of thermal expansion, something that is not mentioned in the IPCC report. For the Navy and all kinds of other coastal infrastructure this matters a lot. Admiral David Titley mentiones refineries in jeopardy, but this should be the least of our concerns. We should have sufficient renewables by then.

Ocean acidification is mentioned to be a concern with respect of people living of the sea. That of course is not the main problem. The big one is the anoxic ocean turning toxic. So the analysis above is purely towards commercial interests, not security it seems.

There is one big reason why armies would protect the carbon based economy. It is because big navies and armies and airforces exist only because of the energey dense fossil fuels. The modern war manchine is 100% dependent on it’s energy sources. Historically it’s easy to trace back the strength of f.i. the brittish navy to it’s conquering Iranian and other middle east fossil fuel sources. So a fair question is : Will we have big armies in a post petro world. Because there’s still a lot of gas and coal the likely answer is: yes. Will we need them though? The answer is no. 

Questions about pentagon use of fossil fuel before she was shot in the head  

The questions asked above about Pentagon fuel use are really about the US army not doing a good job being an ‘independent fighting force’ at all. She doesn’t get that because the army defends and secures US oil, the cost for that fuel is arbitrary. Money has value becuase of the actions of the Pentagon to secure fuel, not because society decides it has. This is again the carboncredit view of money, banking. The backbone of all currencies is some force that secures the fuel we want to be able to buy with it. When that fails, like in brittain at the moment (the run out of gas and can’t take Falkland oil) you see the currency (Pound) collapse.  

General Dempsey on Energy Security

Energy security is the core business of the defense if you will. It also determined whether you can pack a punch. In that respect war has become much more expensive. During WOII supporting one soldier on the battlefield required 2 gallons of fuel, now it is 22 gallons. Energy determines how long soldier can stay out on patrol. "If you want to find a patrol just follow the trail of batteries". 

A british perspective

In the video above Rear Admiral Lionel Jarvis mentiones the effects of severe coastal weather can create urban stressed areas and cause new disease patterns. According to him the frequency of natural diseasters is increasing.

Quite a different portrayal of CG as a global holocaust. Audio is distorted.

The rapport discussed predicts mass population shift. A drought triggered water war can have effects on carbon fuel security. It is very easy to make an alarming analysis. Those are also easier to shoot down by Fox news, (partially owned by an oil Prince). The video below does a better job, being more specific about the implications of the green energy transition. 

More common sense analysis

"Is er a potential for the same competition and dysfunction regarding the necessary inputs for renewables as we see for the fossil fuel supply". Another relevant real strategic concern mentioned above is geoengineering in the form of ‘stealing rain’ by seeding clouds that where supposed to empty in neighboring country. With the Naga foundation in mind (where experience is being build regarding both evaporation and rain) this may open up a whole science of rain seeding and breeding. 

Pushing for climate action in poor countries. Why notat home?

PSA

Grote energie bedrijven voelen steeds effecten van de mensen die zelf stroom en warmte opwekken. Het systeem waarbij electriciteit centraal wordt gegenereerd kalft af, en daarmee de macht van de energie bedrijven. Het is als een broodbakmachine revolutie die de grote bakkerijen overbodig maakt.

Het probleem:Opwekking volgt vraag niet.
(bron) 

Men mag zich verbazen over de afwezigheid van de grote centraal opwekkende bedrijven als het gaat om geinstalleerde zonnepanelen, maar daar komt men van terug als het daagt dat decentrale opwekking echt de vijand is van centraal. Het is een waarheid die alleen te verhullen is zolang de groei in de sector bescheiden is. Nu Denmarken gisteren nog 93% van de gebruikte stroom met windmolens opwekte komt het moment dichterbij dat hernieuwbaar de genadeslag gaat uitdelen, althans waar de sector lobby-voet aan de grond heeft gekregen. In het plaatje hierboven is eenvoudig te zien dat beide pieken in vraag, die tijdens de lunch en rond het avond eten, makkelijk onder de PV productie curve passen. 

Avondverbruik is beter gedekt door wind dan door zonnepanelen. Opslag van stroom maakt CO2 uitstoot in de avond overbodig.

De barriere is energie opslag. Wanneer mensen energie kunnen opslaan, met name electriciteit, dan wordt het net minder belangrijk. Zelf hebben we bijvoorbeeld een LED verlichting met bijbehorende accu en zonnepaneel al een week draaiend. Er is geen stopcontact meer nodig. Op grotere schaal betekent dat dat vooral consumenten (die relatief weining stroom nodig hebben) door het installeren van accus van het net kunnen afhaken. Dat betekent dat hele wijken en steden op den duur van het grid afgaan.

Wie die trend doorrekent snapt dat er geen geld meer komt voor een enorm Europees stroom netwerk. Accu’s zijn ten slotte ook te vervoeren! Ook het smartgrid wordt minder urgent, want accu’s in het net worden meestal gebruikt voor ‘load balancing’ en ‘peak shaving’, dwz zorgen dat de output van centrales niet teveel hoeft te varieren. Met genoeg lokale opslag wordt het netwerk een hachelijke investering.

Duitsers zouden kunnen 830,- Euro/kWh ontvangen voor energie opslag voor installaties onder de 30 kWp. Budget is ~51 mln (bron) 

Duitsland begrijpt dit, het probeert energie opslag te subsidieren, ook al lijkt dat nog niet helemaal te lukken. Het heeft indertijd zogenaamde feed-in regels gemaakt (olv Herman Scheer) zodat levering aan het net vrij werd voor iedereen. Daardoor is voor het zelfde geld vijf keer zoveel zonnepv geinstalleerd in Duitsland dan in nederland onder SDE en SDE+. 

Accu’s

Batterij technologie is meer dan honderd jaar oud. De lood zuur batterij was niet de meest geavanceerde indertijd, maar op een of andere manier lukte het deze prevalent te maken. Tot voor kort werden deze nauwelijks gerecycled, terwijl dat perfect kan, als een accu kapot gaat zitten alle nodige bestanddelen er nog steeds in. Een prijsvraag of wettelijke verplichting voor een 100% recycle bare lood accu zou geen gek idee zijn.

Meer over electriciteits opslag 

Natuurlijk zijn er andere batterij typen, zeker als ze niet bedoelt zijn voor in een auto. Dan kunnen ze minder zwaar zijn en groter. Niemand kan het wat schelen als er een accu ter grote van een wasmachine in de kelder staat, of het nu voor eigen zonnestroom is of voor die van de buren. Edison batteries zijn ideaal. Ze gaan extreem lang mee en er komen geen giftige dampen vanaf. Nickel-zink accu’s lijken ook interessant.