GO TO biofry.wordpress, the new site!

Exposing 5 Energy Related Myths

Myth #1, It is OK to allow governments and environmentalists to restrict clean energy development.

Excess CO2 causes changing climate and ocean acidification. Fossil fuels are being burned at ever faster rates because developing countries are rapidly developing their infrastructure. Fossil fuels cause pollution and adverse health effects and tar sands are converting forests into wastelands. Fossil fuels will not last very long. Therefore, in order to DEAL with these problems, we need a VAST supply of clean energy! We can NOT allow any organization to impose laws that restrict the ability for any clean energy development. Future prosperity depends on cheap clean energy.

Myth #2, Solar and wind can do it all at this time.

Solar and wind can NOT power “everything”, however, they can power a lot. Solar and wind could supply up to 20% of global power needs, right now, if machine mass produced for cheap. After that, very affordable and efficient energy storage will be needed. Machine automation is a must for inexpensive electric car batteries, as well. Nevertheless, we MUST promote machine made solar and wind because they have AWESOME potential and are almost cheap enough (already) to not need subsidies. Thousands of square miles of solar and millions of wind turbines are little detriment compared to fossil fueled depletion into an over heated biosphere. We will, however, need a more powerful baseload source of clean energy to provide for the needs of a growing planetary civilization.

Myth #3, Conservation and efficiency will solve all the problems.

Efficiency and conservation (demand side) can reduce up to 50% of global power needs, however, the developing world will still need about FIVE TIMES what the West consumes now. Thus efficiency and conservation, although necessary, can NOT prevent depletion in a fossil fueled world. We MUST promote efficiency and conservation but NOT at the expense of clean energy development!

Myth #4, Nuclear can not safely power the world.

Nuclear energy, despite being generated in the old fashioned, inefficient and inherently dangerous water reactors, have the best safety record by far over each of: coal, oil, natural gas and hydroelectric. Even though, there are better ways to split the atom. The Molten Salt Reactor (and other closed cycles) have already been proven to the demonstration level decades ago. Closed cycle molten salt reactors are inherently melt down proof. Now, MSR’s (or better alternative) MUST be re-developed and produced by the thousands in a factory setting. Wastes from the closed cycle constitute just 1% of that from today’s water reactors and decay back down to natural levels in about 300 years, and thus must be isolated for only about 1/1,000ths of the time required by today’s “spent fuel”. Fast reactors and MSR’s fission their fuel on the order of 100 times more efficiently than today’s water reactors! Also, liquid fuels can be synthesized from water and air by the high process heat of the MSR.

A world devoid of abundant clean energy is a world at war.

Humanity in depletion mode will be FAR more detrimental to the environment than lots of wind, solar, batteries and nuclear. Thus any organization or government that seeks to limit clean energy development is against humanity AND the environment!

Promote machine mass produced wind, solar and electric vehicles.

Promote factory produced closed cycle molten salt reactors.

Don’t just kill a watt – Megawatt !

Awareness is essential – please copy and distribute.

The Myth of Limitation

THE MYTH OF LIMITATION

We have a global problem.
There is no global fossil fuels replacement strategy.

We have excess regulations and complacency which will lead to a future of of mass depletions, if we do not create for ourselves an excess of clean energy.

Trivial amounts of clean energy will not solve the twin problems of depletion and excess CO2.

There are just three actual fossil fuels replacement options. There is also a fourth, non energy “half measure”, and even a fifth, which is a “use fossil fuels now but clean it up later” option.

1; Renewables.
Such as wind, solar and advanced geothermal. Other renewables such as biofuels, tidal and wave energy are not physically capable of supplying the immense power necessary at the global scale to provide for ten billion people. However, there is nothing wrong with any amount of clean renewable (no matter how trivial) as long as it is not too costly to the population as a whole and as long as it is not used as a tool to defeat other options.

2; Nuclear fission.
The power of fission can provide for multiple present day total global power supplies. It has to be scaled up in an inherently safe and affordable manner to do so. Contrary to popular myth, nuclear energy is the least environmentally damaging way to power a planetary civilization – at this time. There is less war in an energy abundant (non resource depleting) world, as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E2GTg7W7Rc#!
Weapons programs are not based on civilian energy, thus we can’t dismiss nuclear energy on the basis of proliferation. Various different reactor designs allow for wastes recycling, fuels denaturing and melt down proof operation.

3; Nuclear fusion.
To overcome the diffuse and intermittent nature of the renewables, and to displace the fear and waste issues concerning fission, the continued research towards fusion at the global level is a must. Fusion power can only be 30 years away for so long.
In the meantime, we must develop the renewables and nuclear with the priority being:
SCALE UP THE LEAST EXPENSIVE, MOST ABUNDANT SOURCES, IMMEDIATELY.
We will NEED abundant energy resources in order to continue the economic growth necessary to attain baseload fusion technology!!!

4; Continued efficiency and conservation.
Efficiency is already mainstream, but clean abundant energy is not. We are not even close!
Although necessary in a finite fuels scenario to conserve, and for the improvement of technological progress (such as led lighting, cheaper insulation and electric cars), efficiency simply can NOT power a planetary civilization.
Passive solar energy siting should be required in this age of finite resources. However, we can not sit idle lest we conserve till the last drop.

5; CO2 sequestration via machine automation.
This option only addresses the excess CO2 part of the equation and is therefore not applicable to addressing the equally severe consequences of depletion (including adverse health risks due to pollution). Also, there is no guarantee that the excess CO2 will really be sequestered. Or the inappropriate but cheaper CCS tactic might be used. So called carbon capture and storage into depleted wells is not an acceptable option because there is no way to guarantee that the many billions of tons of compressed CO2 would not leak back into the environment.
Humanity may have to use machine automation for the autonomous mining of the material (such as olivine) necessary to sequester the excess CO2 into carbonates. The size of this tech fix will be on the order of the scale of coal mining is today for many years and will be possible when autonomous machinery is common. Costs will, nevertheless still be daunting and probably require a burdensome tax on CO2 to pay for the manufacture, maintenance and power required to initiate the machinery.

We should concentrate on developing ALL of these options so that the least amount of fossil fuels will be depleted.

Fossil fuels are being consumed in an ever acceleration level:
1; Developing countries will catch up and then surpass us in their ability to “consume”.
2; A major fraction of the energy produced may also be used for CO2 sequester.

As the finite resource is exponentially depleted, it will become ever more expensive to address its mounting external costs (much less provide a continued decent standard of living for the world). A depleting source can NOT power any long lived civilization.

Excess CO2 can cause ocean acidification and global warming, but we can not DEAL with the problems if we do not have the energy resources to do so. If the proven excess of CO2 does not cause unacceptable alterations to the biosphere, we will still need to address two major inescapable consequences.
1; Environmental pollution, health issues and fatalities.
2; Depletion and economic collapse.

~WE MUST DEPLOY SCIENCE, NOT JUST CO2 TAX “SOLUTIONS”~

We can not afford to settle for political solutions (unless they are proven by a majority that they will cause the development of abundant clean energy at the global scale which provides a net economic gain into the private sector greater than the loss incurred by taxation or other action).
The National Labs, NASA and the freeway system have all created economic gain, proof that there is possibility in government involvement.

But these great institutions and accomplishments are far more than just a tax!

We need to make sure that if or when there is a CO2 tax, it goes directly into a great accomplishment. What we need to do is promote clean and abundant energy, regardless.

We need to remove any constraints so actual development and deployment at the global scale is realized. These constraints are:
Greed,
Unscientific reporting by the media,
Political motives,
Lack of basic energy awareness by the public at large.
Actual costs!

Greed is obviously a motivator in preventing abundant and clean energy from becoming mainstream. Every energy company will come up with reasons “why they are the best” but we need to promote the LEAST COSTLY, MOST ABUNDANT CO2 FREE SOURCES.

Newsbites from the media do not offer necessary coverage because the complexity of the energy/climate issue demands more attention. Inadequate info constrains the ability for collective action towards a common, and desirable goal. However, the media does help in spreading awareness of the initial problem.
Biased and polarized, promoting total anti-anthropological global warming on the one side and total anti-nuclear, CO2 tax based solutions and “wind and solar can do it all” on the other (we even have greenie aliens moaning and groaning about… too much wind and solar) !!! Do we ever hear about any coherent solutions???

Political motives may want to suppress the inalienable rights of each individual and of the collective to clean and abundant energy so as to guarantee current positions within an established hierarchy. They can also use the truth of excess CO2 as an excuse to tax… with uncertain results concerning its replacements.

Lack of basic understanding of global power requirements necessary to power a planetary civilization by the public at large is, indeed, the greatest obstacle because most of us have neglected the right to become informed, network and then initiate action to fully promote abundant and clean energy at the global level. We must be careful not to let the whims of any one side to manipulate us into cherry picking to our liking. We must want to “do the math”. Only in this way will we realize the potential and limitations of each of the 5 options (and of the many sub options within each one).

Costs are the final trump on any energy related argument. Development of automated factories or processes is required to scale up abundant solar energy. Development of a factory setting for a reactor design based on inherent safety and proliferation resistance is required to scale up nuclear. And development of the same such for solar will be required to scale up battery manufacture for cheap, for the electric car, and possibly, even efficient utility scale storage. And the development of such for nuclear will also be required to scale up wind power.

Subsidy is required for initial start up and research phases. Small scale is easily afforded by the population and has paid off in the end for many technologies, such as for coal. However, we can’t afford subsidies for large scale energy development. Hence the necessity for machine and or factory automation which pave the way for much lower costs.

Cost constraints are imposed by the lack of a well aware and organized population willing to promote a well defined and focused global clean energy objective.
Cost constraints include unwillingness by investors to risk on new endeavors, as well.

We must expose these constrains to create awareness in order to ensure future prosperity.

Activists from around the world need to spread awareness about what it really takes to have clean energy on a global scale.

The product is machine mass produced renewables, factory produced (inherently safe nuclear) and machine mass produced electric vehicle batteries. All processes should be performed in house if we are to achieve clean energy that is economical as well as ecological. The Chinese call it “vertically integrated”. This means that the company must own the mining equipment for all the various different raw materials, own the processing and refining (and be under constant monitor in a nuclear division), own the metals and framework sections, pre-assembly sections, final assembly sections, sells department, and finally, installation and maintenance.

Renewables are cheaper than nuclear… until actual and real fossil fuels displacement of any significant SCALE is considered. Up to 20% or so “max grid” integration by the renewables should be no problem… use wind and solar for these “fill in” purposes (as they generally become cheaper as time progresses).
However, it will take almost a MILLION SQUARE MILES (of 15% efficient) solar with storage, to displace most all fossil fuels and nuclear, for powering a planetary civilization of 10,000,000,000 people at Western standards.

This is fully FIVE TIMES current net global power consumption (and 2% of the land). It is easily conceivable that such drastic solar coverage is much preferable than the accelerating combustion of fossil fuels… however, politically correct environmentalists don’t think so and won’t “allow for that”. There are many accounts of so called enviros blocking large scale solar and wind (and there may actually be just environmental cause in a few such large scale projects). Yet, with their unending and dizzying array of regulations, they also opt to prevent large scale nuclear, as well… and there are no other options at this time with the potential capable of even coming close to that of the big three:
Wind
Solar
Nuclear

We must NOT denounce any of the clean energy options! To do so is to promote LIMITATION for humanity, not only by outright restraint of additional clean energy sources, but by psychological processes that seek to repress the “other side”. We may agree that excess CO2 and depletion are serious global problems, but they will NEVER be solved if we all disagree on the means of remedy.

Using the truth of excess CO2 as an excuse to further the MYTH of limitation is evident in those agendas that would have us to believe that we need to reduce global energy generation. Sure, it is OK for the United States to conserve more (despite that country being a leader in efficiency developments), but it is not OK to expect all the developing countries to not develop!

Reverting to biofuels is like going back into the dark ages. Solar and wind <i>as they exist now</i> isn’t much better.
When enviro groups try to “inform” you that we must use less energy, ask yourself:
Do they sincerely want to reduce excess CO2?
Do they sincerely think that we have to live with less?
Do they live with less?
Do they not know about the already proven concept of melt down proof nuclear capable of powering the world many times over for many times less environmental degradation?

They may be using excess CO2 as an excuse to further their agenda:
Tax schemes
Product promotion (which is OK unless their product is “mandated” and expensive).
Top down political control via industrial, safety and trade regulations, to avert losses incurred by a free society with abundant energy and the ability to machine automate all goods for a fraction of the cost (put sarcastic smear on green alien face here).

These tactics can only benefit a small but selfish minority for a limited amount of time at a great expense for the rest of us!

The reader can be excused for not being aware of the complexities of the energy/excess CO2 issue, but any environmentalist that seeks to reduce energy input is a real threat to humanity. Ignorance of the issue is NOT an excuse for those that make it their job to mold public opinion in the direction of less energy resources, or to make laws which erroneously restrict the necessary increase of energy sources.

A popular myth perpetrated by “The Future is In Less” advocates is that technology will more than make up for the lack of power, and that more power means more environmental degradation.

Consider:
Developing nations need MORE power, no matter the level of their current efficiency.
The ability for technology to prevent degradation sometimes requires more power (such as trading in an efficient ozone hole causing CFC refrigerant for an environmentally safe but less efficient refrigerant).
Efficiency can reduce overall power requirements but can not side step the requirement to replace fossil fuels. An example is jevon’s paradox. As it becomes more efficient to extract a resource, it will become cheaper and thus will lead to even faster extraction rates. People might want to reduce mileage to save gasoline but they will drive more if gasoline prices go down or if the car gets a higher MPG. Instead of saving fuel, people may opt for the added convenience (such as trading in the smaller car for a larger one with the same MPG). Psychologically, people will not conserve any more than they have to, thus people will simply enjoy more benefit for the same price, and consumption will not decrease. Wouldn’t it be better to secure a source that can prevent environmental degradation?

The stated purpose of this paper is to:
Promote the required increase of available energy resources necessary to power a growing planetary civilization at a Western standard of living by promoting the development of the least expensive, most abundant source of CO2 free energy as soon as possible and to denounce the myth of limitation.

Any “actions”, “things” or “collectives” which seek to decrease available clean energy resources are a detriment to (and possible serious threat to the survival of) the human race, and even the biosphere itself.
The truth of excess CO2 must NOT become an excuse for any such to impose excessive taxes, raise energy costs, impose ill will or promote regimes tolerant of the disbanding of the inherent and inalienable rights of the individual.

None of these “behavior modification” tactics are needed in the resource rich 21st century (although necessary in a finite fuels “only” scenario)!

The biosphere can not withstand humanity in “depletion mode”. As chaos sets in, fossil fuels inefficiency, and subsequent biofuels depletions (aka complete de-forestation) would rapidly take place. Resource wars would soon follow.

It would take a global authoritarian order to absolve the chaos otherwise present during the depletion stage. This would come as a great expense to the standard of living to the BILLIONS of people (aka loss of rights).

Nuclear energy can actually provide the 5 times current global power requirements necessary to raise the standard of living up to Western standard for 10 billion people, if only it was allowed. We could have had a planetary civilization comparable to Star Trek by now (instead, we got stuck with the greenie aliens). When Alvin Weinberg invented the light water reactor, he was on to something… but when he figured out the molten salt reactor (MSR or LFTR), that was REALLY to good to be…

Allowed.

Please consider…
7,800,000,000 tons of coal,
2,700,000,000 tons of oil,
10,500,000,000,000 cubic feet of NG
and 67,000 tons of uranium
are consumed by humanity EVERY year… And these numbers are only going to grow.

Now, realize…
Less than
10,000 tons of thorium

would displace ALL THAT (yes, ALL of that) by direct coal replacement (for electricity), and by providing the extra electricity required to power billions of electric cars if fissioned in thousands of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
This small amount of nuclear fuels would provide convenient LIQUID FUELS by use of its high process heat (by the conversion of water and air, into ammonia or methanol).
Automated mass production of EV batteries AND clean liquid fuels must be scaled up to global proportions in order to engage in the UNHINDERED economic growth required to stave off economic, natural and space borne disasters (not to mention human caused depletion and global warming/ocean acidification).

Continued use of fossil fuels will become burdensome to such necessary growth when CO2 emissions are taxed.

The nuclear closed cycle in a molten fuels reactor design is the quickest technological way to insuring continuous industrial processes necessary to power a growing planetary civilization once development of factory produced reactors is firmly established. It is also the least risky, as that design is melt down proof with very minimal wastes! Of course, there are some engineering dificulties, but nothing that prevented a fully operational test facility called the MSRE (at ORNLin the 60’s) from running for years. In fact, they shut it down every weekend! To say that a technology that enables nuclear to be turned on and off, regularly is not worthy of whatever disadvantages it may have is like saying airplanes are not worth the effort because of turbulence (greenie aliens fly all the time despite their excess CO2 wingprint).

A popular myth perpetrated by renewable and fossil fuel advocates state that the thorium fueled molten salt reactor “will take many decades” to develop. That is akin to stating that the Apollo mission “will also take many decades”. Note that the molten salt reactor was proven on a developmental level for many years up to that time. If we REALLY wanted the abundant clean energy from thorium, it should take LESS than a decade to re-develop (sadly, we don’t have transporters to beam the greenie aliens away).

The nasty fission products (not spent fuel) is actually less than 1/1,000,000th of the wastes involved with present fossil fuel sources. It is impossible at this time to sequester most all of the CO2 into geologically safe timescales. Acceptable mineral sequestration techniques could become automated and thus very much cheaper but still, no one will want to pay for the clean up process, any time soon.

So called carbon capture and storage (CCS) into depleted wells is not an acceptable option because there is no way to guarantee that the 100,000,000,000 tons or so tons of compressed CO2 would not leak back into the environment (and acidify water tables).

It is not only possible to contain 500,000 tons of nasty fission products at the global scale (assuming continuous closed cycle nuclear growth for over half a century) it is mandatory. It can, very simply, be ISOLATED from the environment (it will have to be). Machines can do it. By the time the containment vessels crack, the stuff inside will be radioactive FREE and should, by that time, be placed far beneath the water table, possibly in a tectonic plate “subduction” zone. It takes less than 500 years for it to decay down to below safe levels, not the tens of thousands it takes for spent fuel from the once through cycle (as from the LWR).

Unlike compressed CO2 stored in spent wells (CCS), this stuff is not under pressure.

Although thorium fueled molten salt reactors require the least amount of enriched fuel to start up, can fission spent fuel, and are efficient and meltdown proof, ordinary light water reactors have done a great job of displacing fossil fuels. France proves that a country can do it safely. So does the United States. The wastes should be fissioned in an Integral Fast Reactor or MSR, or can be buried under a plate subduction zone. The Integral Fast Reactor, have had developmental accidents but have not caused any serious radiation releases into the environment. Unlike today’s Light Water Reactor and the MSR, the IFR can also convert the huge stockpiles of depleted uranium 238 into electricity! Regulations must however, be present which prevents the isolation of plutonium from the mix. The PRISM concept was developed to do just that (but all of a sudden a bunch of greenie aliens descended and shut the whole complex down).

Eventually, humanity will NOT have to isolate the total of a few hundred thousand tons of nasty and radioactive fission products from the biosphere for hundreds of years. Eventually, humanity WILL achieve nuclear fusion and will power itself throughout all space/time (God willing). But first, we need to fully leverage the fission option to ensure required economic growth for continued scientific research in ALL fields because it requires huge amounts of energy to power humanity and our ambitions.

Sadly, it appears that there is a conspiracy to thwart this ultimate objective. Thankfully, no one dictator can be the head of such a conspiracy in today’s multi-faceted world.
However, complacency, ignorance and greed brought forth by millions of people who wish to, or are led to defeat the global scale up of clean and abundant energy, can usher the same insidious results.

The technology to become a prosperous type I global civilization, where no one is subject to poverty, has been thwarted because that knowledge has been around for DECADES. Now, it is time to promote the global scale up of clean and abundant energy with fervent persistence.

~realizing the full potential and experiencing the purpose of our existence~

Special interest backed enviros and all their silly “we can have ours but you can’t have yours” nonsense has since invaded the planet like a bunch of green aliens, somehow convincing the brainwashed minds from all corners of the land of make believe that the future of energy is in… less of it.

Less energy will NOT raise India, Africa, Asia and South America out of poverty. Less energy will not raise the developed world out of economic slumps, either. And less energy will not support the growth needed for continued tech progress. Less energy will not power the people and machinery needed to maintain basic infrastructure, running water, agriculture, road maitainence, the sewer system, garbage disposal, and MILLIONS of other processes benificial to the survival and comfort/entertainment/ mind growing of our species.

Less energy will not save the cute little polar bears either, because less energy makes more people (somewhere else) deplete fossil fuels even faster.

Less energy creates wars!

Fossil fuels has already been proven to cause not only global warming, but also ocean acidification AND political turmoil. Pollution, and adverse health issues (and bad tuna) resulting from the fossil fuels option are merely warning signs of the trouble yet to come if abundant, clean energy is not pursued at the global level.
Thermal expansion of the oceans and the drop in the pH levels of the oceans is EMPIRICAL evidence that excess CO2 is already altering the biosphere… of this entire planet!

Less energy creates global de-forestation!

Less energy will not make it easy to clean up our mess (especially if we must mine olivine on the order of the scale of the coal industry by automated machinery to reverse global warming and or ocean acidification).

Less energy will NEVER open up the final frontier and the unlimited (and as of yet, unknown) possibilities available to humanity. Less energy will definitely NOT stop an errant asteroid, or a super volcano. Only abundant, clean and safe energy will give us the capability to learn how to develop these necessary technologies and to provide power to use these technologies.

Less energy will not save the hydrocarbons either. We will need them for roads, plastics, lubricants, etc. If we stop the global frenzy to combust hydrocarbons, these much longer lived uses can be sustained for hundreds of years, giving humanity time to learn how to synthesize “anything”.

We need to rip the guts out of any agenda that seeks to reduce global power capacity :)
“The Future is In Less” is an insidious and ignorant trend. If it is accepted by the general population, we will surely suffer severe consequenses… at the global level!

We already have the tech, now we need to…
PROMOTE AND IMPLEMENT ABUNDANT CLEAN ENERGY BY ALL MEANS POSSIBLE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
http://www.steamtablesonline.com/electricity/electricity-installed-capacity.aspx#.UrFbKdJDvE1
http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/units.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Please see the following playlist about meltdown proof nuclear http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=SPKfir74hxWhPsAXSrCy–ORaxxbXdWnXK

Thanks for reading and considering about how the argument for global warming (even though most probably correct, as is evidenced by some 95% of scientists) can be used as an excuse to limit humanity by not including a global scale up of machine mass produced solar, wind, batteries and factory molten salt nuclear reactors (or better) in popular solutions.

More Steps…

The distribution of needs (and wants) via advance machine automation shall be based upon available resources. I believe that Jacque Fresco was the first to come up with that idea. Unfortunately, (I think) he believes that this money system has to first collapse. But there is absolutely NO way we could all deal with that unless we ALL are willing to work for free to maintain current infrastructure (water, sewer, food supplies, electrical, and internet, not to mention the million other industries that these depend on). On top of that, we would ALSO have to work (for free) to build the needed machine economy.

Perhaps “scarcity” IS needed until these machines are in place AND have a well worked out supporting infrastructure. In otherwords, we will HAVE to work within today’s money system, or perish due to financial collapse.
That means training “everyone” (including ourselves) to be able to achieve a series of objectives, each of which are seemingly insurmountable, in today’s society!

Following is “my” agenda:
1, Promote awareness that we ALL must agree on a “best fit plan”.

2, To ALL agree on the “best” form of clean energy and only concentrate on any source that can rival fossil fuels (the only 2 options that fit this criteria are solar and advanced, LFTR type nuclear). We can NOT continue to emit XS CO2 into the very air the biosphere depends on at this time.

3, Since, working within the money system is still mandatory at this stage, choose the solar option (and because of concerns about nuclear risks) so as to create (literally) hundreds of thousands of sq mi of global solar installation jobs. (We may have to make sure that whatever the collection medium is, it is made so it is not too dark in color, as we don’t want to much sunlight being converted into excess infrared!). This will help “continue” the workability of the money system up to a certain point in time where machines are (also) capable to complete the install process. This happens once trucks drive themselves and when human operated drilling machines etc, operate themselves. We must ALL also agree to dis-enable laws that prohibit necessary mining and resource extraction which is ESSENTIAL for the planning, development, and completion of the solar infrastructure. It is also essential for the building of molten salt and metals electricity storage facilities (which are basically giant pools of such placed in an environmentally safe and strategic manner!)

4, To ALL be reminded that machines will displace human jobs at an ever accelerating pace, and thus make null and void, the money system (which sustains human security) unless machine made profits are distributed BACK to the populations at large.

5, To ALL agree to distribute profits made from machine based suppliers to the people, equally, which is REQUIRED in order to give people the ability to implement the next steps. Some people call this “the basic income guarantee” or BIG.

6, To ALL continue to support research and development of the machinery AND infrastructure required to provide necessities according to environmentally sound resource extraction methods. Also to ALL agree on building cities which best accommodates the efficient machine distribution of resources. (They would be machine built highrise 3D structures with most infrastructure, including transportation built in). This would entail “digging” deep below the biosphere, into the crust for most of the raw ingredients. This, in turn, requires a re-writing of silly enviro laws against mining, etc at the get go, as we can NOT afford fashionable retorts and trivialism to squander our destiny, which is survival past basic needs and the conscious ability to want others to have the same.

7, Realize that at this stage of advanced machine automation, evolve a way to socially transition away from the archaic money system which was needed to build civilization up to this point. This can only happen when machines (and still some willingness to work for free) can distribute and maintain needed (and wanted) resources.

8, The sky is then the limit. There will no longer be a need to mine the Earth at all. Yet tens of billions of additional souls will be able to thrive without having to deal with today’s archaic traffic and political configurations.

ImageThe birth of new social systems…   …   …   …   …   …   …   Enable the space based race!

“Now” is NOT the time. We do NOT have the machines capable. We do NOT yet have the collective empathy (or wanting to understand from another’s point of view). We do NOT have the social skills to become de-polarized towards each and every “little” whim. Now is NOT the time to promote “getting rid of” the money system!

It appears like “baby steps”, therefore step 3 is the prescription for the solution to all of our problems. 100,000 square miles of global solar installation jobs will only offset the rapid advance of machine displacement. Of course, the collection media must be made by machine in order to be cheap enough to create all those extra human jobs. This gives humanity more time to collectively realize the very important next step, that of transitioning to equal resource distribution within, and then independent of, the money system.

Steps to Clean Energy

The internet has polarized people to demand clean energy, even at the expense of cutting current energy supply. It is understandable that we “stop the pipeline” but it is also understandable why not to “stop the pipeline”. We need energy to keep the (growing) economy running and to invest in the new and clean(er) technologies. We must:

Identify the least expensive way to the safest and most abundant clean energy option.

Quickly, to those that hear a story suggesting that global warming is not real or is simply not happening because of humanity, I must ask you to learn why it warms the biosphere. Excess CO2 is a very real thing. CO2 is an infrared absorber. An infrared photon (which is heat in electromagnetic form) that would otherwise escape into outer space, will now be intercepted by that excess CO2 molecule, absorbed, and then re-emitted (in any direction). If there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, then there will be more infrared bouncing back to Earth (to melt the ice caps past natural levels and warm the oceans which cause greater strength of storms). Excess CO2 may actually be damaging the oceans in a process called ocean acidification. NOAA

This is why it’s not cool to mess with Mother Nature. I ask “why take a chance” ;)

We need to become polarized without all the hype.

Phase One: Agree on a Realistic Plan..

Phase Two: Promote Awareness

Phase Three: Implement the Plan.

Phase One is only partially (and very inconsistently) complete. Currently, most of us agree on different ways to implement clean energy. Some believe that conservation alone is good enough (nope, even though it is good to conserve!). Some believe that current solar technology is good enough (nope, still too expensive!). And some believe in magic (such as schemes that promise more energy output than what is available in the first place. These have to identified and flagged!). We must become part of a holistic and very large group of people who all agree to collaborate upon a BEST solution. We should already know that XSCO2 isn’t good. We all should know that fossil fuels are also finite, yet that there is most likely enough to dig up and burn to accelerate global warming past a safe level. We all should know which of the clean energy technologies are capable of entirely replacing fossil fuels, given the effort. And we should all know which are not quite capable, even at great expense. This means we need to all learn the energy densities and the potential of each option. In example, we should all know that not only is corn ethanol barely self sustaining (if that), but that it would take vast amounts of land (like on the order of fifteen times that of solar).

We can all agree that 2+2=4, just as “all” scientists agree on very complicated but proven theories. It is now time for the general public to become informed and agree upon self evident clean energy phenomena, because it will be the general public that has the potential to create the huge tide of intent necessary to implement a plan and action. Sure, there will be questionable attributes to the BEST clean energy path, but this is where a forum must be set up which, first discusses, then proves (by search and by mathematical conjecture) the attributes of each and every clean energy option available. For example, when a newbie says “corn ethanol is the best”, he would be directed to already posted attributes which has already been refined by facts and suggestion text. From there, that person would be welcomed to further explore, contribute AND thanked for being interested in the clean energy debate. After all, we all were newbies at one time or another!

All the various different attributes of each clean energy option must be listed. The Energy Returned On Energy Invested, current costs, resource availability, geographical availability, enviro detriment, and etc must be searched, proven and logged.

Machine automation is a key player in the future of any large scale renewable energy efforts. Therefore, entire lengths will be devoted to just that.

Image

Image is from Adept

Most abundant clean energy options must contain a forum on how to automate with machines.

Considering nuclear, ONLY reactor designs that can not melt down are to be allowed on the table. The current fleet of LWR’s (and their kind) should be allowed to phase out through attrition due to their dangerous mix of water, fuels and heat (and inefficiency).

There will be many steps to each phase, such as that there should be more than one source for information regarding Phase One. Links to many other forums, such as Energy from Thorium must be available.

After Phase One is complete, we need to implement Phase Two, the actual awareness campaign. This is best done using experts in the field of viral marketing. A catchy slogan (or a constantly changing array of catchy slogans) may be used. Also, everybody will be instructed to post updates to their social media, call friends, and even organize “house parties”, etc. I believe there is never too much awareness (once the BEST option is found). I would personally like to pass out “business” cards, too.

I do not have the expertise to even suggest how to implement Phase Three, just that it is more probable after Phase One is complete.  Phase One can only be successful by fulfilling the following:

Identify the least expensive way to the safest and most abundant clean energy option.

Only then can actual business plans be written for all the various different steps of Phase Three, the implementation of the BEST plan. I would hope that by this time, the members of this collaboration (and others) would number into the millions and then incorporate and invest.

We must collaborate today to make clean energy cheap enough to implement tomorrow.

Thank you.

The Resource Based Economy

The coming age of machine exponentiation will usher in a wonderful world IF present social structures would allow.

I REALLY WISH Jacque Fresco’s plans for a Resource Based Economy would materialize… This is an idea where food, water, housing, transportation, information, entertainment and every other aspect of life is distributed based on the efficient extraction of ecologically sound available resources… rather than distributed based on the money system.

Everything would be free (and mass produced by machine).

However, I believe the transition simply can not take place unless we all become undivided (and seek this common goal).

Perhaps after the financial fall? Highly doubtful because after a “fall”, there will be many delays and thus decay in the very infrastructure, such as maintenance for all the pipes, lines, energy and food supplies… everything we depend on with multiple negative feedbacks with each successive broken link.
How will we convert over to the (much better) RBE when there’s no money to keep up the supply lines (and the internet)?

Besides, top leaders “know” where the fall will take us which, based on current trends, looks to be a global corporate controlled authoritarianism devoid of family rights, constitutional rights, etc… or worst (or maybe better if the leaders choose to have a heart). They will be the FIRST to receive any of the tech benefits such as implanted night vision, sight magnification, exoskeletons, 3d printers (for food, medicines and energy production) etc, etc. And they may come to the conclusion that “they are better than us” if (their) new fancy machines prove that they don’t need us anymore for profit.

The only way towards a RBE via (our) advanced machinery is if everyone is all of a sudden willing to work for free towards (and only for!) that common goal which includes being willing to work for free to keep up the common infrastructure (and maintain food and water supplies) until such time that a complete RBE is built, suitable to let go of “the old infrastructure” and its maintenance. Then people will still have to work for perfecting the science and the machinery.

Reality has it that we are mostly all divided… and even polarized… because of easy access to the internet… towards FAR too many important and trivial matters. Even though the resource based economy IS the best way and will solve ALL of “the” problems (and more), people will not realize or even want to realize this.
Therefore, there will be many people (like me) who have doubts based simply on this psychology.

Polls probably show that over half of the people still believe in politics… if their side is winning. There is hope only after “we all know” that NO side wins under politics as usual except for the profiteers (who do so at the expense of other people, and now, the biosphere).

Yet there is a very BIG stumbling block called personal property. Even “I” don’t want to give up my, uh well, (if I owned a house) my property! You see, there may have to be a “fall” in order to convince people to give up on million dollar homes and fancy cars and such. So, this fall will have to coordinated such that the infrastructure itself remains intact… if we are to transition within current social structures. Even the thought of this is cruel as it deprives people of their everyday expectations of the way they think they should live out their lives (so no planned sparingly economic collapses, please!).

How many of us would be willing to become a slave to the RBE than to the current system of financial worry, rush, liability, inefficiency, degradation, deprivation, and even children SEPARATED from rightful parents under false pretenses in exchange for that almighty dollar (yes, here in AMERICA, it happened WITHOUT WARNING to my children, their mother and I simply because of my “inconsistent alcoholic consumption!).

I haven’t given up all hope….There IS an incentive, if we are able to overcome the psychological barriers and what seems could be fierce opposition from party lines. Most people have empathy and would rather not see bad things happen to their neighbor despite being conditioned to believe that all the underlining aspects of anger are normal and natural, that government interference is helpful, even under extreme measures, and that they may have to take shortcuts in their occupations… just to compete and be able to continue to support their families in the wake of free trade, speaking of which, also appears to be an equal opportunity for other countries. Another requirement is that of enticing the wealthy and the elite to allow the RBE within the current monetary system. At first glance, this seems impossible, however, the coming age of machines will allow for such integration without the need for the wealthy to continue to profit from us

Again, I have not given up hope… Perhaps the RBE can be started elsewhere, too (like on an island), as a seed that grows exponentially…

(EDIT: about a day later);

Also, it may be possible to materialize through evolution of this money system…

It seems highly unlikely within this system to implement the RBE, however it will be IMPOSSIBLE to achieve the wonderful goal of a RBE without this system.

Why?
Because without this system, there will be almost NO way to communicate, eat, drink water, etc (unless already living off the grid on a farm).
Please read the following, especially the COMMENTS from “Curt” concerning a basic income guarantee (or BIG) which distributes (machine created) wealth to everyone. (It contains interesting dialog within its vast pages).
I’ve commented also, concerning the necessity of machine created clean energy and battery parts.
I believe that we must work within current systems (and the concept of the BIG) in order to create the machinery necessary to establish a RBE…
before the current INFRASTRUCTURE COLLAPSES (due to financial meltdown).
Please inform me if I am mistaken about this seemingly most obvious concern.
Thank you,
Robert Bernal, clean energy advocate

It’s a quick survey I made (well, actually, SurveyMonkey did it).

Just a few questions to ponder

I believe that the single most important tech is in making machine made parts for pennies on the dollar.

Following is just another thought on just another blog…

It would be an awesome feat to use solar concentrating optics for the heat required to manufacture the energy intensive renewable energy parts, such as batteries and solar cells. Nevertheless, I would assume that the amount of energy that ANY rechargeable battery could store, after adding up all the cycles, would far outweigh the initial energy expense. One needs to do an accurate energy audit before assuming EROEI is less than a favorable ratio, such as 10 to 1 (such as solar, is). Even 2 to 1 is still twice as good as well, nothing, after the biosphere is altered and economic possibilities ruined by fossil fueled depletion…

Such new advances make possible that any region in the world need not be turned into politically sensitive ones, caused by lack of proper resource distribution of elements (such as lithium).

Therefore, with science (and God?), cures for such things as cancer and countless other necessary social endeavors, could be more readily focused upon and achieved in the absence of resource WARS, economic RUIN and GLOBAL warming due to continued lack of action to implement (the already TECH ready) clean energy mass production via machine automation, 24/7 for pennies on the dollar.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.