We need to go fully electric.
Whenever I make that claim, especially when referring to vehicles, I will quickly be confronted with the argument, that electricity still is more often than not produced by burning fossil fuels and hence nothing would improve.
While, on a first look, this seems plausible, I just don't think so. Rather I'd like to show that, the argument is neither plausible nor valid.
When you look just at your home, how many devices and tools are there, which are powered electric?
Let's have a look, in no specific order at devices which, you already might use, usually powered by electricity:
- Alarm clock
- Radio
- TV set
- game console
- WiFi Access point / repeater
- Modem / Router
- PC / Laptop
- mobile phone
- Refrigerator
- Freezer
- Micro wave oven
- Oven
- coffe brewer
- electric water jug
- light bulbs
- halogen spotlight
- led lights
- ventilator
- air condition
- washing machine
- tumble dryer
- automatic garage door
- power drill
- steam cleaner
- (robotic) vacuum cleaner
- robotic lawnmower
- electric toothbrush
- hairdryer
- electric shaver
- kitchen aid, blender, mixer, bread slicing machine, etc.
Yes, I know, some might argue that, they do not use any of these and read by the light of a candle, and usually walk or go by bicycle or use public transport. Then I might ask you to spread the word about electric vehicles.
But there is more of these electric devices, you might use, but you might not be aware of them.
- hot-water boiler
- water pumps
- waste and grey water pumps
- elevator
- intercommunication system
- surveillance cameras
- motion sensors
- automatic lawn sprinkler
- alarm system
- smoke detectors
- land line phone
All of the above run on electricity.
And you knew that all along, as you pay a monthly power bill.
So, currently you are running all these devices, and tools essentially on coal, gas, or whatever fossil fuel, unless of course, you have your own electricity generated by wind turbine and / or solar cells.
But still, time by time, and, even if you have your very own energy storage device, you might need to tap into the grid and if you don't know for certain, you might still receive "dirty" electricity.
Now, in addition to this, we are big fans of individual transport, but that offers another choice for us as it opens up new possibilities on how to power these vehicles, as well as how to use or even share them.
Electric vehicles can be as 3 times as efficient as those with combustion engines. That means, even if you run a power plant on the gasoline, that the cars would have used instead, you can power three cars instead of one, or operate one at a third of the original consumption.
Plus, the electric car itself will not pollute the air nor directly put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
If you would want to filter the exhaust gases from combustion engines, you would have to equip each and every car with filters, catalysts and even a carbon dioxide retainer.
If you try to clean the exhaust of a "dirty" coal fired power plant, you might find a cheaper approach to remove particles and carbon dioxide. Same goes if you would fire it with gasoline.
However, the quality of "dirty" varies strongly, depending on where you live. India and, China already produce more than 15% or 20% respectively from renewable sources. Whilst that might seem little, please keep in mind, that we are talking about the two countries with the highest populations worldwide. In contrast to this, the high tech country USA produces just a little over 12% of its electricity from renewable sources, and that is mostly due to a surge in wind power stations and, recently also solar power plants.
There are still fossil burning power plants in the majority, who massively pollute the air and pump high amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Nuclear power plants are worldwide producing just 10% of our needs and, while they usually do not pollute the air and do not directly harm our atmosphere when in normal operation, they very often cause disasters, that leave wide areas of land and even cities radiated, as well as causing worldwide havoc on our oceans and, also on flora and fauna.
In general, we are left with mostly dirty energy, and there is not much we could do about it, except maybe to reduce our consumption and, hence reduce the need for dirty energy on one hand and, to increase the number of "clean" power plants.
So, even if we run electric cars on "dirty" power now, we can use already existing grids, and we reduce the pollution of our environment. If you then happen to even safe money, that would be a big win for both, you and the environment.
Monday 21 December 2015
Saturday 12 December 2015
"Cowspiracy!" - It's all the cattle ...
Recently, and with increasing frequency, I hear this excuse: "Cowspiracy!" - It's all the cattle that produce more methane and carbon dioxide than all else combined.
My Answer to that is now simply: "I know that movie. It is frightening indeed. When did you stop eating burgers? Or, when did you start to eat less meat?"
But, it is what you have to deal with. Sorry to say, but it is upon you to fix the mess, which prior generations in Europe and Northern America have passed on to you.
If cattle is not the sole issue on it's own, then there might be more within the other side of the equation. That is, by removing nearly half of all trees from the planet and by removing nutrition from plankton, we have diminished our planets ability to absorb giant amounts of carbon dioxide every moment.
Still, we keep increasing the amounts of carbon dioxide, which we release into our atmosphere.
On a side note, I would like to ask you to reread that excuse: "It's all the cattle that produce more methane and carbon dioxide than all else combined."
Do you know that, there are scientists exploring possibilities to kind of "store" electric power by "producing" methane? It is a gas, it can be easily transported, it is less risky to handle than Hydrogen, and it could be "burned" again to release the stored energy within.
Doesn't that sound like, we could get kind of free "energy" also, if we'd be able to "collect" the methane these animals "produce"? I think therein we can see an opportunity and not only a problem.
The long answer might take more time, but let me ask you a few questions first:
- How many animals where living on this planet - say - 200 years ago?
- How many of these animals did we kill?
- How many species did we effectively extinct?
- How many humans where living on planet earth about 200 years ago?
- How old is planet earth?
- How old is the species of the "Great White Shark"?
- How long did it take for the species of the "Great White Shark" do evolve?
- What did humans feed on about 200 years ago?
- What changed within the last 200 years?
The problem is not cattle, nor is it animal life stock (Hey, I don't like this wording neither). The problem rather lies in our perception of things that are odd, or which appear to be off.
Now, I hope that, you have answered all the questions above.
You'll come to a strange picture, which might induce, that we have removed 90% of all animals on land, as well as 90% of all fish from the seas, and that, we have caused severe damage to under water plants as well, and, we have managed to wipe out many species, which took millions of years to evolve, hundreds of millions of years, to be precise. We then started to grow animals within the spot, that had been left empty by wildlife gone extinct.
We are left with a habitat, which can hardly sustain it's natural balance. And, this is not your fault.
Now, I hope that, you have answered all the questions above.
You'll come to a strange picture, which might induce, that we have removed 90% of all animals on land, as well as 90% of all fish from the seas, and that, we have caused severe damage to under water plants as well, and, we have managed to wipe out many species, which took millions of years to evolve, hundreds of millions of years, to be precise. We then started to grow animals within the spot, that had been left empty by wildlife gone extinct.
We are left with a habitat, which can hardly sustain it's natural balance. And, this is not your fault.
But, it is what you have to deal with. Sorry to say, but it is upon you to fix the mess, which prior generations in Europe and Northern America have passed on to you.
If cattle is not the sole issue on it's own, then there might be more within the other side of the equation. That is, by removing nearly half of all trees from the planet and by removing nutrition from plankton, we have diminished our planets ability to absorb giant amounts of carbon dioxide every moment.
Still, we keep increasing the amounts of carbon dioxide, which we release into our atmosphere.
On a side note, I would like to ask you to reread that excuse: "It's all the cattle that produce more methane and carbon dioxide than all else combined."
Do you know that, there are scientists exploring possibilities to kind of "store" electric power by "producing" methane? It is a gas, it can be easily transported, it is less risky to handle than Hydrogen, and it could be "burned" again to release the stored energy within.
Doesn't that sound like, we could get kind of free "energy" also, if we'd be able to "collect" the methane these animals "produce"? I think therein we can see an opportunity and not only a problem.
Lack of power - at an impasse with your desires
Do you believe that, there are problems, which we can not solve, or that, there are issues we are unable to tackle?
However, when arguing for change, be that the shift towards electric vehicles, the reduction of energy consumption, the planting of trees, the reduced outtake of fish and wildlife, we always come up with "reasoning", as to why we don't need to attempt any action, because we'd see either no effect, or, worse, that there is always something else, that we don't yet do. Some even ask for more radical attempts, like, the condemnation and even ban of certain behaviors, choices and things.
My point here is that, we must try, always. But, it is not about attempting things for the cause of doing something, like anything that, really appears to be hopeless endeavors.
We must determine, if any of our actions have the potential to make a change. And if there is a slight possibility that, we will see change for the better, then we have to give it a try.
We are in the billions, so we won't be working on the same things anyway, but i think we all share the vision of keeping this planet alive and have it return back to becoming a beautiful habitat again, for all life on earth, including you and me.
Ok. I am trying to guess some of these. Please, feel free to send me an email with what I might have omitted, so I can add it.
The world did not stop yet, it did not end. We still can breathe and we still can live. Life on earth still continues. However, the end of it will not be a spontaneous one. There will be no "big final". Life will just slow down until it finally stops.
The planets and the solar system keep spinning. Everything just moves on. Simply, without us anymore. All is fine. All will be quiet again.
The world did not stop yet, it did not end. We still can breathe and we still can live. Life on earth still continues. However, the end of it will not be a spontaneous one. There will be no "big final". Life will just slow down until it finally stops.
The planets and the solar system keep spinning. Everything just moves on. Simply, without us anymore. All is fine. All will be quiet again.
But are we really out of all options yet? Some say: "We are doomed." I say: "Don't get paralyzed by the idea that, your actions will be without effect."
We know that, complex systems can appear stable, whilst they are not. They are unstable, and, any small change whatsoever, can have a surmount effect throwing that system off balance. For example, our solar system is highly unstable, but appears to be in balance. But, it is only our perception, that intrigues us into belief of it being stable.
We know that, complex systems can appear stable, whilst they are not. They are unstable, and, any small change whatsoever, can have a surmount effect throwing that system off balance. For example, our solar system is highly unstable, but appears to be in balance. But, it is only our perception, that intrigues us into belief of it being stable.
However, when arguing for change, be that the shift towards electric vehicles, the reduction of energy consumption, the planting of trees, the reduced outtake of fish and wildlife, we always come up with "reasoning", as to why we don't need to attempt any action, because we'd see either no effect, or, worse, that there is always something else, that we don't yet do. Some even ask for more radical attempts, like, the condemnation and even ban of certain behaviors, choices and things.
My point here is that, we must try, always. But, it is not about attempting things for the cause of doing something, like anything that, really appears to be hopeless endeavors.
We must determine, if any of our actions have the potential to make a change. And if there is a slight possibility that, we will see change for the better, then we have to give it a try.
We are in the billions, so we won't be working on the same things anyway, but i think we all share the vision of keeping this planet alive and have it return back to becoming a beautiful habitat again, for all life on earth, including you and me.
Friday 11 December 2015
Slums evolving - housing for communities
When I was at the University I took special courses, amongst others, in "infrastructure theory" and also in "micro entrepreneurship".
Whilst the former is pretty obvious, the latter translates into "informal services and industries" in "developing countries" as well as in the so called "developed countries", there meaning "black market".
But, how do these two relate to each other?
"Infrastructure theory" predicts and has so far successfully observed, that people and hence their businesses are attracted by the highest density of business opportunities in the neighborhood.
What that means, essentially is that, people will move towards places, where they can more easily earn a living.
For example, a shoemaker has a higher chance of getting a customer in areas with higher population or rather higher density of population, because the more people the more likely it is, that his services might be needed and rewarded.
Now, the better the infrastructure, the shorter the distance, in terms of time spend on traveling from point A (where you live) to point B (where you can do business). Without any working infrastructure, either for it being absent or not working reliably, people will migrate towards cities but preferably to the largest settlement within reach.
We can see this in for example in Lima, New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangkok, Saigon, Cape Town and Johannesburg. And we have seen this before, for example in ancient Rome, medieval european cities and even in the famous District Six in Cape Town.
These settlements start out as informal land grabs, initially starting out as tents or the likes. After some time, the new inhabitants find ways to make a living and you see shacks and sheds instead of tents. Some years later you'll find simple, one story brick and mortar structures, still covered with metal sheets or other cheap materials, and decades later you'll find multi story buildings with proper roofs. In some places you might see fresh water supply and even electricity. In rare cases you might even find sanitation.
What essentially is happening in these areas is evolution and development. It is kind of an organic growth. But it takes a very long time.
If we look at Dharavi, Asia's largest "Slum", dead center in the center of the city of Mumbai, we see areas that have developed really far within the 150 years of its existence. However, Dharavi does not deserve to be called Slum anymore, as it is more like a city, even though in an infant state, maybe even comparable to that of the suburbs of cities such as Paris, Berlin or London at around the end of the 18th century.
Other "Slums" around the planet show similar evolution through states of evolution. Still, it is a harsh and often dangerous live, as the environment is often close to toxic. Thats on one hand due to missing or incomplete sanitation, like open sewages and on the other hand caused by toxic byproducts of evolving industries.
But when we look closer, we will find communities, where neighbors really look out for and after their neighbors and where micro entrepreneurs can sustain with their families.
In places like Mumbai the land, which the "Slum" occupies, could be so valuable that development companies have started to buy people off their land in exchange for a flat in a newly to be erected skyscraper on that very soil.
Whilst this seems to be a gain for both, it is not.
The community thrives through close social relations between its inhabitants. If you move people further away from each other, then the community will be destroyed.
This sounds harsh, but if we turn to modern cities, we must realize and acknowledge that, people living in skyscrapers and only riding on the elevator do not know any of their neighbors, if not just a few. On the opposite, someone living in an area with only one to four story buildings are more likely to meet their neighbors out on the street, if not just on the stairway.
Yes, there is a lot of money to be saved if more stories can be erected over the same area of soil, and we need to make construction more efficient and affordable. But the value of a flat on 22nd floor can't match that of one on 2nd or 3rd in terms of quality of live. A nice view is something really nice and beautiful to have. But to be member of a community is more rewarding. The most sought after areas for living in NYC are not skyscrapers, but rather city houses or flats in 3 to 4 story buildings. Same goes for cities like LA and SF bay area. You have no chance to enjoy the shadow of a tree when living on 22nd floor. Everything you see when you look out through your windows is remote, it is so far away and you are not part of it anymore.
For this reason I am afraid, that current attempts to turn Dharavi in Mumbai into a collection of skyscrapers will do the people and in turn the city no good.
I'd like to challenge the architecture to get to a modern city, filled with greens and trees, where people want to live and can maintain a strong community.
Whilst the former is pretty obvious, the latter translates into "informal services and industries" in "developing countries" as well as in the so called "developed countries", there meaning "black market".
But, how do these two relate to each other?
"Infrastructure theory" predicts and has so far successfully observed, that people and hence their businesses are attracted by the highest density of business opportunities in the neighborhood.
What that means, essentially is that, people will move towards places, where they can more easily earn a living.
For example, a shoemaker has a higher chance of getting a customer in areas with higher population or rather higher density of population, because the more people the more likely it is, that his services might be needed and rewarded.
Now, the better the infrastructure, the shorter the distance, in terms of time spend on traveling from point A (where you live) to point B (where you can do business). Without any working infrastructure, either for it being absent or not working reliably, people will migrate towards cities but preferably to the largest settlement within reach.
We can see this in for example in Lima, New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangkok, Saigon, Cape Town and Johannesburg. And we have seen this before, for example in ancient Rome, medieval european cities and even in the famous District Six in Cape Town.
These settlements start out as informal land grabs, initially starting out as tents or the likes. After some time, the new inhabitants find ways to make a living and you see shacks and sheds instead of tents. Some years later you'll find simple, one story brick and mortar structures, still covered with metal sheets or other cheap materials, and decades later you'll find multi story buildings with proper roofs. In some places you might see fresh water supply and even electricity. In rare cases you might even find sanitation.
What essentially is happening in these areas is evolution and development. It is kind of an organic growth. But it takes a very long time.
If we look at Dharavi, Asia's largest "Slum", dead center in the center of the city of Mumbai, we see areas that have developed really far within the 150 years of its existence. However, Dharavi does not deserve to be called Slum anymore, as it is more like a city, even though in an infant state, maybe even comparable to that of the suburbs of cities such as Paris, Berlin or London at around the end of the 18th century.
Other "Slums" around the planet show similar evolution through states of evolution. Still, it is a harsh and often dangerous live, as the environment is often close to toxic. Thats on one hand due to missing or incomplete sanitation, like open sewages and on the other hand caused by toxic byproducts of evolving industries.
But when we look closer, we will find communities, where neighbors really look out for and after their neighbors and where micro entrepreneurs can sustain with their families.
In places like Mumbai the land, which the "Slum" occupies, could be so valuable that development companies have started to buy people off their land in exchange for a flat in a newly to be erected skyscraper on that very soil.
Whilst this seems to be a gain for both, it is not.
The community thrives through close social relations between its inhabitants. If you move people further away from each other, then the community will be destroyed.
This sounds harsh, but if we turn to modern cities, we must realize and acknowledge that, people living in skyscrapers and only riding on the elevator do not know any of their neighbors, if not just a few. On the opposite, someone living in an area with only one to four story buildings are more likely to meet their neighbors out on the street, if not just on the stairway.
Yes, there is a lot of money to be saved if more stories can be erected over the same area of soil, and we need to make construction more efficient and affordable. But the value of a flat on 22nd floor can't match that of one on 2nd or 3rd in terms of quality of live. A nice view is something really nice and beautiful to have. But to be member of a community is more rewarding. The most sought after areas for living in NYC are not skyscrapers, but rather city houses or flats in 3 to 4 story buildings. Same goes for cities like LA and SF bay area. You have no chance to enjoy the shadow of a tree when living on 22nd floor. Everything you see when you look out through your windows is remote, it is so far away and you are not part of it anymore.
For this reason I am afraid, that current attempts to turn Dharavi in Mumbai into a collection of skyscrapers will do the people and in turn the city no good.
I'd like to challenge the architecture to get to a modern city, filled with greens and trees, where people want to live and can maintain a strong community.
Thursday 10 December 2015
Childhood dreams - mostly naïve views towards bright futures
Do you remember what you wanted to become as a child?
Did you have answers towards the question "What will you be? What will you become?"
My answers where mostly given to end the questioning. Honestly, I did not know, what I would want to become. Yes, of course, it was tempting to imagine being a medic, a scientist, an astronaut and so on, but that was never really enough. Enough in terms of really being able to identify with these roles. I could not really imagine myself being one of these.
Still I had strong belief in choice and the chance to find my way to make a bright future come true.
Speaking of which, I was a great fan of Captain Future. I started to watch nearly every Sci-Fi Movie that was screened on TV. (Having grown up in Eastern Germany there was no other way than to watch western TV stations. I also turned to Danish and Swedish ones, who would broadcast in English and show local sub titles.)
Then I became a great fan of Star Trek. Mr. Spok became the true idol. Pure logic. Brilliant deduction from observation and, delivering solutions that respected the root cause, not just the symptoms. And again and again, pure logic and cold deduction at work. Fascinating, indeed.
But not being able to turn myself into a Vulcan I developed strong sympathies for the coolest person on the Enterprise ever: Scotty. Brilliant in problem analysis and, providing solutions for the "impossible". Yes, we know, it was never really "impossible" in the first place, but the perception of the problem made any solution to it seemingly that.
I ended up with plans to become a physicist rather than an engineer, which stuck for a long time. But then live got real and I became a real estate manger, and turned into a web developer, programmer, systems and networks engineer. (I have been programming computers since I was 12, or should I say, since we where 12, as I started out with a dear friend on his dad's computer. Hey, we did pair programming before anyone even coined that phrase. Well, the two of us could only use this very one computer, so we just did it together.)
In Physics you never ask why anything is as "it" is, but rather, how can you describe "it". That extends then to whatever changes the state of "it". This way you come to conclusions of cause and effect, which might look like an answer to the question of "why".
Nowadays, I am quite good at analyzing situations, or rather "complex systems" by example of state in relation to environmental influence, detecting problems within, and finding their root cause. (If you look through any network operation center, you'll find people with these skills in the majority.)
What I loved most and still honor most in Star Trek is the vision of a future, where human mankind has advanced, where we live in green cities, with communities intact. Communities, where neighbors care for their neighbors. A future, where we have tackled the problems of our planet, if only short for having saved Wales and other species. Still, this is the future I wanted to come true. A future, where every human being on the planet can live a life that is worth being called HUMANE. A future, where the tribes in the woods of the Amazonas still can continue to live as people in the woods, without us forcing them into our high tech world. A future, where no one must starve, where everyone is respected and has full access to all information available and, free access to education. I know, this might sound like Utopia, but then again that is the idea of envisioning future, no?
Prospections like the worlds of Star Wars or even Mad Max made me sad as they carry the idea of the evil in us winning - our ruthlessness in destroying the entire planet, our ignorance towards the death of all life on earth in case of atomic war. Heck, for crying out loud, all these creatures and plants and organisms where never our enemies. We just share a habitat with them.
Now, what happened to our future?
Please, take some time and, remember your dreams for the future or human mankind as well as your own.
Please, look at the world around you, as it is now.
Is this world, the one you live in, still in accordance to what you had imagined it to be?
For me it is not. For me our future is bleak, as is the future for any living being on earth. We are on the brink of killing our planet, by destroying the balance within the habitat.
Did you have answers towards the question "What will you be? What will you become?"
My answers where mostly given to end the questioning. Honestly, I did not know, what I would want to become. Yes, of course, it was tempting to imagine being a medic, a scientist, an astronaut and so on, but that was never really enough. Enough in terms of really being able to identify with these roles. I could not really imagine myself being one of these.
Still I had strong belief in choice and the chance to find my way to make a bright future come true.
Speaking of which, I was a great fan of Captain Future. I started to watch nearly every Sci-Fi Movie that was screened on TV. (Having grown up in Eastern Germany there was no other way than to watch western TV stations. I also turned to Danish and Swedish ones, who would broadcast in English and show local sub titles.)
Then I became a great fan of Star Trek. Mr. Spok became the true idol. Pure logic. Brilliant deduction from observation and, delivering solutions that respected the root cause, not just the symptoms. And again and again, pure logic and cold deduction at work. Fascinating, indeed.
But not being able to turn myself into a Vulcan I developed strong sympathies for the coolest person on the Enterprise ever: Scotty. Brilliant in problem analysis and, providing solutions for the "impossible". Yes, we know, it was never really "impossible" in the first place, but the perception of the problem made any solution to it seemingly that.
I ended up with plans to become a physicist rather than an engineer, which stuck for a long time. But then live got real and I became a real estate manger, and turned into a web developer, programmer, systems and networks engineer. (I have been programming computers since I was 12, or should I say, since we where 12, as I started out with a dear friend on his dad's computer. Hey, we did pair programming before anyone even coined that phrase. Well, the two of us could only use this very one computer, so we just did it together.)
In Physics you never ask why anything is as "it" is, but rather, how can you describe "it". That extends then to whatever changes the state of "it". This way you come to conclusions of cause and effect, which might look like an answer to the question of "why".
Nowadays, I am quite good at analyzing situations, or rather "complex systems" by example of state in relation to environmental influence, detecting problems within, and finding their root cause. (If you look through any network operation center, you'll find people with these skills in the majority.)
What I loved most and still honor most in Star Trek is the vision of a future, where human mankind has advanced, where we live in green cities, with communities intact. Communities, where neighbors care for their neighbors. A future, where we have tackled the problems of our planet, if only short for having saved Wales and other species. Still, this is the future I wanted to come true. A future, where every human being on the planet can live a life that is worth being called HUMANE. A future, where the tribes in the woods of the Amazonas still can continue to live as people in the woods, without us forcing them into our high tech world. A future, where no one must starve, where everyone is respected and has full access to all information available and, free access to education. I know, this might sound like Utopia, but then again that is the idea of envisioning future, no?
Prospections like the worlds of Star Wars or even Mad Max made me sad as they carry the idea of the evil in us winning - our ruthlessness in destroying the entire planet, our ignorance towards the death of all life on earth in case of atomic war. Heck, for crying out loud, all these creatures and plants and organisms where never our enemies. We just share a habitat with them.
Now, what happened to our future?
Please, take some time and, remember your dreams for the future or human mankind as well as your own.
Please, look at the world around you, as it is now.
Is this world, the one you live in, still in accordance to what you had imagined it to be?
For me it is not. For me our future is bleak, as is the future for any living being on earth. We are on the brink of killing our planet, by destroying the balance within the habitat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)