Hi Doug,thanks for the Japanese battery re-use link. As a Nisssan Leaf electric car owner, and advocate for distributed generation, I have multiple related interests.
I am a cautious fan of open-source tools. I have built them (1980s and 1990s), and I use some (e.g., Libre Office). I did use Android and a variety of Unix flavours over the years, but currently do not. I'm not against using them again, but my experience with HTC (non-)support of my first Android smartphone was my prime motivator in switching to a BlackBerry Z10. On the Z10, the updates just arrive and work. On the HTC, I had to hunt for updates, research them to see if they actually worked on my device, and on one occasion, an update went badly. Sometimes the price of 'free' is high (in this case, in time lost).
3D printing continues to fascinate me, but I have not found the justification for it yet in my personal set of tools.
"Connection" or "availability" fees seem to be a new and growing trend for utilities. I use natural gas for backup heat (solar primary), and the monthly "connection" fee comes to more than my fuel consumption cost over the course of the year. Our local electrical utility has implemented the same concept fairly recently. I'm not actually against the idea. I was just astonished at the idea that a monopoly needs that much money to maintain infrastructure. (The charge should not be needed for new build, as there is also a one-time connection fee that is also substantial.)
These fees just become more arguments for severing the grid connection entirely for some people.
I sympathize with your friend's lament re: time spent looking for funding. Still there, still doing that.
Darryl On 22/03/2014 8:05 PM, Doug wrote:
Darryl, I have a slightly different view of your response to the Rifkin article. I will start by agreeing with your last paragraph which largely points out the rise of large capital (& responding political influence). I think some of the issues we are experiencing is a result of the grab for control by corporations where they are lobbying governments to 'protect' their market. As an Australian, we have power companies that are frightened by the growth of solarpower. In Australia we now have a 'connection cost' that is growing. This cost is to supply the backbone. I fear in the future we will be charged if the power is available, even if we do not connect to the grid! With the availability of cheaper batteries (& particularly recycled Electric car batteries in the future (1) In Australia we have a Medicare that gives free Medical to all citizens. The actual cost to taxpayers is LESS than the government outlay per citizen in the USA. Unfortunately greed is causing a few creaks in the seams bcause the differential wages between low , average & high wage earners, so Doctors want to charge a Co-payment that will degrade the concept of the service. We still have Private insurers & Health Providers, but up to now all basic health requirement has been covered. One of the comments in the article was regarding the rise of Open Source: both Hardware & Software. I am an avid Open Source user. The rise of 3D printers will increase this use. I can think of making parts for my classic motorcycle for instance (such as Blinker lenses). I also need to print an HDPE Normally closed float valve for my pool. I feel the Open Source movement has grown due to the inefficiencies & greed of the Patent system. Companies can either lend or give patents to the open source movement, or document patentable systems so prior art is established. Personally I feel the patent system now actually restricts development. There seems to be limited natural research these days. In days of yore, we had the CSIRO in Australia that was responsible for many discoveries including things used in the Space race, Agriculture, Electronics & software, etc. Unfortunately in the last few years our Governments have given little funding to CSIRO, so much time is now wasted on finding private funding (a Geologist friend said 30% of his time was wasted on finding funding: he is now retired.) This 'waste' must be absorbed by the system, most probably by increased cost for the final product. My comment as a consumer is to ensure that any electronics I buy are Hackable: my phone has an upgraded operating system installed (from the XDA site). Also items such as my Router is to be loaded with Gargoyle. Even though I am still working, we try to live softly on the planet. I feel using closed source items such as the most popular operating system, or the systems supplied by the fruity manufacturer are limiting my rights to my data, so would never be purchased. I am particularly concerned on the invasion of privacy by Big Brother. Some might be required for security, but I feel much is now collected for spurious institutional reasons. As a final comment, I am surprised at the Opposition to a basic Health cover in the US. When I see the quality of life of all Australians, rich or poor, supplied by the Medicare system at a lower cost than the US now pays, I wonder why the poor do not revolt! There must be so much unnecessary suffering because quality Health care is not easily available. My perception is the only winners are the super-rich that may pay slightly less tax. (The Medicare rate is now 1.5% of taxable income, an affordable amount. If you do not earn, you are still covered.) I am particularly concerned by the huge spread of wages, & the growing differential between the super rich & super poor. We have a handful of super rich mining magnates that spent less than $10M for advertising (that is probably tax-deductable!) to stop the Australian Mining Tax that would have cost them $4bn in tax over the next few years. Unfortunately this revenue must now be paid by general taxpayers mainly by reduced services. (the Doctors co-Payment would be an example). Enough rant, Regards Doug (1) An Island in Japan now has used recycled batteries for Solar backup to replace Diesel power <http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Japan-Looks-at-Recycling-Vehicle-Batteries-for-Renewable-Power.html> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:55:36 -0400 Darryl McMahon <dar...@econogics.com> wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-anti-capitalism.html?action=click&contentCollection=Technology&module=MostEmailed&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article
[Article appears below. First, my rant.
In my opinion, growth in the non-profit sector is almost never good news. In my experience, the non-profit sector generally grows only if there is a sustained excess demand for their services over existing supply. Unlike the for-profit sector, funding is difficult to obtain for non-profits (and I speak from long, personal experience). Where government funds non-profits, it is generally because the need for the service is undeniable, and the non-profits are chosen as the response tool because it costs less than a for-profit solution. That usually means the services are provided by volunteers or staff who are paid less than their equivalent in the for-profit sector. (Again, long personal experience.) Let's consider the sectors where non-profits generally operate. Health care. Social services. Elder care. Outreach and support for the financially challenged (often due to addiction and substance abuse; mental, psychological or physical health issues). Environmental issues. Justice system issues. Human rights issues. Hunger. Housing. Abuse. (In my world view, most formal educational [day-care, schools, colleges and universities] and acute [hospitals] and primary care [clinics, doctors, dentists, podiatry, chiropractic] is not non-profit, but a mix of government and for-profit agencies.) In general, a non-profit organization arises because a societal level need is identified, persists, and is not being addressed by for-profit agents, government or any other existing structure. (If the issue is smaller than societal level, an organized response is not required. It the issue is not persistent, there is not time to build and sustain an organized response. If there is a existing solution, no need to build a parallel non-profit response.) I am all for building social capital, but let's be clear about what that is. Hospitals, medical clinics, fire departments, educational systems, accessible Internet, many utilities, community-owned facilities (and much more) constitute social capital. Food banks (as an example) are not; they are a symptom of a problem that could be easily eliminated if we addressed the underlying issue appropriately. I am not advocating ignoring or hiding the issues (an approach designed to reduce expenditures and concentrate wealth), but solving them by giving individuals the resources to look after themselves. (I recognize there is a small minority who do not have the capacity to fend for themselves, and I expect to support them. However, to continue with the food bank example, if someone has the ability to use a food bank, they can likely use a grocery store if they have funds.) As for Rifkin's assertion we approaching a zero-marginal-cost for many goods, like many neo-cons, he is ignoring the fact that major corporations have effectively downloaded the main part of the delivery infrastructure cost onto customers and government (e.g., computers and the Internet backbone), while reducing the price of content (intellectual property, aka someone else's income) to near zero. News used to be delivered on paper, where the media supplier supplied the content and delivery channel. Now, the customer supplies the delivery channel (electronic device and Internet connection). The real change is the devaluing of labour and allowing wealth to be concentrated by those that control the contrived bottlenecks in how we actually operate our society. The rest is mechanics. If you want social capital to expand, then let government and community-owned organizations run the services we value and own the related infrastructure. Is e-mail killing Canada Post because of the reduced volume of letter-mail? Then, make Canada Post the agency that runs the Internet backbone in Canada, rather than for-profit telecom companies.] =======================================================================
SundayReview|Opinion
The Rise of Anti-Capitalism By JEREMY RIFKIN MARCH 15, 2014 WE are beginning to witness a paradox at the heart of capitalism, one that has propelled it to greatness but is now threatening its future: The inherent dynamism of competitive markets is bringing costs so far down that many goods and services are becoming nearly free, abundant, and no longer subject to market forces. While economists have always welcomed a reduction in marginal cost, they never anticipated the possibility of a technological revolution that might bring those costs to near zero. The first inkling of the paradox came in 1999 when Napster, the music service, developed a network enabling millions of people to share music without paying the producers and artists, wreaking havoc on the music industry. Similar phenomena went on to severely disrupt the newspaper and book publishing industries. Consumers began sharing their own information and entertainment, via videos, audio and text, nearly free, bypassing the traditional markets altogether. The huge reduction in marginal cost shook those industries and is now beginning to reshape energy, manufacturing and education. Although the fixed costs of solar and wind technology are somewhat pricey, the cost of capturing each unit of energy beyond that is low. This phenomenon has even penetrated the manufacturing sector. Thousands of hobbyists are already making their own products using 3-D printers, open-source software and recycled plastic as feedstock, at near zero marginal cost. Meanwhile, more than six million students are enrolled in free massive open online courses, the content of which is distributed at near zero marginal cost. Industry watchers acknowledge the creeping reality of a zero-marginal-cost economy, but argue that free products and services will entice a sufficient number of consumers to purchase higher-end goods and specialized services, ensuring large enough profit margins to allow the capitalist market to continue to grow. But the number of people willing to pay for additional premium goods and services is limited. Now the phenomenon is about to affect the whole economy. A formidable new technology infrastructure — the Internet of Things — is emerging with the potential to push much of economic life to near zero marginal cost over the course of the next two decades. This new technology platform is beginning to connect everything and everyone. Today more than 11 billion sensors are attached to natural resources, production lines, the electricity grid, logistics networks and recycling flows, and implanted in homes, offices, stores and vehicles, feeding big data into the Internet of Things. By 2020, it is projected that at least 50 billion sensors will connect to it. People can connect to the network and use big data, analytics and algorithms to accelerate efficiency and lower the marginal cost of producing and sharing a wide range of products and services to near zero, just as they now do with information goods. For example, 37 million buildings in the United States have been equipped with meters and sensors connected to the Internet of Things, providing real-time information on the usage and changing price of electricity on the transmission grid. This will eventually allow households and businesses that are generating and storing green electricity on-site from their solar and wind installations to program software to take them off the electricity grid when the price spikes so they can power their facilities with their own green electricity and share surplus with neighbors at near zero marginal cost. Cisco forecasts that by 2022, the private sector productivity gains wrought by the Internet of Things will exceed $14 trillion. A General Electric study estimates that productivity advances from the Internet of Things could affect half the global economy by 2025. THE unresolved question is, how will this economy of the future function when millions of people can make and share goods and services nearly free? The answer lies in the civil society, which consists of nonprofit organizations that attend to the things in life we make and share as a community. In dollar terms, the world of nonprofits is a powerful force. Nonprofit revenues grew at a robust rate of 41 percent — after adjusting for inflation — from 2000 to 2010, more than doubling the growth of gross domestic product, which increased by 16.4 percent during the same period. In 2012, the nonprofit sector in the United States accounted for 5.5 percent of G.D.P. What makes the social commons more relevant today is that we are constructing an Internet of Things infrastructure that optimizes collaboration, universal access and inclusion, all of which are critical to the creation of social capital and the ushering in of a sharing economy. The Internet of Things is a game-changing platform that enables an emerging collaborative commons to flourish alongside the capitalist market. This collaborative rather than capitalistic approach is about shared access rather than private ownership. For example, 1.7 million people globally are members of car-sharing services. A recent survey found that the number of vehicles owned by car-sharing participants decreased by half after joining the service, with members preferring access over ownership. Millions of people are using social media sites, redistribution networks, rentals and cooperatives to share not only cars but also homes, clothes, tools, toys and other items at low or near zero marginal cost. The sharing economy had projected revenues of $3.5 billion in 2013. Nowhere is the zero marginal cost phenomenon having more impact than the labor market, where workerless factories and offices, virtual retailing and automated logistics and transport networks are becoming more prevalent. Not surprisingly, the new employment opportunities lie in the collaborative commons in fields that tend to be nonprofit and strengthen social infrastructure — education, health care, aiding the poor, environmental restoration, child care and care for the elderly, the promotion of the arts and recreation. In the United States, the number of nonprofit organizations grew by approximately 25 percent between 2001 and 2011, from 1.3 million to 1.6 million, compared with profit-making enterprises, which grew by a mere one-half of 1 percent. In the United States, Canada and Britain, employment in the nonprofit sector currently exceeds 10 percent of the work force. Despite this impressive growth, many economists argue that the nonprofit sector is not a self-sufficient economic force but rather a parasite, dependent on government entitlements and private philanthropy. Quite the contrary. A recent study revealed that approximately 50 percent of the aggregate revenue of the nonprofit sectors of 34 countries comes from fees, while government support accounts for 36 percent of the revenues and private philanthropy for 14 percent. As for the capitalist system, it is likely to remain with us far into the future, albeit in a more streamlined role, primarily as an aggregator of network services and solutions, allowing it to thrive as a powerful niche player in the coming era. We are, however, entering a world partly beyond markets, where we are learning how to live together in an increasingly interdependent, collaborative, global commons.
_______________________________________________ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
