‘We’re doomed’: Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention

30 04 2018


“We’ve got to stop burning fossil fuels. So many aspects of life depend on fossil fuels, except for music and love and education and happiness. These things, which hardly use fossil fuels, are what we must focus on.”

‘We’re doomed’: Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention thumbnail“We’re doomed,” says Mayer Hillman with such a beaming smile that it takes a moment for the words to sink in. “The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet because we’re so dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. There are no means of reversing the process which is melting the polar ice caps. And very few appear to be prepared to say so.”

Hillman, an 86-year-old social scientist and senior fellow emeritus of the Policy Studies Institute, does say so. His bleak forecast of the consequence of runaway climate change, he says without fanfare, is his “last will and testament”. His last intervention in public life. “I’m not going to write anymore because there’s nothing more that can be said,” he says when I first hear him speak to a stunned audience at the University of East Anglia late last year.

From Malthus to the Millennium Bug, apocalyptic thinking has a poor track record. But when it issues from Hillman, it may be worth paying attention. Over nearly 60 years, his research has used factual data to challenge policymakers’ conventional wisdom. In 1972, he criticised out-of-town shopping centres more than 20 years before the government changed planning rules to stop their spread. In 1980, he recommended halting the closure of branch line railways – only now are some closed lines reopening. In 1984, he proposed energy ratings for houses – finally adopted as government policy in 2007. And, more than 40 years ago, he presciently challenged society’s pursuit of economic growth.

“With doom ahead, making a case for cycling as the primary mode of transport is almost irrelevant,” he says. “We’ve got to stop burning fossil fuels. So many aspects of life depend on fossil fuels, except for music and love and education and happiness. These things, which hardly use fossil fuels, are what we must focus on.”

While the focus of Hillman’s thinking for the last quarter-century has been on climate change, he is best known for his work on road safety. He spotted the damaging impact of the car on the freedoms and safety of those without one – most significantly, children – decades ago. Some of his policy prescriptions have become commonplace – such as 20mph speed limits – but we’ve failed to curb the car’s crushing of children’s liberty. In 1971, 80% of British seven- and eight-year-old children went to school on their own; today it’s virtually unthinkable that a seven-year-old would walk to school without an adult. As Hillman has pointed out, we’ve removed children from danger rather than removing danger from children – and filled roads with polluting cars on school runs. He calculated that escorting children took 900m adult hours in 1990, costing the economy £20bn each year. It will be even more expensive today.

Our society’s failure to comprehend the true cost of cars has informed Hillman’s view on the difficulty of combatting climate change. But he insists that I must not present his thinking on climate change as “an opinion”. The data is clear; the climate is warming exponentially. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that the world on its current course will warmby 3C by 2100. Recent revised climate modelling suggested a best estimate of 2.8C but scientists struggle to predict the full impact of the feedbacks from future events such as methane being released by the melting of the permafrost.

Hillman believes society has failed to challenge the supremacy of the car.
Hillman believes society has failed to challenge the supremacy of the car. Photograph: Lenscap / Alamy Stock Photo/Alamy Stock Photo

Hillman is amazed that our thinking rarely stretches beyond 2100. “This is what I find so extraordinary when scientists warn that the temperature could rise to 5C or 8C. What, and stop there? What legacies are we leaving for future generations? In the early 21st century, we did as good as nothing in response to climate change. Our children and grandchildren are going to be extraordinarily critical.”

Global emissions were static in 2016 but the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was confirmed as beyond 400 parts per million, the highest level for at least three million years (when sea levels were up to 20m higher than now). Concentrations can only drop if we emit no carbon dioxide whatsoever, says Hillman. “Even if the world went zero-carbon today that would not save us because we’ve gone past the point of no return.”

Although Hillman has not flown for more than 20 years as part of a personal commitment to reducing carbon emissions, he is now scornful of individual action which he describes as “as good as futile”. By the same logic, says Hillman, national action is also irrelevant “because Britain’s contribution is minute. Even if the government were to go to zero carbon it would make almost no difference.”

Instead, says Hillman, the world’s population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of our economy – and reduce our human population too. Can it be done without a collapse of civilisation? “I don’t think so,” says Hillman. “Can you see everyone in a democracy volunteering to give up flying? Can you see the majority of the population becoming vegan? Can you see the majority agreeing to restrict the size of their families?”

Hillman doubts that human ingenuity can find a fix and says there is no evidence that greenhouse gases can be safely buried. But if we adapt to a future with less – focusing on Hillman’s love and music – it might be good for us. “And who is ‘we’?” asks Hillman with a typically impish smile. “Wealthy people will be better able to adapt but the world’s population will head to regions of the planet such as northern Europe which will be temporarily spared the extreme effects of climate change. How are these regions going to respond? We see it now. Migrants will be prevented from arriving. We will let them drown.”

A small band of artists and writers, such as Paul Kingsnorth’s Dark Mountain project, have embraced the idea that “civilisation” will soon end in environmental catastrophe but only a few scientists – usually working beyond the patronage of funding bodies, and nearing the end of their own lives – have suggested as much. Is Hillman’s view a consequence of old age, and ill health? “I was saying these sorts of things 30 years ago when I was hale and hearty,” he says.

Hillman accuses all kinds of leaders – from religious leaders to scientists to politicians – of failing to honestly discuss what we must do to move to zero-carbon emissions. “I don’t think they can because society isn’t organised to enable them to do so. Political parties’ focus is on jobs and GDP, depending on the burning of fossil fuels.”

Without hope, goes the truism, we will give up. And yet optimism about the future is wishful thinking, says Hillman. He believes that accepting that our civilisation is doomed could make humanity rather like an individual who recognises he is terminally ill. Such people rarely go on a disastrous binge; instead, they do all they can to prolong their lives.

Can civilisation prolong its life until the end of this century? “It depends on what we are prepared to do.” He fears it will be a long time before we take proportionate action to stop climatic calamity. “Standing in the way is capitalism. Can you imagine the global airline industry being dismantled when hundreds of new runways are being built right now all over the world? It’s almost as if we’re deliberately attempting to defy nature. We’re doing the reverse of what we should be doing, with everybody’s silent acquiescence, and nobody’s batting an eyelid.”




Climate, Energy, Economy: Pick Two

7 07 2016

Another darn good read from Raul Ilargi of Automatic Earth…..


We used to have this saying that if someone asks you to do a job good, fast and cheap, you’d say: pick two. You can have it good and cheap, but then it won’t be fast, etc. As our New Zealand correspondent Dr. Nelson Lebo III explains below, when it comes to our societies we face a similar issue with our climate, energy and the economy.

Not the exact same, but similar, just a bit more complicated. You can’t have your climate nice and ‘moderate’, your energy cheap and clean, and your economy humming along just fine all at the same time. You need to make choices. That’s easy to understand.

Where it gets harder is here: if you pick energy and economy as your focus, the climate suffers (for climate you can equally read ‘the planet’, or ‘the ecosystem’). Focus on climate and energy, and the economy plunges. So far so ‘good’.

But when you emphasize climate and economy, you get stuck. There is no way the two can be ‘saved’ with our present use of fossil fuels, and our highly complex economic systems cannot run on renewables (for one thing, the EROEI is not nearly good enough).

It therefore looks like focusing on climate and economy is a dead end. It’s either/or. Something will have to give, and moreover, many things already have. Better be ahead of the game if you don’t want to be surprised by these things. Be resilient.

But this is Nelson’s piece, not mine. The core of his argument is worth remembering:

Everything that is not resilient to high energy prices and extreme weather events will become economically unviable…

…and approach worthlessness. On the other hand,…

Investments of time, energy, and money in resilience will become more economically valuable…

Here’s Nelson:



Nelson Lebo: There appear to be increasing levels of anxiety among environmental activists around the world and in my own community in New Zealand. After all, temperature records are being set at a pace equal only to that of Stephen Curry and LeBron James in the NBA Finals. A recent Google news headline said it all: “May is the 8th consecutive month to break global temperature records.”

In other words, October of last year set a record for the highest recorded global monthly temperature, and then it was bettered by November, which was bettered by December, January, and on through May. The hot streak is like that of Lance Armstrong’s Tour De France dominance, but we all know how that turned out in the end.

Making history – like the Irish rugby side in South Africa recently – is usually a time to celebrate. Setting a world record would normally mean jubilation – not so when it comes to climate.

Responses to temperature records range from sorrow, despair, anger, and even fury. Anyone with children or grandchildren (and even the childless) who believes in peer review and an overwhelming scientific consensus has every right to feel these emotions. So why do I feel only resignation?

We are so far down the track at this point that we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Remember the warnings 30 years ago that we needed 30 years to make the transition to a low carbon economy or else there would be dire consequences? Well, in case you weren’t paying attention, it didn’t happen.

While these warnings were being issued by scientists much of the world doubled down – Trump-like – on Ford Rangers, Toyota Tacomas, and other sport utility vehicles. The same appears to be happening now, with the added element that we are experiencing the dire consequences as scientists issue even more warnings and drivers buy even more ‘light trucks’. Forget Paris, the writing was on the wall at Copenhagen.


The bottom line is that most people will (and currently do) experience climate change as a quality of life issue, and quality of life is related to a certain extent to disposable income. Acting or not acting proactively or reactively on climate change is expensive and gets more expensive every day.

If the international community ever takes collective action on climate change it will make individuals poorer because the cost of energy will rise significantly. If the international community fails to act, individuals will be made poorer because of the devastating effects of extreme weather events – like last year’s historic floods where I live as well as in northern England, etc – shown to be on the increase over the last 40 years in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers with verifiable data.

And here is the worst part: most economies around the world rely on some combination of moderate climate and cheap fossil fuels. For example, our local economy is heavily dependent on agriculture and tourism, making it exceptionally vulnerable to both acting AND not acting on climate change.

Drought hurts rural economies and extreme winds and rainfall can cost millions in crop damage as well as repairs to fencing, tracks and roads. As a result, both farmers and ratepayers have fewer dollars in their pockets to spend on new shoes, a night out, or a family trip. This is alongside living in a degraded environment post-disaster. The net result is a negative impact on quality of life: damned if we don’t.

On the other hand, tourism relies on inexpensive jet fuel and petrol to get the sightseers and thrill seekers to and around the world with enough dollars left over to slosh around local economies. Think about all of the service sector jobs that rely on tourism that in turn depend entirely on a continuous supply of cheap fuel. (This is not to mention peak oil and the lack of finance available to fund any long and expensive transition to an alternative energy world.) I’m told 70% of US jobs are in the service sector, most of which rely on inexpensive commuting and/or a highly mobile customer base.

Any significant approach to curbing carbon emissions in the short term will result in drastic increases to energy prices. The higher the cost of a trip from A to Z the less likely it is to be made. As a result, business owners and ratepayers at Z will have fewer dollars in their pockets to spend on new shoes, a night out, or a family vacation of their own. The net result is a negative impact on their quality of life: damned if we do.


I suppose it deserves repeating: most OECD economies and the quality of life they bring rely on both moderate climate and cheap fossil fuels, but these are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, regardless of emissions decisions made by the international community, we are already on track for decades of temperature records and extreme weather events that will cost billions if not trillions of dollars.

The response in many parts of the world has been to protest. That’s cool, but you can’t protest a drought – the drought does not care. You can’t protest a flood – the flood does not care. And even if the protests are successful at influencing government policies – which I hope long-term they are – we are still on track for decades of climatic volatility and the massive price tags for clean up and repair.

Go ahead and protest, people, but you better get your house in order at the same time, and that means build resilience in every way, shape and form.

Resilience is the name of the game, and I was impressed with Kyrie Irving’s post NBA game seven remarks that the Cleveland Cavaliers demonstrated great resilience as a team.

As I wrote here at TAE over a year ago, Resilience Is The New Black. If you don’t get it you’re not paying attention.

This article received a wide range of responses from those with incomplete understandings of the situation as well as those in denial – both positions dangerous for their owners as well as friends and neighbours.

The double bind we find ourselves in by failing to address the issue three decades ago is a challenge to put it mildly. Smart communities recognize challenges and respond accordingly. The best response is to develop resilience in the following areas: ecological, equity, energy and economic.

The first two of these I call the “Pope Index” because Francis has identified climate change and wealth inequality as the greatest challenges facing humanity. Applying the Pope Index to decision making is easy – simply ask yourself if decisions made in your community aggravate climate change and wealth inequality or alleviate them.

For the next two – energy and economics – I take more of a Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight (credit, Thom Hartmann) perspective that I think is embraced by many practicing permaculturists. Ancient sunlight (fossil fuels) is on its way out and if we do not use some to build resilient infrastructure on our properties and in our communities it will all be burned by NASCAR, which in my opinion would be a shame.

As time passes, everything that is not resilient to high energy prices and extreme weather events will become economically unviable and approach worthlessness.

On the other hand, investments of time, energy, and money in resilience will become more economically valuable as the years pass.

Additionally, the knowledge, skills and experience gained while developing resilience are the ultimate in ‘job security’ for an increasingly volatile future.

If you know it and can do it and can teach it you’ll be sweet. If not, get onto it before it’s too late.


6 07 2016

15 Realities of our Global Environmental Crisis

By Deep Green Resistance

  1. Industrial civilization is not, and can never be, sustainable.

Any social system based on the use of non-renewable resources is by definition unsustainable. Non-renewable means it will eventually run out. If you hyper-exploit your non-renewable surroundings, you will deplete them and die. Even for your renewable surroundings like trees, if you exploit them faster than they can regenerate, you will deplete them and die. This is precisely what civilization has been doing for its 10,000-year campaign – running through soil, rivers, and forests as well as metal, coal, and oil.

  1. Industrial civilization is causing a global collapse of life.

Due to industrial civilization’s insatiable appetite for growth, we have exceeded the planet’s carrying capacity. Once the carrying capacity of an area is surpassed, the ecological community is severely damages, and the longer the overshoot lasts, the worse the damage, until the population eventually collapses. This collapse is happening now. Every 24 hours up to 200 species become extinct. 90% of the large fish in the oceans are gone. 98% of native forests, 99% of wetlands, and 99% of native grasslands have been wiped out.


  1. Industrial civilization is based on and requires ongoing systematic violence to operate.

This way of life is based on the perceived right of the powerful to take whatever resources they want. All land on which industrial civilization is now based on land that was taken by force from its original inhabitants, and shaped using processes – industrial forestry, mining, smelting – that violently shape the world to industrial ends. Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell resources on which their communities and homes are based and do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources – gold, oil, and so on – can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to acquire these resources by any means necessary. Resource extraction cannot be accomplished without force and exploitation.

  1. In order for the world as we know it to exist on a day-to-day basis, a vast and growing degree of destruction and death must occur.

Industrialization is a process of taking entire communities of living beings and turning them into commodities and dead zones. Trace every industrial artifact back to its source­ and you find the same devastation: mining, clear-cuts, dams, agriculture, and now tar sands, mountaintop removal, and wind farms. These atrocities, and others like them, happen all around us, every day, just to keep things running normally. There is no kinder, greener version of industrial civilization that will do the trick of leaving us a living planet.

  1. This way of being is not natural.

Humans and their immediate evolutionary predecessors lived sustainably for at least a million years. It is not “human nature” to destroy one’s habitat. The “centralization of political power, the separation of classes, the lifetime division of labor, the mechanization of production, the magnification of military power, the economic exploitation of the weak, and the universal introduction of slavery and forced labor for both industrial and military purposes”[1] are only chief features of civilization, and are constant throughout its history.

  1. Industrial civilization is only possible with cheap energy.

The only reason industrial processes such as large-scale agriculture and mining even function is because of cheap oil; without that, industrial processes go back to depending on slavery and serfdom, as in most of the history of civilization.

  1. Peak oil, and hence the era of cheap oil, has passed.

Peak oil is the point at which oil production hits its maximum rate. Peak oil has passed and extraction will decline from this point onwards. This rapid decline in the availability of global energy will result in increasing economic disruption and upset. The increasing cost and decreasing supply of energy will undermine manufacturing and transportation and cause global economic turmoil. Individuals, companies, and even states will go bankrupt. International trade will nosedive because of a global depression. The poor will be unable to cope with the increasing cost of basic goods, and eventually the financial limits will result in large-scale energy-intensive manufacturing becoming impossible – resulting in, among other things – the collapse of agricultural infrastructure, and the associated transportation and distribution network.

At this point in time, there are no good short-term outcomes for global human society. The collapse of industrial civilization is inevitable, with or without our input, it’s just a matter of time. The problem is that every day the gears of this destructive system continue grinding is another day it wages war on the natural world. With up to 200 species and more than 80,000 acres of rainforest being wiped out daily as just some of the atrocities occurring systematically to keep our lifestyles afloat, the sooner this collapse is induced the better.

  1. “Green technologies” and “renewable energy” are not sustainable and will not save the planet.

Solar panels and wind turbines aren’t made out of nothing.  These “green” technologies are made out of metals, plastics, and chemicals. These products have been mined out of the ground, transported vast distances, processed and manufactured in big factories, and require regular maintenance. Each of these stages causes widespread environmental destruction, and each of these stages is only possible with the mass use of cheap energy from fossil fuels. Neither fossil fuels nor mined minerals will ever be sustainable; by definition, they will run out. Even recycled materials must undergo extremely energy-intensive production processes before they can be reused.[2]


  1. Personal consumption habits will not save the planet.

Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption for organized political resistance. Personal consumption habits — changing light bulbs, going vegan, shorter showers, recycling, taking public transport — have nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet. Besides, 90% of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. Three quarters of energy is consumed and 95% of waste is produced by commercial, industrial, corporate, agricultural and military industries. By blaming the individual, we are accepting capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers, reducing our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming.

  1. There will not be a mass voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living.

The current material systems of power make any chance of significant social or political reform impossible. Those in power get too many benefits from destroying the planet to allow systematic changes which would reduce their privilege. Keeping this system running is worth more to them than the human and non-human lives destroyed by the extraction, processing, and utilization of natural resources.

  1. We are afraid.

The primary reason we don’t resist is because we are afraid. We know if we act decisively to protect the places and creatures we love or if we act decisively to stop corporate exploitation of the poor, that those in power will come down on us with the full power of the state. We can talk all we want about how we live in a democracy, and we can talk all we want about the consent of the governed. But what it really comes down to is that if you effectively oppose the will of those in power, they will try to kill you. We need to make that explicit so we can face the situation we’re in: those in power are killing the planet and they are exploiting the poor, and we are not stopping them because we are afraid. This is how authoritarian regimes and abusers work: they make their victims and bystanders afraid to act.

  1. If we only fight within the system, we lose.

Things will not suddenly change by using the same approaches we’ve been using for the past 30 years. When nothing is working to stop or even slow the destruction’s acceleration, then it is time to change your strategy. Until now, most of our tactics and discourse (whether civil disobedience, writing letters and books, carrying signs, protecting small patches of forest, filing lawsuits, or conducting scientific research) remain firmly embedded in whatever actions are authorized by the overarching structures that permit the destruction in the first place.


  1. Dismantling industrial civilization is the only rational, permanent solution.

Our strategies until now have failed because neither our violent nor nonviolent responses are attempts to rid us of industrial civilization itself. By allowing the framing conditions to remain, we guarantee a continuation of the behaviors these framing conditions necessitate. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The longer we wait for civilization to crash – or we ourselves bring it down – the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.

  1. Militant resistance works.

Study of past social insurgencies and resistance movements shows that specific types of asymmetric warfare strategies are extremely effective.

  1. We must build a culture of resistance.

Some things, including a living planet, that are worth fighting for at any cost, when other means of stopping the abuses have been exhausted. One of the good things about industrial civilization being so ubiquitously destructive, is that no matter where you look – no matter what your gifts, no matter where your heart lies – there’s desperately important work to be done. Some of us need to file timber sales appeals and lawsuits. Some need to help family farmers or work on other sustainable agriculture issues. Some need to work on rape crisis hot lines, or at battered women’s shelters. Some need to work on fair trade, or on stopping international trade altogether. Some of us need to take down dams, oil pipelines, mining equipment, and electrical infrastructure. [NOTE: I am NOT in favor of taking down dams…]

We need to fight for what we love, fight harder than we have ever thought we could fight, because the bottom line is that any option in which industrial civilization remains, results in a dead planet.


Parts of this article were drawn from Deep Green Resistance: A Strategy to Save the Planet, by Aric McBay, Lierre Keith, and Derrick Jensen.

[1] Lewis Mumford, Myth of the Machine, Volume 2,  Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970, page 186.

[2] Recycled materials also usually degrade over time, limiting their recycling potential.

Why I chose Nickel Iron Batteries……

13 03 2016

When I first started spruiking the long life capability of Nickel Iron batteries, I quoted an internet source that claimed these had actually lasted 100 years and were still going. Such claims are of course difficult to check, but then, out of the blue, this paper written by Peter J. DeMar from Battery Research and Testing Inc, Oswego, NY, USA turned up on my FaceBook page…..  never belittle FB for anything, it’s how you use it that matters, not how other people do…!

Then out of the blue, Geoff Lawton and Mike Haydon (the chap who sold me my Victron inverter) put this video together……

I put the above link to that paper on my last NiFe battery post, but then thought this was so significant, it needed airing properly here.

This all but forgotten technology has a very important place to occupy with users that desire very long life and the ability to suffer abuse in their battery systems, especially in a post collapse world where buying replacement batteries will be nigh impossible.

My son the scientist was so impressed with this, and as he will be in charge of looking after this system after I’m long gone, he googled how to make the Potassium Hydroxide electrolyte, and contacted me to say it was a piece of cake, and, that apple wood is among the best to make lye!

EDIT: Since writing this post, I have gone to a biochar workshop where I learned how to make lye. Our battery system is also up and running, and you can see it here.

Read on…….


This paper is going to look at real life aged 80+ year old Nickel-Iron cells that are still functional and will explain the simple recovery techniques that were documented in an original Edison Alkaline Storage Battery brochure from the 1920’s. Some of the cells had been charged intermittently, many had sat off charge for many years, and some had sat off charge and all but empty, but all made very substantial recoveries, and when subjected to discharge testing that followed the guidelines of the IEEE 1115 they all were able to pass load tests at their applicable rate.
The aim of this paper is to introduce this very old battery technology, which is over 100 years old, to those that have no idea that such a battery exists, or ever did exist. The majority of us are most familiar with various forms of lead acid, or nickel-cadmium as they were and still are the batteries of choice for most stationary applications, with Lithium Ion (in various forms) and other technologies gaining acceptance in many stationary applications. The cells that are reported on in this paper are real life aged
cells with an average age of 85 years, and the conditions that they were operated in and stored in were less than ideal. They spent the last approximately 60 years in a wooden shed, at a hunting lodge in the Adirondack Mountains, with temperatures from below -18C to above 32C. They were charged intermittently and often sat in a partial or full discharged state for weeks or months or years, at a time. Their function was to provide lighting to the lodge.

Waldemar Jungner of Sweden created the first Nickel-Iron battery in the late 1890’s and has multiple patents on the design. However he found that by substituting Cadmium
instead of Iron that he could improve the performance and efficiency of the cells, and he abandoned the development of the Nickel-Iron cell in favor of Nickel-Cadmium. There are
two patents for the Ni-Fe technology and one for the Ni-Cd technology in his name from 1899.

Thomas Edison believed that Ni-Fe could displace lead acid as the battery of choice and in 1901 obtained both a US and a European patent for his version of the technology. Edison
performed some very extensive testing on his cell designs to verify their hardiness for usage in RR applications, or electric automobiles (which he thought would replace internal
combustion engines), or material handling (tuggers and such). Two of my favorite tests that he created to demonstrate the durability of his Ni-Fe batteries are as follows.
He mounted a battery system on a cart and then the cart was rammed into a brick wall at 15 MPH and the battery had to survive 1,000 such shocks, which it did. My favorite test
though was where he hooked a cell to a motor driven pendulum and the device raised the cell 1⁄2” and dropped the cell onto a wooden platform. The cell survived 1, 776,000 such drops and then following that it passed a load test. (1) The Thomas Edison battery factory in West Orange New Jersey USA produced cells from 1903 to 1972 when it was sold to the Exide Battery Company (name at that time), which continued production until 1975 when the factory was closed.

Presently there are two companies that are still manufacturing Ni-Fe cells and they are Kursk Accumulator in Russia, and ChangHong Battery in China. It is our belief that this very old technology still has a place in the current market, where the user has a need for a very long life battery that can stand frequent cycling and abusive conditions. In America these are being offered for usage in the off grid market due to their long life and ability to withstand the daily repeated cycling, and setting in a partial state of  discharge for extended periods.

It has been stated that Thomas Edison boasted of a 100 year battery with his Nickel-Iron design, but I have not been able to successfully locate those exact words. Now that sounds like a pretty bold marketing statement, sort of like the original marketing words “Maintenance Free” when referring to VRLA cells. However our experience in testing these old Nickel Iron cells convinced us that it may not have been just boldness or
marketing on his part.

picture2As can be seen in the following picture of the three different cell sizes the two on the left are the A4H and the A8H, and the one on the right is an A8 cell. With our gaining access to a substantial number of Thomas Edison Alkaline cells in two different amp hour sizes (150 and 300AH) at the five hour rate, we had an opportunity to find out if there was any validity in a 100 year life statement. Our first task was to locate documentation on these cells, and we turned to the Internet to locate manuals, documents, specifications, etc (1,2). While locating different manuals was easy enough, we could not determine the serial number code that was stamped into the top of each cell, so we did not know the age of any of the cells. Luckily we finally reached out to Ole Vigerstol of Saft who contacted their Railroad Group people, who then provided us with the original Edison Date codes. And yes we did have cells that were all built between 1924 and 1931.

We also utilized installation and maintenance manuals from both Saft (3) and ChangHong (5) as guides or comparison purposes, to see if there were any major differences in their
instructions from the Edison manuals. While there were some differences none of the differences were of any great concern. When we received the cells they were in various conditions of charge, or fill, or just plain cleanliness. It must be understood the majority of these cells had been setting off charge in various states for many years.

picture1This shows the general condition of some of the cells as we received them. These originally were coated with a rubber like paint compound which was named Esbalite which is described in the Edison manuals as a special insulating paint. This coating covered the sides and the bottom, but none was on the top of any cell. However during the cleaning process of the cells, the
coating came off and we have not yet determined what we will use as a coating, so for our experiments we used wood spacers to maintain separation between the cells.picture3

The following picture shows the carbonate build up that we found in some of the cells, which of course has a severe impact on the cells performance.

We randomly took cells of the same AH rating and made up different battery strings, and in some cases we took single cells and with each we boost charged and then float charged at the voltages that were stated in a 1916 Thomas Edison manual and then followed up with load testing at the full published five hour rate. All of the cells or battery strings failed miserably.Our as found individual cell voltages ranged from 0.06 of a volt to 1.36 volts. We attributed this wide of a voltage spread to the fact that some cells had been on charge just prior to our receiving them and some had been off charge for months or
years. Some were filled with electrolyte and some were empty or nearly so. manufactures
Nickel-Cadmium cells, ChangHong manufacturers both Nickel-Cadmium and Nickel-Iron, and of course the Edison cells are all Nickel-Iron. The common denominators are the Nickel and the Potassium Hydroxide electrolyte. We decided to follow Edison’s procedure since the cells were Edison cells.

The following is from one string of A8 cells and is an example of the age of the cells, and the as found open circuit voltages. As can be seen in this battery the age of the cells range from 1926 to 1930 with a voltage spread from 0.005 to 1.356. It is easy to see which cells have been sitting around the longest and which ones were recently on charge. After the electrolyte replacement we placed the cells back on float and then boost charged at 1.65 VPC followed by a return to float at 1.49 volts per cell and then further load tests.

The following shows the same cells as the previous chart, but with the respective float voltages following 100 hours of boost charging, and then being on float charge for about six weeks.

While experimenting with these cells we realized that even though the voltage would rapidly drop off in a matter of minutes when we tried to run a load test at the full published rate of the particular cell or battery, that if we lowered the discharge rate, the battery would hold voltage for a substantially longer amount of time, even though the best string would only support a 10 amp load for 22 minutes to an end voltage of 12.0 volts.

Throughout our testing we followed the instructions in the Edison manuals, and following those instructions we decided to replace the electrolyte. We obtained new electrolyte from
Saft as they are a major supplier of Nickel-Cadmium batteries and the Potassium Hydroxide that they use is the same as what is utilized in the Nickel-Iron batteries. Both Saft and ChangHong also provide instructions that explain that when the capacity drops off and boost charging does not return desirable results, that the electrolyte needs to be replaced.

A discrepancy that we discovered between the three manufacturers (Edison, Saft, and ChangHong) is that during the electrolyte replacement procedures, Edison states to pour out about half of the old electrolyte then to shake the cell vigorously and then to pour out the remaining electrolyte, but to not rinse with any water, and then to fill with new
electrolyte. Changhong says to pour out the old electrolyte and to shake it, and if the electrolyte is dirty in color to rinse it with distilled water two or three times, and then to fill with new electrolyte. Saft says to carefully pour out the old electrolyte and then to fill with new. This was the only real difference that we found between the three manufacturers. Of course Saft manufactures Nickel-Cadmium cells, ChangHong
manufactures both Nickel-Cadmium and Nickel-Iron, and of course the Edison cells are all Nickel-Iron. The common denominators are the Nickel and the Potassium Hydroxide
electrolyte. We decided to follow Edison’s procedure since the cells were Edison cells.








There were three different model cells that we had received and played with. There were models A4H, A8, and A8H cells. The H in any model just means that the cell is the same AH rating but it has more electrolyte reservoir and is approximately 7.6 Centimeters taller than the cells that do not have the H in their model number. The H designated cells were to be used in applications where there longer time periods between maintenance intervals.
With the three battery strings that we are reporting on here, we utilized the five hour rating from the Edison manual, and we used the end voltage of 1.0 VPC, also from the Edison manual.

The published rate for the A4H cells is 30 amps for five hours to an end voltage of 1.0 volt.
The published rate for the A8 and A8H cells is 60 amps for  five hours to 1.0 volt.

We are trying to learn if the Edison Alkaline cells that we had would indeed function at their advanced ages. But there is no existing standard to follow as a guide, so we decided to
utilize the IEEE 1106 (4) since it is for Nickel-Cadmium cells and the only primary difference between the two types is the Cadmium content in place of the Iron, otherwise they are Nickel and Potassium hydroxide.With our main goal being to determine if these cells or batteries would work reliably at their extended ages, and not to prove a specific capacity we decided to utilize the 1% per year aging factor from annex E of the IEEE 1106 .
With cell ages ranging from 80 to 87 years of age and an average of 85 years we decided to be conservative and used an aging factor of 0.2 which would reflect a 1% per year de-rating
factor for an 80 year old cell. With that decision made we made we settled on the following discharge rates. As you will notice we used the same five hour rate for the two different
models, even though one was a 150 AH model and two were 300 AH models. We do not yet understand why the A4H cells performed so much better than the A8 and A8H cells. We are suspecting that it was due to the fact that the A4H string had many more discharge/recharge sequences than either of the other strings, but only time will tell if the A8 and A8H strings continue to improve over time and cycling.
A8 and A8H cells used a 15 amp rate to 1.0 VPC

The following charts show the load test results at various times over the past approximately twelve months on all three of the strings. All of the load tests were run at the five hour rates to 1.0 VPC. As can be seen, the load tests that were run before we replaced the electrolyte were somewhat dismal, however as you will see in the load tests that were run after the electrolyte had been replaced were substantially improved, and then by the last load tests which were all performed in July 2011 there was further improvement.
Run time in minutes of the A4H string at 15 amp load A4H cells used a 15 amp rate to 1.0 VPC, where as if we used a 0.2 aging factor the rate would have been 6 amps. We made up one twelve cell string from the A8 cells, another twelve cell string from the A8H cells and an 18 cell string from the A4H cells. Each was placed upon its own charger. We utilized a varying range of float voltages at different times as part of this experiment. Primarily we kept the voltage between 1.47 and 1.5 but did sometimes go up to 1.57 volts per cell and 1.65 up to 1.85 when we equalized or boost charged. These voltages came out of the Edison manual and the float voltage corresponds to that recommended by both ChangHong and by Saft.
Chart 1. This chart shows the increase in run time with this battery with a 15
amp load.
As can be seen in the following charts, with each battery string there was some amount of run time under load but it was not until we replaced the electrolyte and then ran a number of discharge and recharge scenarios that the run time really returned. While we could not get any strings to recover to a level where they could support their full published rates, it was encouraging that they could support an age related reduced discharge rate for a full five hours. In each chart the left hand column is the original as found run time, with boost and float charging but no electrolyte replacements.

The middle column is after electrolyte replacement and boost charging and from float voltage. The green line is after some number of discharges and boost charges and also is from a float condition. Run time in minutes of the A8 string at 15 amp load
Chart 2. This chart shows the increase in run time with this battery with a 15 amp load.
Chart 3 is the string that is made up of the A8H cells.That these 80+ year old cells are still functional proves without any doubt that Nickel-Iron is a long lived design, now it will just take another 15 years to see if they will still be functioning at 100 years of age as Thomas Edison is supposed  to have declared.

This find of these old Thomas Edison Nickel-Iron cells has been quite an education for us at Battery Research and Testing, as our work for the past 29 years has been primarily
with lead acid and some Nickel-Cadmium, but with nothing of the age of these cells. In fact the oldest lead acid cells that we have load tested and that were still functional were old Exide Manchex strings that were 42 years old, and it appears that the only existing lead acid cells that might be able to be functional at 40 years of age are the Bell developed round cells for Telecom applications.

What we have learned has opened up our minds to explore possibilities for this design long life design cell. It would sure seem that any site that has a requirement for a long life battery that will tolerate abusive conditions would consider the total life costs of these type cells and see which works out to be the most cost effective.

I have approached the IEEE Battery Working Group to have Nickel-Iron included in the IEEE 1106 and IEEE 1115 documents during the recent re-affirmation process, but it was
decided to not include Nickel-Iron in those documents at this time. It would seem that since the IEEE 450 and IEEE 485 documents cover all of the different Vented Lead Acid designs such as Lead Antimony, Lead Selenium, Plante, or Lead Calcium which all use sulfuric Acid, that the IEEE 1106 and IEEE 1115 which covers Nickel-Cadmium cells which also uses Potassium Hydroxide as the electrolyte could easily have been expanded to include the Nickel-Iron cells.

I would like to extend a special thank you to Weston Mitchell of the Fayetteville Hunting Club for providing us a chance to learn about Nickel-Iron cells and these specific pieces of the Thomas Edison history. If it had not been for his environmental consciousness, we would not have our eyes opened to this very durable battery technology that is all but
forgotten here in the US. Also thanks need to go to Bob Howland and Jim Miner of Battery Research for their  assistance and technicians time to perform the various assembly of the strings and testing. And last but not least, thanks to Ole Vigerstol and Jim McDowall from Saft for their assistance and comments, as well as to Sam Zhow from Sichuan Changhong Battery Company for his support.

1. General Information and Instructions for the Operation and Care of the Edison Alkaline Storage Battery. Edison Publication Bulletin 850X.
2. The Edison Alkaline Storage Battery. By the technical staff of the Edison Storage Battery Company. For the National Education Association Joint-Committee Series Monograph
III. Document 804. Copyright 1916. From the University of Michigan Libraries. Digitized by Google.
3. Saft Installation and operating instructions for single cell Ni-Cd, models SCL, SCM, and SCH plastic case cells.
4. IEEE Std. 1106. IEEE Recommended Practice for Installation, Maintenance, Testing, and Replacement of Nickel-Cadmium Batteries for Stationary Applications.
5. ChangHong Battery Performance Data Manual. ChangHong Battery Operation and Maintenance Manual.

How Unsustainable is PV Solar Power?

27 10 2015

Hot on the heels of yesterday’s post about renewables being unable to even keep up with the growth of the internet’s energy consumption, along come a couple of other articles I just had to share…..

From Low Tech Magazine yet again is an article about the mushy numbers used to ‘prove’ PVs are the way to go in the future. Most followers of this blog will already know how I feel about this, however, this item has some interesting factoids I was not aware of that make a most interesting point.

Lower costs have spurred an increase in solar PV installments. According to the Renewables 2014 Global Status Report, a record of more than 39 gigawatt (GW) of solar PV capacity was added in 2013, which brings total (peak) capacity worldwide to 139 GW at the end of 2013. While this is not even enough to generate 1% of global electricity demand, the growth is impressive. Almost half of all PV capacity in operation today was added in the past two years (2012-2013). In 2014, an estimated 45 GW was added, bringing the total to 184 GW.

Solar PV total global capacitySolar PV total global capacity, 2004-2013. Source: Renewables 2014 Global Status Report.

According to these numbers, electricity generated by photovoltaic systems is 15 times less carbon-intensive than electricity generated by a natural gas plant (450 gCO2e/kWh), and at least 30 times less carbon-intensive than electricity generated by a coal plant (+1,000 gCO2e/kWh). The most-cited energy payback times (EPBT) for solar PV systems are between one and two years. It seems that photovoltaic power, around since the 1970s, is finally ready to take over the role of fossil fuels.

But, as the article goes to great lengths to explain, manufacturing has moved to China, and as was recently revealed, the biggest eighteen ships produce as much CO2 as all the cars in the world……… so shipping those panels (and inverters) from China to Australia, Europe, and the Americas is unbelievably polluting.

Less than 10 years ago, almost all solar panels were produced in Europe, Japan, and the USA. In 2013, Asia accounted for 87% of global production (up from 85% in 2012), with China producing 67% of the world total (62% in 2012). Europe’s share continued to fall, to 9% in 2013 (11% in 2012), while Japan’s share remained at 5% and the US share was only 2.6%.

Price of silicon solar cells wikipedia

Compared to Europe, Japan and the USA, the electric grid in China is about twice as carbon-intensive and about 50% less energy efficient. Because the manufacture of solar PV cells relies heavily on the use of electricity (for more than 95%) this means that in spite of the lower prices and the increasing efficiency, the production of solar cells has become more energy-intensive, resulting in longer energy payback times and higher greenhouse gas emissions. The geographical shift in manufacturing has made almost all life cycle analyses of solar PV panels obsolete, because they are based on a scenario of domestic manufacturing, either in Europe or in the United States.

Compared to the original manufacturing scenarios of Germany, Japan, Spain, and the USA, the carbon footprint and the energy payback time of Chinese PVs are almost doubled in the asian manufacturing scenario. The carbon footprint of the modules made in Spain (which has a cleaner grid than the average in Europe) is 37.3 and 31.8 gCO2e/kWh for mono-Si and multi-Si, respectively, while the energy payback times are 1.9 and 1.6 years. However, for the modules made in China, the carbon footprint is 72.2 and 69.2 gCO2e/kWh for mono-Si and multi-Si, respectively, while the energy payback times are 2.4 and 2.3 years.

Carbon footprints solar cells produced in china and europe

At least as important as the place of manufacturing is the place of installation. Considering that at the end of 2014, Germany had more solar PV installed than all Southern European nations combined, and twice as much as the entire United States, this number is not a worst-case scenario. It reflects the carbon intensity of most solar PV systems installed between 2009 and 2014. More critical researchers had already anticipated these results. A 2010 study refers to the 2008 consensus figure of 50 gCO2e/kWh mentioned above, and adds that “in less sunny locations, or in carbon-intensive economies, these emissions can be up to 2-4 times higher”. Taking the more recent figure of 30 gCO2e/kWh as a starting point, which reflects improvements in solar cell and manufacturing efficiency, this would be 60-120 gCO2e/kWh, which corresponds neatly with the numbers of the 2014 study.

Solar insolation in europe

Solar insolation in north america

Solar insolation in Europe and the USA. Source: SolarGIS.

So far, I expect most DTM readers already knew this….. but now for the clincher, and it’s growth, yet again totally unsustainable. The author calls this Energy cannibalism, a term I just love!

Solar PV electricity remains less carbon-intensive than conventional grid electricity, even when solar cells are manufactured in China and installed in countries with relatively low solar insolation. This seems to suggest that solar PV remains a good choice no matter where the panels are produced or installed. However, if we take into account the growth of the industry, the energy and carbon balance can quickly turn negative. That’s because at high growth rates, the energy and CO2 savings made by the cumulative installed capacity of solar PV systems can be cancelled out by the energy use and CO2 emissions from the production of new installed capacity.

For the deployment of solar PV systems to grow while remaining net greenhouse gas mitigators, they must grow at a rate slower than the inverse of their CO2 payback time. For example, if the average energy and CO2 payback times of a solar PV system are four years and the industry grows at a rate of 25%, no net energy is produced and no greenhouse gas emissions are offset. If the growth rate is higher than 25%, the aggregate of solar PV systems actually becomes a net CO2 and energy sink. In this scenario, the industry expands so fast that the energy savings and GHG emissions prevented by solar PV systems are negated to fabricate the next wave of solar PV systems.

Several studies have undertaken a dynamic life cycle analysis of renewable energy technologies. The results — which are valid for the period between 1998 and 2008 — are very sobering for those that have put their hopes on the carbon mitigation potential of solar PV power. A 2009 paper, which takes into account the geographical distribution of global solar PV installations, sets the maximum sustainable annual growth rate at 23%, while the actual average annual growth rate of solar PV between 1998 and 2008 was 40%. [16] [21]

This means that the net CO2 balance of solar PV was negative for the period 1998-2008. Solar PV power was growing too fast to be sustainable, and the aggregate of solar panels actually increased GHG emissions and energy use. According to the paper, the net CO2 emissions of the solar PV industry during those 10 years accounted to 800,000 tonnes of CO2.

Which totally puts paid to the hopes of ‘green people’ wanting a quick transition from coal to PVs. The faster it happens, the worse greenhouse emissions are…… Is this the ultimate limit to growth? I find the irony almost too much to bear. I heartily recommend reading the article at its original source where all the facts and figures are referenced. It makes for sobering reading……..

But wait there’s more. Just last night on TV I saw an item on 7:30 on ABC TV showing some guy who built a modern mansion with all the bells and whistles, 300m from the grid. he claims it was going to cost $200,000 to connect to the grid (seems rather excessive to me…) so decided to go off the grid. The TV item was about how we will all go off the grid within ten years, and look at this guy’s amazing green bling…… four inverters no less! Anyone with four inverters is using four times too much power (and hence energy), and he proudly claimed to have batteries capable of backing the whole lot for…. three days. I can guarantee he will soon be disappointed. Anything less than a week would not suit me, I’d opt for ten days. But then again, I don’t need four inverters, we’ll only have one. Watch it here.

Why am I so certain he will be disappointed? Well Giles Parkinson and Sophie Vorrath are, like me, not convinced your average electricity consumer understands any of the dilemmas they face.

So for those of us left, and interested in battery storage as a means of saving money, how do the numbers stack up?

Before tackling those numbers, it is worth noting that the numbers for battery storage are more complex than they may first appear.

Making the economics work will depend on how much your household consumes and when, the size of your solar array, if any, and the local tariff structure. Then you have to consider how you will use that battery, and how the grid might use it to.

Because batteries are left lying around doing nothing much of the time, ‘the sweet spot’ for consumers lies in the range of 3.5to 5.0 kWh/day. Or less, I would add. And that, my friends, leaves out 90% of the electricity consumers as they stand right now. That Adelaide guy in the 7:30 show is well out of his league, and when he’ll have to replace his underworked Li ion batteries after just 10 years, if he can still get some, he will be wondering why his green bling is so expensive to keep running… and to top it all off, the article raves about what will happen way out to 2030, assuming that business as usual will continue forever, and that there will still be a grid to hook up to, unlike Gail Tverberg, the optimist!

15 ways to abandon the Matrix

1 05 2015

I am inspired by the very definition of self-reliance: to be reliant on one’s own capabilities, judgment, or resources. Ultimately, it is the epitome of independence and lays the groundwork of what we are all striving for – to live a life based on our personal principles and beliefs.

It is a concept rooted in the groundwork  that made America great. Being dependent on our own capabilities and resources helped create a strong, plentiful country for so long. That said, the existing country as it is now is entirely different than when it began.

Why Are We So Dependent?

It is much too complicated to get into how the “system” was created. That said, the purpose is to enslave through debt and to create an interdependence that will force you and your family to never truly find the freedom you are seeking. It manipulates and convinces you to continue purchasing as a sort of status symbol to make you think you are living the good life; while all along, it has enslaved you further. Wonder why we have all of these holidays where you have to buy gifts? The system needs to be fed and forces you into further enslavement. If you don’t buy into this facilitated spending spree, you are socially shamed.

Collectively speaking, the contribution from our easy lifestyle and comfort level has created rampant complacency and a population of dependent, self-entitled mediocres. We no longer count on our sound judgement, capabilities and resources. The system keeps everything in working order so we don’t have to depend on ourselves, and furthermore, don’t want to.  I realize that many of the readers here do not fall into this collectivism, as you see through the ideological facade and know that the system is fragile and can crumble.

Breaking away from the system is the only way to avoid the destruction of when it comes crumbling down. When you don’t feed into the manipulation tactics of the system, or enslave yourself to debt, and possess the necessary skills to sustain yourself and your family when large-scale or personal emergencies arise, you will be far better off than those who were dependent on the system. Those who lived during the Great Depression grew up in a time when self-reliance was bred into them and were able to deal with the blow of an economic depression much easier. Which side of this would you want to be on? Those who had the patience to learn the necessary skills, ended up surviving more favorably compared to others who went through the trying times of the Depression.

Develop Personal Dependence

Now is the time to get your hands dirty, to practice a new mindset, skills, make mistakes and keep learning. Developing personal dependence is no easy feat and requires resolute will power to continue on this long and rambling path. To achieve this you have to begin to break away from the confines of the system. You don’t have to run off to the woods to be the lone wolf. Simply by asking yourself, “Will your choices and the way you spend your time lead to more independence down the road, or will it lead to greater dependence?”, will help you gain a greater perspective into being self-reliant. As well, consider ignoring the convenient system altogether. This will help you to detach yourself from complacency and stretch your abilities and your mindset.

Most of us can’t move to an off grid location. We have responsibilities that keep us from doing so. Therefore, live according to what is best for you and your family (common sense, I know) and do what you can. My family and I moved to the rural countryside four years ago to pursue a more self-reliant lifestyle. We learned many lessons along the way and are proud of where we are. Am I 100% self-reliant? No. But, I am venturing closer to living more self-reliantly with each skill I learn. Many of my little homesteading, off-grid ventures can be read about here.

Here’s What You Can Do:

1. Inform Yourself – Understand that there are events on the horizon, some large-scale and some personal that could wreak havoc on your quest toward a self-reliant lifestyle. Informing yourself and planning for them will be your best in staying ahead of the issue.

4 Things You Must Eat to Avoid Malnutrition

Most Likely Ways to Die in a SHTF Event

End of an Era: Prospects Look Bleak For Slowing the Coming Food Crisis

Collapse Survivor: “There Was Little Room For Error… Either You Learn Fast Or End Up Dead”

The Perfect Storm: Grow Local or Grow Hungry?

GMO Labeling: Will Congress Keep Us in the DARK?

2. Learn Skills – When you can depend on your skills to support you and your family’s life, then the outside world doesn’t affect you as much. When large groups of people in a general area possess self-reliant skills, it makes your community stronger.

Doing the Stuff Network

10 Skills Necessary For Survival

49 Outdoor Skills and Projects to Try

As well, look into these DIY projects found on Ready Nutrition

3. Get Out of Debt – It is paramount that each of us begin actively practicing economic self-discipline. Many believe that because of the ease in money confiscations from the banks, you shouldn’t have all of your money stashed there. Diversifying your money and investing in long-term ways to preserve your wealth will ensure you have multiple ways to pay the bills.

How To Break Up With Your Bank

Buy Commodities at Today’s Lower Prices, Consume at Tomorrow’s Higher Prices

Money and Wealth Preservation During Times of Uncertainty and Instability

How to Use Ebay to Find the Most Affordable Silver

Silver Bullion or Junk Silver for Long-term Bartering?

5 Reasons Why There Is Security In Seeds

4. Store food – Having a supply of food to subsist on in times of dire circumstances ensures that you are not dependent on having your basic needs met by someone else. This gives you the control of what food to put in your body and how you want to live.

25 Must Have Survival Foods: Put Them In Your Pantry Now

11 Emergency Food Items That Can Last a Lifetime

Best Practices For Long Term Food Storage

Meet Your Emergency Food’s Worst Enemies

Buy The Prepper’s Cookbook

Creating a Bug Out Meal Plan

 5. Start raising your own food – With the high prices of meat at the store these  days, many are turning to raising their own meat sources. Rabbits, chickens and fish can easily be started in backyard homesteads.

How Micro Livestock Can Be Used For Suburban and Rural Sustainability

What to Feed Your Livestock

Child-Friendly Livestock

Waste Not, Want Not: How To Use EVERY Single Part Of An Animal

 6. Prepare for emergencies – Preparing for the unlikely emergencies is a way to insulate yourself from the aftermath. The simplest way to begin preparing is to prepare for the most likely events that can affect you, and go from there.

FREE Emergency Preparedness Guide: 52-Weeks to Preparedness

Anatomy of a Breakdown

SHTF Survival: 10 Survival Tools That Should Be In Your Survival Pack

5 Reasons You Should be Preparing

Buy The Prepper’s Blueprint: A Step-By-Step Guide to Prepare You For Any Disaster

Six Ways You Can Keep Yourself Alive With Animal Bones

7. Repurpose – We must take steps to stop being a throw away society and get back to a population who makes do with what they have.

50 Things You Should Stop Buying and Start Making

5 Ways to Make Candles from Household Items

Survival Uses for Household Items

SHTF Planning: 7 Ways to Use The Items Around You To Adapt and Survive

Composting 101

8. Make Your Own Supplies – You have everything around you to survive, but many can’t look outside of the box to see how they can use what they have to survive. Having versatile preparedness supplies saves space and can serve multiple uses that can double up as ingredients to make soaps, medical supplies, etc.

Make soap

3 Ways to Naturally Make Yeast

10 Dehydrator Meals for Your Prepper Pantry

Make Your Own MREs

SHTF Survival: How to Prevent Infections

7 Kitchen Essentials That Deserve To Be On Your Preparedness Shelves

9. Use Up What You Already Have or Find Another Use – Being self-reliant means using up what already have. This is a crucial principle of being self-dependent. Saving leftover construction supplies, food, clothing, etc., can be reused for another day.

Why Everyone Should Have a Rag Bag

8 Slow Cooker Meals Made From Leftovers

10 Household Products You Never Have To Buy Again

Complementing Your Food Storage Pantry with Dehydrated Foods

Five Essential Tools for Fixing Your Clothes on the Cheap

10. Live More Naturally – Life is chaotic these days and many of us feel we have to keep up with everyone else. It’s time to forget that and start living more simply and naturally.

Simply Simplify

 7 Off Grid Projects for Survivalists

Self-Reliance in 4 Steps

Five Eco Friendly Alternatives For Emergency Preparedness

11. Grow Your Own Medicine – With the vast medical advancements in the Western world, we are turning our backs on the first medicine – natural medicine. It’s time we begun exploring a more mindful, natural existence.

30 Most Popular Herbs for Natural Medicine

Step-By-Step Guide to Making Colloidal Silver

Essential Oils for SHTF Medical Care

How to Make Dakin’s Solution for SHTF Medical Care

12. Grow Your Own Food – The cost of making healthy decisions about the food we put into our body is eating our budgets alive. We want the very best foods for our family, but buying solely organic products can be costly. All the while, you are questioning the legitimacy of this produce. Is it genetically modified? Where was this grown? Was it exposed to salmonella or another food-borne pathogens? What was the type of water used to grow it? There comes a time when you want to throw your hands up and shout, “That’s it, I’m doing this myself.”

7 Laws of Gardening

25 Survival Seeds You Need For Your Garden

10 Foods You Should Not Feed Your Chickens

Medicinal Plants for the Survival Garden

6 Essential Food Types To Grow Your Own Food Pantry

Make Your Own Herbal Tea Blends

13. Be Flexible – I often tell those who are preparing that the single most important thing you can do is continue to be flexible in your preparedness efforts. Doing so gives you leeway in your planning and backup planning, as well as helps you move more fluidly through the aftermath. This concept can be applied in non-emergencies, as well. Self-reliance can help us be more flexible in our life and our decisions.

 Survival of the Most Adaptable

8 Prepper Principles For a Prepared Mind

Blending In: The Secret to Keeping The Target Off Your Back

5 Survivor Traits That Make a Prepper Successful

5 Steps to Become the Smartest Person in the Woods

14. Barter Better – Bartering for goods and services was the first currency that went around. Let’s be honest, everyone is up for a good deal. Using self-reliant skills, you can use these as leverage in bartering. As well, having a surplus of survival/preparedness items can also help you make good bartering deals.

The Barter Value of Skills

A Free Falling Economy Makes Bartering Go Boom

100 Must Have Survival Items

15. Teach Your Kids – We must teach our children how to be more mindful and self-reliant. After all, we do not want to continue the cycle of having a dependent, self-entitled population. By informing them, we are setting them upon a self-sustaining path for life.

 How Farmers Markets Can Teach Your Kids the Values of Local Food and Community Building

*  *  *

We must come to the understanding that there is no true safety net for us to fall into; it’s up to ourselves to get us out trouble. How easily you land depends on how reliant you were to begin with. Adopting certain concepts as your new life’s code will help you on your path.

Many of us share a common goal: to be free from the shackles of the system. This goal doesn’t come over night. You have to work at it, invest in it and ultimately, change your way of thinking. The point is, we are all at different places in our preparedness efforts, so don’t get discouraged! Continue on the pace, keep learning and step-by-step, you inch closer and closer to that goal.

Meet David Korowicz

29 12 2014

David Korowicz

David Korowicz

David Korowicz was mentioned by Dave Kimble in a recent comment he left below Ugo Bardi’s Seneca cliff post, and I have heard Nicole Foss also mention him as an excellent systems analyst well worth following; so, seeing as I had not yet bothered to take the time to look him up, this morning I found a fascinating youtube film of him giving a lecture at the The New Emergency Conference.

David Korowicz documents the disturbing growth in the complexity of trade and financial networks and in the various types of infrastructure. He sees the collapse process as a system of re-enforcing feedbacks that cut investment in energy and R&D and cause supply chains and IT networks to break down.

David Korowicz is a physicist who studies the interactions between economics, energy, climate change, food security, supply chains, and complexity. He is on the executive of Feasta and an independent consultant. He is former head of research for The Ecology Foundation, and was recently appointed to the council of Comhar, Ireland’s Sustainable Development Partnership.

As an aside, but relevant to this piece, my friend Ted Trainer has had an article published about the simpler life on The Conversation you might all like to read (and support by commenting!)