Home   Energy   Water   Work   Economy    Solution     Politics   Team   Product    Recycling    Cars   Ships   Aircrafts   Promotion 

World    Pollution   Air   Weather   Violence    Women    Weapons   Psychology    Plants   Animals   Food    Peace   Faith    Imprint 

Air

Forest

That the forest is an important resource related to our problem is undisputed. Studies by the ETH Zurich see afforestation as the most effective remedy against global warming. But it will probably be a while before the trees can clear the air. Nevertheless, most governments decided that afforestation should take place. However, there is quite a bit of difficulty and opponents. Nevertheless, I hope that the paper that has been printed up to now will be put into action as soon as possible and will not sink into drawers because the industry would rather build artificial trees.

Water: There is also a very troublesome water issue that we absolutely need to solve. The higher temperatures stimulate evaporation and the water table is falling all over the world, which must be countered quickly and effectively.

Conclusion: We need desalination plants and have to bring water from the coasts inland to fill up the groundwater reservoirs.

I think we agree that we need to reduce CO2 emissions quickly and remove excess CO2 from the air quickly.

Therefore, Canada and Switzerland are researching a method to make this possible. The Canadian company Carbon Engineering goes one step further and wants to produce synthetic fuel from the filtered CO2 in combination with hydrogen from water. Here, too, a lot of water and of course a lot of solar or wind energy is required. So everything always revolves around water, wind and/or solar energy. Of course there is something in the idea. If we place these power plants where no one wants to live, preferably at the point between water and energy production, we can improve our problem somewhat in the medium term. Research is also being carried out into the storage of CO2 in rock and there are already various systems.

However, we would have to capture and process 40 billion tons of CO2 just to be able to cope with the currently occurring amounts, which results in systems on the scale of large cities, which would then also require the energy of a large city. Just for hydrogen production, for a green industry, we need huge amounts of energy. The same applies to electrified private transport.

So far we are not even producing enough green energy for private households.

So there has to be a lot going on there. We need an affordable, highly efficient energy network that delivers enough energy day and night and in all seasons to power the world. We cannot wait for various fantasies such as nuclear fusion.

We need huge solar power plants.

On the American side: USA, Mexico, South America, Peru, especially Chile, Argentina and Brazil. On the European side: Africa, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and the entire surrounding region, further Iran, Afghanistan to China. Australia is a bit remote but could at least be completely self-sufficient. A truly global solar energy belt, which together can guarantee the earth's energy production around the clock. If we could also make solar power plants float, we would also be in the strangest places, 24 hours Sunline. Of course we need world peace and real international cooperation, and we need seriousness and common sense. With a financial system as bad as capitalism, we will not really be able to convince the socialists in Russia and China, for example. But vice versa, pure socialism cannot be what we absolutely have to have. Everyone has to move away from their current positions. We can continue to sharpening bones and hunt elephants or take stock of what is to come and work out a new common system. Earth is not a fun playground for self-adulation, it's a place to live for every creature.

It looks like a perpetual motion machine, carbon and geo engineering

At first glance it becomes clear: If it really works, much more CO2 has to be extracted from the air than is subsequently generated again. Because we already have far too much CO2 and that has to be removed from the air. So initially it's about 40 billion tons and other quantities that you can't calculate so easily in your head. You simply cannot do that with technical systems. The costs for such systems would also be so intergalactically high, how should something like this be paid for? Without changes to vehicles, ships and aircraft, there will never be a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. But at least it seems like something to me, at least until the trees that will hopefully be planted soon are big enough to absorb CO2. Something like a straw to cling to.

I think it's nonsense to keep burning heavy diesel, and planes shouldn't be jet powered either. Because they also give off heat and make a lot of noise. With silent airships I think everything would be much better served and travel would be much more comfortable. After all, with all the stress that our economic system creates and which is only increasing, there are already enough mentally ill people, as statistics show. A relaxation would certainly be indicated for everyone.

It is already clear what is intended here. The CO2 capture and the fuel synthesis are financed by various oil companies because they want to continue their business activities. But if, on the one hand, the ecological or sustainable products are introduced, the production will inevitably decrease significantly. If we go one step further and have the same financial, social conditions and the same wages in all countries, then production in other countries is no longer worthwhile. The transport of goods will then drop sharply. Incidentally, these measures are the most effective in the fight against all environmental pollution, not just against CO2.

Even geoengineering cannot mitigate the existing problem. Mirrors in space that would have to be brought there with rockets, floating steam plants that would have to be as big as cities, CO2 storage facilities the size of big cities, alkali input into the oceans, iron fertilization to produce algae, with entire fleets of ships, aerosols with aircraft fleets in the Pumping the atmosphere, producing artificial buoyancy in the sea with gigantic systems... In the meantime, the realization has matured that the so-called "smart cities" bring more costs than benefits, because the equipment required for this, their manufacture, installation, maintenance and servicing is far too expensive and are too expensive and more than use up the savings achieved as a result. The same applies to geoengineering. But there is much more to note. Geoengineering is dangerous. We can't even understand exactly what's going on on earth at the moment, we've just managed to understand that CO2 is heating up our earth and slowly we're realizing that we're poisoning ourselves through plastic and food production. We don't know how to turn the stuff we produce every day back into what it used to be. Now, out of this lack of knowledge, we want to make big changes and put some artificial stuff into the environment that we just, by that very act, totally polluted.

The production of hydrogen and the conversion of industry and households alone bring us to the edge of our performance. Financially we don't even create a stable economy, extraterrestrial expenditures were and are never in it.

We should focus on what is feasible: A global solar energy network, hydrogen production and switching all systems to green, water network and afforestation. With that we have enough to do, nature will take care of the rest.



To the top                

Home   Energy   Water   Work   Economy    Solution     Politics   Team   Product    Recycling   Cars    Ships   Aircrafts   Promotion 

World    Pollution   Air   Weather   Violence    Women    Weapons   Psychology    Plants   Animals   Food    Peace   Faith    Imprint