Home Energy Water Work Economy Solution Politics Team Products Recycling Cars Ships Aircrafts Promotion
World Pollution Air Weather Violence Women Weapons Psychology Plants Animals Food Peace Faith Imprint
Parabolic mirror 1901
Since 1900 we could have set up an international solar energy network, all necessary technical elements were available.
I prefer thinking that we should had have done this.
Electricity and hydrogen are the energy forms of a new post-fossil period
We have the largest fusion reactor in front of our nose and some are constantly trying to build one here and I wonder why. We have one and we have huge areas available to use this fusion reactor.
We urgently need more energy, it must be cheap and not produce CO².
If we provide the whole world with modernity, then it does not work any more with the many useless devices of inferior quality, even with the many electric cars will not work that way, you can calculate that. Inevitably, we have to recycle, it also costs energy, we should build huge desalination plants and create this water, on a large scale, to the respective inland ...
We should together create a global energy network whose main base is the use of solar energy in the deserts of the world. That, like a belt around the world, can provide 24 hours of energy, plus hydrogen can be produced directly here with the water, from the desalinations plants at the best. Sun Power plants as of USA, Mexico, South America, Peru, Chile above all, Argentina and Brazil, then half Africa, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and the whole surrounding region, further Iran, Afghanistan down to China. Australia is a bit out of the way, but could be at least completely self-sufficient. A truly world-encompassing belt that ensures energy production almost around the clock. If we could make solar power plants swim, we would be Sunline around the clock. We can do anything if we manage to get enough energy.
Stories like from a science fiction movie and we can do it with a common plan.
Yes, certainly, that's what we could do if we manage to be fair, I say all the time, the moment we do this really big project together, the moment we work really together on this big positive plan, we will feel well because then we are suddenly in the very movie that we all like so much and a TV or a smart-phone, we then only need for the news.
Life in peace and contentment is then too good to spend even a second of it with nonsensical movies.
Hydrogen fusion reactors, a completely different fantasy
Tokamak Reaktor Scheme Sources: energieleben.at / Stern.de
I am often asked about fusion reactors and I would like to answer:
For this research reactor alone, a long-term radioactive waste of 60 tons is expected per year. It will be ready in 2025 at the earliest, will cost around 15 billion euros, there will be operating costs of around 30-50 billion euros and it will never provide energy. The first exploitable results are not expected until after 50 years, by then 300 tons of highly radioactive waste have been generated, the final storage of which should again devour at least 40 billion euros, the dismantling of the plant and the final storage of the waste will then cost 100-200 billion euros. In the best case scenario, we have to reckon with costs of 185 billion euros (tax money) for the eventual realization in 2075 that these reactors are unable to produce more energy than you put in, because it is not yet clear whether the whole thing will ever work.
For comparison: NOOR:
The largest solar thermal solar power plant in the world costs 2.2 billion euros, the construction period was 3 years, the plant delivers an output of 580 megawatts, immediately after completion and the sun does not provide an operating cost calculation. Only low maintenance costs are incurred and the disposal or dismantling costs are also relatively low. They can easily be paid from the earnings reserves.
Hydrogen and its application as an energy store
There is enough hydrogen on Earth, but there are always two atoms hanging around with one oxygen atom. Or, the hydrogen was burned in conjunction with oxygen. We call this partnership water.
The force that drives the hydrogen atom to oxygen is the electron.
It is the same electron that drives machines or generates light, it brings computers to life, drives refrigerators and is the basis for almost everything that makes our lives easier. Without electrons, we would look very old. We cannot generate electrons directly, but we can move them. This is the basis of our electrical energy. We can create an excess of electrons by movement, which we call voltage. With this voltage (U) counting unit volt it is then possible to force the electrons to work for us and to produce power (P), specified in watts. We call his path through a conductor and the resistance that serves us, current flow (I), the amount of which we specify in amperes. If we now give the hydrogen back its electron, it separates from the oxygen atom again and we can use the energy stored in the hydrogen by burning the hydrogen again. To do this, we first have to provide a performance. We have to build power plants and lots of them. Because this conversion of electrical energy into hydrogen and back from hydrogen into electrical energy is very lossy. With this back and forth we lose a smooth 85% to 87%. Another 5% to 10% are lost through cables so that we have to build about 90% to 97% more power plants for the electric use of hydrogen than if we were to use the electrical energy directly.
Test result: Conversion of electrical energy into hydrogen - hydrogen into electrical energy:
Only 13 -15% of the electrical energy taken from the network could be fed back; 85% and 87% of the electrical energy was lost during the conversion of electrical energy into hydrogen and the conversion of hydrogen back into electrical energy in the 2003 experiment at the FTZ in Büsum.
The storage of electrical energy in hydrogen is therefore a very, very lossy variant of the storage.
Electrolysers: First of all, let's take a look at the conversion of electrical energy into hydrogen. Everyone knows this process from chemistry lessons, it is called electrolysis:
Electrolyser model Source: Davidlfritz
Its nice. Isn´t it? Hydrogen picks up electrons and is reduced, oxygen emits electrons and is oxidized. In between there is a membrane that only allows the tiny ionic bodies of the hydrogen can pass through. This make sure the two atoms are separated. The efficiency is 75% -80%
The fuel cell:
How a polymer electrolyte fuel cell works Source: bbs-brv.de
It also goes back, hydrogen emits electrons, there is an excess of electrons on this side, these electrons then rush around to the other side through the resistance, on the other side there is a lack of electrons, here the oxygen now absorbs electrons and will reduced. the protons of hydrogen arrive again through a membrane, through which they can only pass without electrons, to the other side. There the hydrogen combines with the oxygen again, water and heat are generated.
Single fuel cell and a fuel cell stack
Both systems are always processed in stacks in order to get more performance.
By the way, a tree also does such things. However, with solar energy he transforms water and carbon dioxide CO² from the air into three main components: cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, which are among the hydrocarbon compounds and we call it wood. He cannot use the oxygen and so he simply excretes it. Most other plants do this too, and therfore we can breathe. I think it's a fine thing. Aren't the plants great creatures? I mean, after all, we owe our lives to them. And not only that. The next time you get into your car please remember that you only drive because your tank contains the crushed body parts of the grandparents of our tree. This stuff, mostly gasoline or diesel, belongs to the hydrocarbon group. Because for burning we also need oxygen there is a lot of CO². This is the stuff we are having so many problems with right now.
However, we can also directly produce pure hydrogen from these hydrocarbon compounds. We call this process reforming. In addition to hydrogen, this process produces, among other things, carbon monoxide CO, carbon dioxide Co² and nitrogen in not insignificant quantities. The efficiency (natural gas to hydrogen) is only approx. 60 to 70%.
We now have hydrogen and want to convert it back into electrical energy. The hydrogen turbine for stationary use drives a generator and could also be used in aircraft to generate pushenergy.
Micro and power turbines
Other types of drives:
There is of course also a hydrogen combustion engine based on the Otto principle, its efficiency is around 35%, it is therefore better than a petrol engine, whose efficiency is around 28% and worse than a diesel engine that runs with an efficiency of around 40%. Lube oil consumption causes traces of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons in the exhaust gas. However, the performance is lower than that of gasoline engines and there are a number of other problems, whose elimination are cumbersome and this makes to produce a hydrogen engine very expensive . The efficiency of a hydrogen combustion engine is significantly worse than that of fuel cell vehicles and electric cars with a drive battery, which have an efficiency of up to 90%. The electric motor is simply unbeatable.
However, when implemented via a fuel cell, only 13% -15% of the original output of the electrical energy that was invested is achieved, which actually makes the fuel cell an absolute loser.
In the whole “hydrogen discussion” we should also consider what would be if there were 200,000 in the air (busy day in the air) and 1.6 billion potential hydrogen bombs on the ground.
Of course, the producers say the gas tanks are safe, but gas vans continue to explode practically all the time, the last one again in Provence Zhejiang, China, with 19 deaths and 172 injuries.
Where should the energy for all these projects come from? The Desertec project
When I wrote my first writings in 2003, the idea of getting the combustion engines off the road and replacing vehicles powered by electric motors was almost anti-constitutional. In 2018, a politician postulated that the diesel would never disappear. My idea in this regard of building a network consisting mainly of solar thermal power plants met with little interest. In 2010, however, the idea was finally picked up that desert electricity would now be conducted to Europe via high-voltage direct current lines, and the Desertec Industry Initiative was born. By 2050, at least 15% of European electricity demand should be met by electricity from the Sahara. The Desertec Foundation played the first major role, the second a consortium from industry, energy and banking.
But soon there were disputes, one group wanted to export energy straight away and the other wanted to first fully supplied the Mena countries (Middle East North Africa). 2013 then the end, it is said to continue working on it, but so far nothing has happened. Withdrawn companies believe that the MENA region is one of the most politically unstable in the world, uneasy, with deficits in legal certainty, and with changing economic conditions. the politic should acting they say. There were certain approaches to this, but here the speech quickly seeped into the ground of, let's do it another time.
Technically there was a change of views. In terms of short-term energy costs, the solar thermal power plants that dominated the planning for Desertec solar technology had to let the cumbersome and ecologically questionable photovoltaics go by.
The energy production costs of a PV system are between 8 and 14 cents / kWh, depending on the location in Germany. The cost of energy generation in solar thermal power plants in southern Spain is between 14 and 20 cents / kWh. This makes it clear: money rules the world against all reason.
The authors of a Fraunhofer study on the production costs of electricity from renewable sources comment on their research results: ğDue to the sharp cost reductions for PV systems in recent years, PV power plants at the same location have a" short-term "cost advantage compared to CSP power plants."
CSP = Concentrated Solar Power; Solar thermal power plants; PV = photovoltaic
Well, because of the more recent situation, the temperatures have risen faster than expected in recent years, the citizens are slowly getting scared and are demanding an energy turnaround, the matter is coming up again, the German economy minister is starting to calculate slowly. At least he found that the energy transition alone is obviously not possible.
However, without switching off the existing coal-fired power plants, without switching vehicles, Europe does not need any additional electrical energy. France will also not want to part with its nuclear power plants. Poland still relies entirely on coal. The possibility of conversion would not be possible without outside help. The urgent need for a large joint initiative has not yet reached the heads of those who are spoiled for success.
It is a shame that the necessity must be a reason for action and that it is not an excuse and solidarity.
So that you can see the dimensions of the energy conversion, here is a small calculation:
World energy consumption is currently 590 exajoules per year (source: BMWI), which is the equivalent of 163,889 TWh per year
As an example: The "Noor" solar thermal solar power plant in Quarzazate Morocco: output 580 MWh, 580 MWh x 24 (hours per day) x 365 (days per year) = 5,080,800 MWh or 5.09 TWh / a
163,889 TWh / a: 5.09 TWh / a = ~ 32,198 Noor power plants would theoretically be needed continuously to cover the current energy requirements. Doesn't look like that much, but it is this number that has to be constantly on the Net and can also supply energy. At best, solar power plants deliver 12-13.5 hours of full energy per day. Since these systems have a storage, you can still generate energy at night, but only 3 hours. 4MW wind turbines may only deliver 1.6-1.8 MW of power per year. So we need a lot more systems. Let's start with twice as many. The consideration would be how do we distribute the solar power plants and wind turbines in such a way that there is always enough energy for the respective needs. An international energy network would make it easier, more efficient and cheaper to secure an optimal supply. If everyone builds for themselves, a lot of excess capacity has to be made available, which drives up costs. * Especially in the case of wind turbines, the widest possible sharing is very useful.
The situation in the so-called MENA room
Since this area was discovered by Europe and America, we have been exploiting this region mercilessly. Poor people are fighting for what is there. After 1945, the USA commissioned a study to determine why fascism occurred in Germany and they came to the realization that it was mainly the poor economic conditions that were responsible for it.
If we turn up there again, build power plants in which no local people find work, we let the region dry up further and do not care about the people, they will continue to fight for what is there and we will be just another nuisance. Since they know us from experience, they will not really be open to us.
So we should really present a plan there that will primarily advance the local population. As far as the existing business relationships are concerned, they should be adjusted accordingly. We owe everything we treat ourselves to in terms of the fact that people live there in huts that we would not even go into. For hundreds of years we have been dragging everything valuable out of these countries and forcing people to live there like dogs because they have to work for us. In Chile people die of thirst because German companies grow avocados there and rob the surrounding area of groundwater. In Africa, people die because they burn our electronic waste in order to extract copper and other metals from it in order to survive. All of this must come to an end quickly.
If we change capitalism so that it can be defused and work succesfull under strict supervision, if we see that this capitalism, as it is now, eats its own host and completely paralyzes us when we start doing that of whom we know is the only right thing, because it is reasonable and intelligent, then we will come together, in the still as well zones as with the restless zones of the world. Because the split in almost all countries into the right and left are all caused by capitalism and its consequences, just like climate change.
If we do not manage to act as it is actually necessary, but only depending on whether it brings, quick money or not, in the hope of living from what falls behind for us, we will oversleep the change and only then get active when it's too late.
About photovoltaic waste:
Recycling rules, well thought, recyclability up to 80% ... sounds good. Unfortunately, this only refers to the outer frame. In Germany alone, around ten thousand tons of silicon from old photovoltaic modules end up on the recycling market every year, from 2029 it will be several hundred thousand tons per year. Currently, only the aluminium, glass and copper of the old modules are reprocessed, but not the silicon solar cells.
We produce, very elaborately, with some rare metals, which we remove from the sea or from the ground while destroying nature, elaborate modules which then last a maximum of 30 years and have to be recycled with a lot of energy, the plastics will converted into gases such as methane, propane and butane, which are then burned and produce CO² once again.
According to estimates, the number of old modules to be used in Germany alone will increase to 50,000 t by 2026 and quadruple again to 200,000 t by 2040.
It is a 270 million euro market and 35% growth is expected.
Incidentally, wind turbines also leave behind a lot of rubbish that is difficult to recycle.
After 20-25 years, a wind turbine has to be dismantled for safety reasons.
The biggest problem is the wings. Glass fiber plastics (GRP) can not be stored in landfills because they do not rot. They cannot be burned either, as they hardly ever burn. So they are converted into a substitute fuel with a kind of fuel and then burned with other materials, which significantly reduces their value as a green energy supplier.
The reinforced concrete towers can only be recycled in part.Even the construction is extremely CO2-heavy, the disposal and partial reprocessing of the metal will release CO2 again, the concrete is only useful as a substrate material for road construction.
Wind-turbines are smoke machines
Wind turbines create clouds that remain for miles. Wind-turbines standing in water, in particular, lift the moist soil air and mix it with the colder upper layer of air, causing the water to condense into fine droplets, which then combine in their entirety to form real clouds. The reverse effect occurs at night, only much stronger when the cold, moist air sinks to the ground and the warmer layers accumulate above it. The suction power of the wind turbines draws the damp, cold air from the ground surface and mixes it with the warm layers of air above, there is a uniform temperature, and there is no important morning dew. The layers of earth dry out.
Furthermore, wind turbines significantly disrupt the natural movement of air. The air is slowed down by the wind turbines and turbulence increases. This atmospheric disturbance then lasts from tens to hundreds of kilometers and with large plants, especially with the planned extreme expansion, these also affect the large atmospheric currents, which leads to phenomena such as prolonged drought or even supra-regional droughts. On the other hand, in other areas, it can lead to heavy rain events. This is because water is moved here, water vapor is generated on land, moisture is removed from the ground and the water is thus withdrawn from the land. Even more water vapor is generated in the sea, which then moves around uncontrollably in large cloud fields and suddenly falls somewhere. Should electromobility actually prevail and industry switch completely to electrical energy and hydrogen, the demand for electricity would increase enormously and if we were to cover all this mainly with wind turbines, the use of land would be simply gigantic and the associated rise in temperature and the weather-turbulence would also be very high. In Norway and Sweden, the large-scale expansion of wind turbines is currently underway. I am sure that the natural habitat that has existed there for thousands of years with reindeer and the resulting flowering forest areas will be significantly disturbed and thus destroyed. The forest areas will dry out and there will be a lack of important animal manure and the natural growth of the forest will be stopped. These gigantic forests will soon look like the dried up forests in Germany, where man, through his large-scale industrial intervention, also ensured that the forest was ultimately destroyed in the long term.
Wind turbines are heaters
How does a wind turbine actually work? Well, from a physical point of view, the wind brushes along the wing, creating over-pressure on one side and under-pressure on the opposite side. As a result, the wing is moved in one direction and, if a generator is coupled to the axis to which the wings are attached, performs work. However, this does not work as smoothly as it always sounds in the wonderful descriptions: "Wind in, electrical energy out". It happens exactly what happens when you skate on the ice. It creates pressure and friction and thus heat which melts the ice, creating a film of water on which you can slide.
Even with a windmill, pressure and friction arise when the wind overcomes the resistance of the blade and the windmill does its work. As a result, the air behind the wind turbine heats up by around 0.2°C, depending on the prevailing conditions. In an extensive American study: "Climatic impacts of wind power", Lee Miller and David Keith from Harvard University in 2018 investigated the impact of onshore wind farms in the USA and concluded that with the current electricity coverage of the USA by wind power, the temperature over the continental US would rise by 0.24°C.
Overall, of course, this does not bode well. If every country wanted to cover the current plus the expected energy demand through electromobility and industry with wind power, we would easily end up in dangerous warming scenarios of up to +2°C, which means we would gain nothing but absolutely nothing. We would neither limit global warming nor the expected weather turbulence, but rather encourage it. Actually, we should only use this form of energy generation where absolutely necessary.
A lot of space, high resource consumption, little energy, but a lot of waste
Wind farms only have a tenth of the energy density of thermal solar systems and only for a very limited time. That means wind farms require 90% more space than a solar thermal system to generate the same amount of energy. The resource consumption is also 90% higher, huge towers made of steel-concrete, huge rotors and then only so little energy combined with all these disadvantages and all that for only a maximum of 20 years. A well-built solar heating system lasts at least 100 years and is then up to 90% recyclable. In the case of wind turbines, you can practically only partially reuse the generator, the rest is hazardous waste. Both the creation of the concrete pillars and the blades of the wind turbines are only possible with a large amount of CO2. Likewise, the disposal, especially the wing, generates a high amount of CO2 and also the entire processing and transport, in Norway and Sweden from deep forests, generates high amounts of CO2. All of this has to be deducted from the usefulness of these wind turbines, from whose efficiency, which generally only refers to a very tiny generator at the top of a gigantic structure, there is hardly anything left. The long-term damage in particular is likely to overtake the benefits allready in the first generations of the systems.
As my father used to say: “Why easy, if it can be cumbersome. The reason for choosing the better solution here is again the money. The cumbersome and dirty solution is simply cheaper and therefore promises more profits. Again, the money dictates and approves of the destruction of nature. I wonder when this will finally stop. The producer must clearly calculate all costs for his product, including the disposal costs. He also has to take care of the disposal, take back the product and pay everything very clearly. He may not throw anything that is not natural into the landscape anywhere. This would push up the price of most products to such an extent that these products would disappear from the market. As long as the general public tacitly assumes these costs, it will never be clear that a robotic lawnmower in reality costs 29,900 euros instead of 299 euros.
With good maintenance, a solar thermal power plant can be operated, converted and adapted for several generations. The materials required for this are available in abundance, do not first have to be digged up and constantly recycled. The whole maintenance effort is much less. The systems are not as susceptible to faults as photovoltaic systems. In addition, PV modules are not robust enough for use in desert areas anyway, and they have an extremely large ecological footprint even during manufacture.
The ecological footprint is understood to mean the biologically productive area on earth that is necessary to permanently enable a person's lifestyle and standard of living. It is referred to as a sustainability indicator. Wikipedia
So solar thermal power plants are preferable to the cumbersome photovoltaic systems for reasons of climate protection and reason.
Photovoltaics should be used where there is no other option, mainly on the roofs of houses, especially in the north, for which the centralization laws of feeders must be repealed, i.e. Small operators of photovoltaic systems must also be able to sell their energy, including directly to private individuals.
To the lifestyle:
Our lifestyle doesn't have to change much in reality. This is a fear fairy tale which is brought up again and again into various discussions with great intent to lead the workers and employees to be complicit.
With the right methods and products, the whole world, even with 10 billion people, can live everywhere very comfortably.
What should then no longer be that capital grows exponentially and this leads again and again to 10% of the population hoarding 90% of all financial resources and blackmailing us all into doing what brings even more profits, whether it makes sense or not. Even heavy SUVs with all sorts of sometimes nonsensical luxury are the result of the attempt to be able to sell more and more newer cars. It will never be possible to get more and more money and ...
This money is just lying around somewhere and not available to the market.
Many think we cannot produce enough clean energy for the world.
Far from it, according to our calculations it is possible to obtain far more than enough clean energy and this without masses of wind turbines, without building the roofs of the cities completely with photovoltaic systems and also without new nuclear power plants. The world just has to be sensible and unanimous, work together and use solar thermal energy in a targeted manner.
The solution for our future
There are different ways of generating solar thermal electrical energy:
The Parabolic pipe
There we have the thing with the pipes, parabolic troughs direct the thermal energy to a pipe in the center in which a special oil circulates. The pipes are all connected to each other so the oil can be collected in an insulated tank and from there a turbine can be driven. The heat can also be stored in the tank for a period of time.
The method with the tower is also very nice, many mirrors direct the sunlight to a point in a high tower, an oil is extremely heated there and also drives a turbine, here too the oil can be stored for a while in an insulated container and the Energy can be stored in this way. The advantages of both systems are obvious.
The round Parabolic mirror.
Parabolic mirrors in action
You could also remove the heat in the focal point and lead it via lines from mirror to mirror and ultimately into a tank, but it is also possible to attach a Stirling engine to the focal point, which drives a generator and immediately emits electrical energy, which is especially for small and medium-sized plants are of great advantage. Another great advantage is that the mirror can be moved in any direction so that it can follow the sun optimally and thus has the highest efficiency of all three methods.
Systems can be set up for every need, a unit can also fail without affecting the entire system, if more energy is required in the course of an operation, the system can be easily expanded, and of course the same applies also to dismantling. Materials can be used which are up to 90% recyclable.
Such systems (Picture 2) could take on enormous dimensions and they would still be relatively light thanks to the construction of struts. Once these mirrors are built in various standardized sizes, the costs are reduced enormously.
Production in the hottest deserts in the world
You can set up entire farms and drive individual units via rail or road for repairs or maintenance. If we lay down on this type of generation, at least in the ultra-hot zones, we could get the energy we need from where no one wants to live and where it doesn't bother anyone that there are tons of parabolic mirrors adorning the landscape. The workers' teams live, possibly with their families, in air-conditioned centers with a swimming pool, palm garden and all sorts of other facilities, earn well and are regularly exchanged.
Of course, you can also use hydrogen production to store or otherwise use the energy - this shouldn't be a big problem with these systems. In correspondingly hot areas, it is also worth installing small systems on the roof. The control of the individual mirrors is very easy. We know about the complete course of the sun in one year. If this simple knowledge is put into a computer program, then all mirrors can be controlled with a small notebook.
In many parts of the world, for example in Central and South America, you can easily get clean energies. But not only this, here along the American coasts you can desalinate salt water and pump it into the interior for use, the same applies to Mexico and Chile, both countries which supply agricultural products for the European and American markets. Africa could not only get into energy production but also cultivate excellent agricultural products without, I emphasize, without having to cut down large areas of forests. On the contrary, one could, so to speak, reforest the desert and use it for cultivation, as is happening in Israel today.
Here is an example: Viticulture in Israel.
The only question that arises is: How does the money get into the desert?
So the question of how the money gets into the desert does not arise. With consistent planning and, of course, an equally sustainable implementation of certain plans, the developed cells attract more and more investors.
The nice thing about it is that there is almost free energy here, on which you can then build up corresponding returns. Because the pure energy is always given by the sun. It doesn't have to be dug around dangerous and dirty in the earth, the deserts or the workers are not contaminated with oil, it is almost too good to be true. But let's think about the USA for a moment. Of course one will say that was for the most part fertile land which one could exploit accordingly and that brought these enormous growth rates.
But in this project we have the sun and the resulting energy that compensates us for this and creates fertility. Because energy is clearly also matter and vice versa. All you have to do is take the appropriate measures and we have been able to do that quite well since the 1900 century.
One of these measures is to invest in kind in a fund, above a certain volume you will go with the thing on the stock exchanges of the respective countries.
To the top
Home Energy Water Work Economy Solution Politics Team Products Recycling Cars Ships Aircrafts Promotion
World Pollution Air Weather Violence Women Weapons Psychology Plants Animals Food Peace Faith Imprint