EU sock puppet gamesLet's look at the EU, when sock puppetry with NGOs is seen as a solution to the problem. “We pay you to sue companies”.How do you plan the switch to renewable energy? Here's my story about it. First of all, sufficient generation capacity has to be built up. The first approach to this was the GEMINI habitable solar power plant project in the fall of 1991, when it was already clear that it would be necessary to be able to store the electricity. Even then it was clear that lead batteries had such catastrophic properties that they would not work. A solution was needed, so I jumped on an article about SMES and mentioned it in my first book. However, it is now clear that I was taken in by a junk report at the time: 5 kWh per cubic meter is anything but useful. After all, the battery intended for the house has 98 kWh per cubic meter. Even if the SMES were free, the space alone to install it would be too expensive. In 2008, I wrote the study on lithium batteries with data from Dr. Franz Winterberg. The most important findings from the study:
In 2010, I investigated the question: Why are there photovoltaics, batteries and a seawater desalination plant on this island on the equator? You could also set up three desalination plants and then operate 0, 1, 2 or 3 of them depending on the available solar power. Surprise surprise, depending on the figures used for the batteries and desalination plant, the profitability tipped to one side or the other. At least back then, when batteries were still very expensive. If a purely theoretical, always sunny island on the equator with just one single electricity consumer, seawater desalination, is so complicated, what about the weather, seasons and an industrialized country with many different electricity consumers? Of course, today's electricity system can be replicated 1:1 with renewable energies, but this will not be the optimum cost. Even back then, it was clear that more wind energy in winter would not be able to compensate for more solar power in summer. Power to methane for summer/winter balancing has a very poor efficiency, optimistically 30%. This means that electricity in winter is more expensive. The higher the demand, the more expensive. But how do you determine the demand in winter? Every process engineer would have to be presented with electricity cost forecasts for each month and asked: Continue production despite high electricity prices or take a winter break? This would allow the system to be optimized for summer/winter balancing.
Asking many process engineers how they would react to certain electricity price scenarios? Why not ask many people how they would react to certain scenarios in the future? This would allow the system to be optimized for the best possible survival of mankind. These considerations gave rise to Ethics, the science of survival in 2011. Attempts to establish this as a science at universities unfortunately failed.
Where could our society be if we approached the problems scientifically? I think a look at China shows what would have been possible. Let's look at Germany and see what happens when ideology and dogma don't give science a chance. Let's look at the EU, when sock puppet games with NGOs are seen as a solution to the problem. "We pay you to sue companies". If Europe is not to fall even further behind, then we must finally take a scientific approach. The scientific establishment must be freed from ideologues, dogmatists and lobbyists. Freedom of expression must be re-established. Cancel culture campaigns must be dealt with harshly. The fact that I could only publish criticism and suggestions for improvement on the energy transition on EIKE shows just how catastrophic freedom of opinion is among energy transition fans and climate protectors. There are several solutions to every problem. For example, power to methane, underground storage, combined cycle power plant or power to hydrogen, underground storage, especially a hydrogen-fueled power plant. There are arguments for both. A decision can only be made by carefully weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of both systems. In stark contrast to this, I was violently attacked by a fanatic for the power to methane variant.
Net zero emissions means reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a level that nature can supposedly absorb for a long time. For the rich, this means Maintain poverty, cause poverty, so that enough emission rights remain for the rich. See the architect and her opinion that Africans don't need roads.
Planetary cleanup back to 350 ppm CO2 means around 47,000 TWh of electricity to filter 1 ppm CO2 from the atmosphere and recycle it into carbon and oxygen. Who can afford that? Only a rich human race, 10 billion people in prosperity can do it. One million km² of energy-optimized settlement areas alone should contribute 150,000 TWh for the necessary electricity for world-wide prosperity and planetary restoration.
It's not about whether the shares will be worth 100 times or 1000 times more in 20 years' time or whether they will only be worth a few cents. It's about the future of us all. Will there be a big showdown between eco-fascism and yesterday's fossils, or will it be possible to overcome the deep divisions in society and inspire supporters of both sides to work towards a great new goal? Global prosperity and planetary restoration instead of saving, restricting, renouncing and climate catastrophe or peak oil and a little more climate catastrophe. Both sides must be convinced that they have no solution that is even remotely viable. On the one hand, it must be shown that net-zero emissions are a completely inadequate target and that the goal must instead be a planetary clean-up back to 350 ppm CO2. The other side must be shown that solar power enables a higher standard of living than fossil energy. It's about survival! The social situation in 2025 compared to 2005, extrapolated to 2045, makes for a horror world! If we are successful and your shares are worth 100 times more, this is just an addition to all the other achievements. A new shareholder said "Me with my very modest investment", but €400 times €1,000 is also €400,000 for all investments up to the creation of the prototype. There is a reward program for recommending the share to others. Two of the new shareholders have become shareholders through this reward program. Here are the details.
The situation has changed fundamentally since this company visited Slovakia. Necessary investment volume reduced by around 90%. Time to marketable product shortened by around one year. The 90% reduction in investment volume also means that each shareholder has significantly more shares. The share price is now lifted towards our targets at each milestone. These milestones can happen in all areas: Financial, new shareholders, new opportunities to attract new shareholders. Contracts to build the prototype, more houses and settlements. Cooperations for realization. Purchase, arrival and testing of important technical components. |
