The 3 situation assessment problem

Diagnosis correct, therapy correct or diagnosis incorrect, therefore no therapy required or Diagnosis correct, therapy wrong, an effective therapy must be developed






Since 1992, the group has been organizing world conferences with the situation assessment "Diagnosis of climate change due to greenhouse gases, Therapy Saving Limiting Renouncing". On the other hand, there is the "No, it's all nonsense" group. But why are there only two groups? The statement of the first group must be broken down into two components: Diagnosis and therapy. Each of these two components must be assessed separately.

There should be three different versions of the "Diagnosis of climate change due to greenhouse gases, therapy Saving Limiting Renouncing":
  • Correct diagnosis, correct therapy
  • Diagnosis incorrect, therefore no therapy required
  • Diagnosis correct, therapy wrong, an effective therapy must be developed
But there is a second problem: peak oil, peak natural gas, peak coal, peak uranium. Here, too, we encounter the three situation assessment problem.

There should be three different variants to the "Diagnosis of maximum production of energy sources to be expected soon, therapy Saving Restricting Renouncing and a little renewable energy":
  • Correct diagnosis, correct therapy
  • Diagnosis incorrect, therefore no therapy required
  • Diagnosis correct, therapy wrong, an effective therapy must be developed
The first two groups in both lists unfortunately have the characteristics of religious cults. Every discussion quickly ends in "You have questioned our faith, now I will teach you our gospel". How else is it possible that Graichen was able to spread the good news in 2014 that "We don't need electricity storage for the energy transition for another two decades"? How else is it possible that in conversations with the second group I often hear "The oil will grow back on its own"?

  Raw material base like sand in the desert, like salt in the sea


Silicon for the production of photovoltaics is like sand in the desert, sodium for the production of batteries is like salt in the sea. Group 1 howls "But a lot of energy is needed for extraction and production and that produces a lot of greenhouse gases". Group 2 howls "What's the point, we have eternal oil and good domestic coal".

  The problem is time-critical


From 376.99 ppm to 424.75 ppm CO2 in 20 years is 2.4 ppm more per year. Group 1 trivializes the problem with "net zero emissions and everything will be fine". Group 2 denies the problem, "It's really good for plant growth". At this rate, 500 ppm CO2 will be reached in 2055. Which of the studies on thawing permafrost will have the most accurate forecast? If nature then emits 10 Gt/a instead of absorbing 20 Gt/a CO2, then net zero emissions would be 50 Gt less CO2 emissions.

If something is time-critical, then it requires high cost optimization and rapid, comprehensive acceptance by the population. Do you want your own home in the countryside? The highest level of living comfort, cheaper than a rented apartment? If only 1/4 of the population enthusiastically accepts this offer, then this plan is feasible.
  • 1,000 km² in Austria, 90 TWh annual yield, living space for 2.3 million people
  • 10,000 km² in Germany, 900 TWh annual yield, living space for 23 million people
  • 1,000,000 km² worldwide, 120,000 TWh annual yield, living space for 2.3 billion people
Let's assume a total cost of € 250,000 per unit, including land development, proportionate costs for the electricity grid and systems for summer/winter balancing. 4 million per hectare, €400 million per km², €400,000 billion for high-quality living space for 2.3 billion people and four times more electricity production than today. That is already beyond 100% renewable energy, that is already in the direction of planetary restoration.

94 million barrels of crude oil * US$ 85 * 365 days is US$ 2,916 billion. This is only the value of annual oil production, not including transportation, refining and distribution. This is only part of our current energy system, which is only used by the wealthy part of humanity. Of the 120,000 TWh/a, 5 billion electric cars will require 10%. I wrote in my first book back in 1992 that I see no problem if 10 billion people drive 5 billion electric cars. That's three times more cars than at present. One billion cars with combustion engines require 1,000 billion liters of fuel. Even with 125 liters of fuel from one barrel of oil, that's 22 million barrels per day. 5 billion cars with petroleum are impossible, but 5 billion electric cars are easily possible.

  7% GNP for the construction of the railroad


"The railroad goes over it". This old saying dates back to the time when it was vital for the survival of European countries to build a rail network as quickly as possible. The horror scenario was that the evil neighbor would transport a large army to the border by rail and you didn't have anywhere near comparable transport capacity. A large landowner said "I don't want the railroad to cross my land" and the imperial official replied "No, the railroad will cross here".

7% of the global GNP would be € 10,000 billion per year. According to the above estimate, 25,000 km² of energy-optimized settlement areas. Living space for 57.5 million people, 3,000 GW of photovoltaics, that's where the problems start, that's 7 times more than the world's current photovoltaic production. 9,000 GWh of batteries, a little more production is needed here too. To compensate for weekly weather fluctuations, 90,000 GWh of iron-air batteries would be quite useful, the first factory for this is currently being built. 3,600 TWh more solar power in one year, that would be more than all the nuclear power.

In 10 years, the production capacities of photovoltaics and batteries could be sufficient to invest 7% of the global GNP in the construction of energy-optimized settlement structures. This requires that the third option prevails in the three situation assessments. You can contribute to this and benefit from it:

  Become a shareholder of GEMINI next Generation AG


A club member donates their membership fee to the club and is happy if the club is successful. If not, I have supported a good cause.

A shareholder acquires shares in a public limited company. If the AG is successful, his shares are worth much more. In the case of GEMINI next Generation AG, his reward for supporting a good cause.

As a shareholder, employee or home buyer, you also become part of the counter-movement against many negative, anti-survival developments in our society.

One new shareholder said "I with my very modest investment", but €4,000 times €1,000 is also €4 million for all investments up to the opening of the settlement in Unken as a starting point for global expansion.

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 3 situation assessment problem: Diagnosis correct, therapy correct or diagnosis incorrect, therefore no therapy required or Diagnosis correct, therapy wrong, an effective therapy must be developed https://2024.pege.org/03-31/