Exchange rates and transportation costs of energy technologyThe decisive cost issue here is not the value of the methanol, but the avoided costs of electric grid construction. In other words, the costs compared to a power grid.One of the most popular misconceptions is thermal and electrical energy. Combined heat and power plants like to advertise with over 90% efficiency because they have simply added the thermal and electrical efficiency together. 25% electrical efficiency plus 65% thermal, hooray 90%! I coined the saying that you can't compare apples and horse apples (manure). There is an official exchange rate between thermal and electrical energy: 1:2.7. This means a power plant with 37% efficiency and a heat pump with a coefficient of performance of 2.7. There are systems that deviate considerably from this, but as an average exchange rate it is quite useful. With the exchange rate, 6 liters of diesel should be able to be replaced with 6 * 9.8 kWh / 2.7 = 21.8 kWh of electricity. Seems like the exchange rate should be a bit higher. But where does the 9.8 kWh per liter come from? Calorific value or heating value, that is the question here? The calorific value of diesel fuel is approx. 43 MJ/kg, the calorific value 45.4 MJ/kg. In order to be able to write impressively high efficiencies in advertising, the efficiency is always related to the calorific value. The more hydrogen there is, the greater the difference between calorific value and heating value. Here is a table on this. Only 2.7% for heating oil, 10.8% for methane and 18.3% for hydrogen. I have always mistakenly calculated 33.3 kWh / 70% efficiency = 47.57 kWh for the production of 1 kg of hydrogen. Correctly calculated with the calorific value, however, it is 39.4 kWh / 70% efficiency = 56.29 kWh. Then add liquefaction for transportation to the filling station and compression in the high-pressure tank. This means that the consumption of a hydrogen car is not 3 times higher than that of an electric car, but rather 4 times higher.
These consist of the costs of the transport route and the costs of transportation. For example, the construction of a power line and how much of the electricity reaches the other end of the line. Because there were no DC-DC converters back then, this triggered a duel between direct current and alternating current: At that time, only alternating current was capable of transporting electricity over long distances at high voltages. For the network of off-grid charging stations presented in the last newsletter, the transportation costs of energy technology also apply: one-off transportation of photovoltaics and batteries and occasional transportation of methanol against the electricity grid. Power to methanol plants are a key element here: if you can utilize your own surplus electricity, the profitability calculation immediately looks dramatically different. Why methanol? Quite simply because storing hydrogen is dramatically more expensive if you don't have large underground storage facilities available. Methane is still dramatically more expensive, but a simple tank for methanol with 20,000 liters costs only €30,000. This can be used to 100 MWh thermal storage and a 30% efficient generator makes 30 MWh. Ouch, the calorific value of one liter of methanol is 4.4 kWh, the calorific value 5 kWh. The engine manufacturer must have used the old trick with its 30% efficiency, so it's more like 26 MWh. Unfortunately, so far I have only seen offers for power to methanol plants from 10 MW and € 20 million. Smaller plants and half the price per kW would be essential. If a 100 kW power-to-methanol plant cost €100,000, then the decision would be clear in countries closer than 30° from the equator: local power generation, the exchange of surpluses and shortages via tanker trucks. The expense of an electricity grid only makes sense if the majority of the electricity supply is handled by it. Less than 10% makes it pointless. Further away from the equator, the much greater difference between summer and winter and the higher efficiency of large combined cycle power plants compared to small generators becomes decisive. A power to methanol plant has 3 main components: Electrolysis and CO2 DAC Direct Air Capture for raw material procurement and the actual plant. The decisive cost issue here is not the value of the methanol, but the costs avoided in the construction of the electricity grid. In other words, the cost of power to methanol and a generator compared to a power line.
The first network of fast charging stations will be built in some country in Africa in 2028. It will start with 4 houses and 500 kW photovoltaics, 2 MWh sodium batteries and 100 kW power to methanol. Every now and then an electric car comes along. But at least a tanker truck collects the methanol produced 3 times a year. In 2032, the charging station is already 70% utilized and an expansion to 8 houses, 1 MW photovoltaics and 200 kW power to methanol is planned. In 2034, the expansion is started, the capacity utilization is already 110%, now methanol must be purchased for the generator. At the end of 2034, the expansion is completed and capacity utilization is at 70%. In 2036, capacity must be doubled again. What would be the point of an electricity grid in a photovoltaic-oriented energy system? If you have a surplus of electricity, all the other photovoltaic systems will probably also have a surplus. Removing electricity that is worthless? What strategy for the electricity grid? Design it for the demand of 2040 and oversize it 8-fold?
40 locations were simulated with 2 MW of photovoltaics and various quantities of batteries and a load of between 60 and 360 kW. The simulation showed that iron-air batteries represent a small improvement, but not a solution. Even directly at the equator, with 4 MWh of sodium batteries and 10 MWh of iron-air batteries at a load of 220 kW, there was a 22% surplus of unusable electricity, but over 3,000 liters were required for the generator.
Net zero emissions means reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a level that nature can absorb. For the rich, this means Maintain poverty, cause poverty, so that enough emission rights remain for the rich.
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 humanity, 10 billion people in prosperity can do it.
It is a decision between 3 directions:
It's not about whether the shares will be worth 10 times or 100 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 there is 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 2024 compared to 2004. Extrapolating that to 2044 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. 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. |
