Households supplied propagandaThese 3,500 kWh are without heat and mobility, it's just household electricity. It's as if we were heating with oil or gas forever and driving with an internal combustion engine forever.In science, SI units (French Système international d'unités) are used. The seven units “second” (s), “meter” (m), “kilogram” (kg), “ampere” (A), “kelvin” (K), “mole” (mol) and “candela” (cd) were defined in the SI in this order as base units, matching the corresponding base quantities of the underlying International System of Quantities (ISQ). The USA, on the other hand, uses the system from the novel “Lord of the Rings” with feet, pounds and miles. Propaganda uses the “households” system. The number of kWh per household varies depending on the area of the world. In Central Europe, this usually means 3,500 kWh of electricity. I have just seen an advertisement on Facebook: “New hydroelectric power plant supplies 20,000 households”. One power station that I often pass on my walks is the Urstein hydroelectric power station on the Salzach. The Salzach is quite a river and this power plant produces 120 GWh of electricity per year. That's why there's a sign saying “We supply 35,000 households with clean electricity”. On the way back, I pass the LEUBE cement plant: 110 GWh of electricity demand, 400 GWh of thermal energy. So you could also write: “We supply 250 jobs in energy-intensive industry with electricity, but not nearly enough for heating”. Could the cement plant be converted to electricity? Then 400 GWh of heat could be replaced with around 220 GWh of electricity, because there would be no need to heat the exhaust gases. This would allow the cement plant to be operated with 330 GWh of electricity and the Urstein power plant could be converted: We supply 90 jobs in the energy-intensive industry.
These 3,500 kWh are without heat and mobility, it's just household electricity. It's as if we were heating with oil or gas forever and driving with an internal combustion engine forever. The deception is particularly bad with wind and solar power plants. This is compounded by storage losses and surpluses that cannot be utilized.
Why can there be surpluses that cannot be utilized at all, given that sufficient storage could be installed? It's about the economic optimum of a system. For individual houses without an electricity grid, oversizing the photovoltaics several times over can be cheaper than a seasonal storage system. In spring, fall and summer, of course, there are considerable amounts of unusable surpluses. But a system with electrolysis, hydrogen and fuel cells is still several times more expensive, just look up the price of pressurized cylinders. If large centralized systems with huge underground gas storage facilities are used, the cost of storage per kWh is reduced by orders of magnitude. The simulation “Germany 100% Solar” was calculated with 180 GW of power to methane. As the entire 180 GW was only rarely used, the question arose as to whether 160 GW Power to X would not be more economical. The optimization simulations in May showed that 1700 GW of photovoltaics would be more economical than the 1400 GW in the simulation because the more photovoltaics would lead to savings in storage technology. These savings were greater than the cost of more photovoltaics. So you can't calculate with a wind or solar power plant, annual production / 3,500 kWh = households supplied. Surpluses that cannot be utilized and storage losses must be taken into account.
In 2008, I wrote a study on lithium batteries. One of the findings: Lead batteries are so bad that they are uneconomical for operating seawater desalination, even with photovoltaics as a gift. Back then, photovoltaics were 20 times more expensive than they are today, but the limiting factor was storage technology. In 2010, I compared the possibility of photovoltaics, batteries and a desalination plant with almost no batteries, but several plants that are operated based on the electricity supply. Changes in the price parameters meant that one or other option became more economical. That was just an ideal sunny island and seawater desalination. But how complex does this become with different weather and different consumers? For example, at what electricity price would a particular production facility work through the winter or take a winter break? Production specialists from all sectors would have to be asked about this and new findings would have to be constantly incorporated into the model. All these considerations gave rise to Ethics - the science of survival in 2011, the simulation of our civilization and possible changes for optimal survival. So much for the findings 13 years ago. In stark contrast, the apologists of a destructive cult now want the economy to produce when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Although there is the saying “Even the gods fight in vain against stupidity”, I will not give up.
Announced in the city newspaper of Weiz on page 47: My lecture on September 18 from 19:00 at the Kunsthaus Weiz. EUROSOLAR AUSTRIA Solar Stammtisch on 19.09.2024 from 18:30: 20-minute lecture on “Solar-efficient settlement development in new buildings” and discussion. Location: A-1130 Vienna, Maxingstraße 76, Hotel-Restaurant Bergwirt Schönbrunn
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.
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.
My studies on off-grid fast-charging settlements have already resulted in initial contact and a video conference with the CEO of a major African company. The most important statements: “There are about 2 million homes missing” and “Solar-powered cement factories are a fascinating new idea”. There are several chances of an event that could lead to a jump in the share price. At today's share price, € 2 million would be 10,000 packages at € 200 and 300,000 shares for the buyer. However, if these € 2 million are only worth 20% of the AG, this would logically result in a very significant jump in the share price. |
