Climate neutral vs. the 10 billion sampleThe ill-conceived assessment criterion “climate-neutral” is responsible for the waste of many billions on biofuels and hydrogen cars.
I first mentioned the 10 billion sample in the chapter “Foundation of PEGE” in my 1st book “Ascent to the Solar Age” in 1992. Is one technology capable of sustainably supplying 10 billion people and, above all, how much space is left for nature? This assessment criterion stands in stark contrast to the nonsense “climate neutral”. Here is a paragraph from back then: “Is this technology useful for 10 billion people? “ This is the test. A few examples. One car with an internal combustion engine for every second person. In the 10 billion sample, that would result in 5 billion gasoline and diesel cars. I don't think we need to do a lot of math to say that this technology doesn't pass the 10 billion test. If there were only 5 million of us here on earth, there would be no reason to have anything against cars with combustion engines. But there are already 1,000 times more of us.
You often see this advertising slogan on delivery vehicles. What is usually meant is that the vehicle is running on fuel made from plants. According to the assessment criterion “climate-neutral”, this is climate-neutral. However, the 10 billion sample is a complete nonsense because far too much land is needed to grow the plants. There is currently a lot of hype about HVO100. This is only possible because the term climate-neutral is such a nonsensical assessment criterion. The hype only serves to make people believe that they can continue to drive with a combustion engine. This alone shows how harmful the term climate neutral is.
Three ways to mobility, three ways where everything can be produced with electricity from photovoltaics. The 10 billion sample no longer applies here, but it was designed in 1992. My book was intended to provide food for thought, and what I have written should be developed further. Such a further development would be the planetary clean-up back to 350 ppm CO2. By 2060, mankind should have 250,000 TWh/a of electricity production. This is only possible with photovoltaics, everything else can only make a small contribution. The guiding principle for planetary restoration is 150,000 TWh/a for global prosperity and 100,000 TWh to filter 2 ppm CO2 from the atmosphere every year and recycle it into oxygen and carbon. 5 billion electric cars with an annual consumption of 3,000 kWh is only 15,000 TWh, 10% of the consumption estimated for global prosperity. For a hydrogen car, on the other hand, you have to calculate 50 kWh/kg for electrolysis. Even many opponents of hydrogen overlook three facts:
The same applies to the e-fuels theory. If you take into account the liquefaction of the hydrogen on the way to the filling station, the energy balance of the hydrogen car with a fuel cell and the combustion engine with e-fuels is similar. The only thing crazier is running an internal combustion engine on hydrogen.
My Dacia Lodgy had an unladen weight of 1280 kg, could be equipped with up to 7 seats and had a 50 liter diesel tank. An A 320 has an unladen weight of 37,320 kg, up to 179 seats and can fill up to 23,000 liters of kerosene. Note the dramatic difference between 7 liters of fuel per passenger and 128 liters of fuel per passenger. If storing enough hydrogen in a car is already a huge problem, how is it supposed to work in an airplane? 23,000 liters of kerosene is 230 MWh of thermal energy. Liquid hydrogen has a density of 0.07085 g/cm³. For 230 MWH calorific value, 5,839 kg are required, 82 m³, plus thermal insulation to prevent the liquid hydrogen from starting to evaporate. With the thermal insulation, you can estimate four times more volume for the tanks. Why all this effort? Liquid methane has a density of 0.657 g/cm³. So 230 MWh is 14,935 kg, 22.7 m³ is almost as much as for kerosene, but here, too, there is a complex thermal insulation. Somewhere between 1500 and 3000 km will be the limit between battery and kerosene for airplanes. I don't see any chance for hydrogen.
The ill-conceived assessment criterion of “climate neutral” is responsible for the waste of billions on biofuels and hydrogen cars. You also have to add the hunger revolt in Egypt, known as the “Egyptian Spring”.
I've been driving a Tesla Y SR RWD since July 1 and am very satisfied. If you order a Tesla via my referral link, you can get it for €1,000 less. I get €500 credit for it, which I can use when charging at the Supercharger network, for example. I have been a Spotty Energie customer since December 2023 and am very satisfied, switch to Spotty Energie here.
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 about 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 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”. Last time we wrote about contacts to Africa. In the meantime, we have exchanged an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) and exchanged initial materials. We will keep you informed of any progress in the fascinating Ghanaian market. 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. |
