by Detlef Ahlborn and Horst Heidsieck
"The future belongs to electromobility" - as Annalena Baerbock, Minister Schulze and all Green supporters proclaim at every available opportunity. But that's not all - everything is to become electric in the future. And if Ms. Baerbock or a minister says that, then it must be true - right?At first glance, electromobility is indeed a very attractive idea - as the Swiss have been impressively demonstrating for 100 years. Back then, the Gotthard Railway was electrified. The electricity for this came and still comes primarily from hydroelectric power plants. The energy from the water behind the dams is converted into electricity by a water turbine 90% when required and transmitted to the electric locomotives. These then convert the electrical energy into kinetic energy with 90% efficiency. The overall efficiency of the system is therefore 80%. (Note: efficiencies are multiplied.) This is a phenomenally good value and is also the reason why so many railroad lines in the mountains have been electrified. Our ancestors - especially the Swiss - were not so stupid! A hundred years ago, they technically implemented a renewable energy concept that is exemplary by today's standards. And because it is so good, it is still in operation today.
Nn addition to the phenomenally good use of energy, the hydroelectric power plant - electric drive system is also very instructive for another reason: the electricity from the reservoirs is only ever generated when it is actually needed by the locomotives. No one would think of simply letting water run out of the reservoirs without using it. In other words: electricity generation is always and at all times based on electricity demand - and not the other way around.
In contrast, the focus of the German energy transition was and still is not on electricity demand, but on electricity production. Since, unlike our Swiss neighbors, we do not have high mountains with large reservoirs, we are primarily concerned with replacing conventional, fossil and nuclear power production with electricity from wind and solar plants (W&S plants). However, as it is well known that the sun does not shine at night and the wind never blows constantly, it was clear from the outset - from a sober and objective point of view - that this goal was and is unachievable, as electricity production from these sources is "volatile", i.e. it fluctuates greatly, regularly drops to zero and ultimately follows the randomness and unpredictability of the weather.
Imagine if our electricity suppliers were already using a rigged dice every day to decide how many of their power plants should be connected to the grid to produce electricity the next day. The dice has three "ones", two "twos" and one "three". There are three tables on the wall showing the power plants that will be switched on the next day. The "ones" column contains power plants with a total of 20% of maximum capacity, the "twos" column contains 50% and the "threes" column contains 130% of capacity. And then the dice are rolled to determine which production capacity will be made available the next day: this could be 20% or 130%, depending on how the dice are rolled. You think that's nonsense? This numerical mind game is by no means nonsense, but bitter reality! This is exactly how politicians envision the electricity supply of the future: in most cases, electricity production is not sufficient to cover electricity demand and yet we regularly have a surplus problem. Imagine if the Swiss mountain railroads could no longer run according to their timetable, but instead were guided by the water level in the reservoirs. An absurd thought, at least for the Swiss!
And Germany? Since the dice did not work in the past, politicians are now setting specific targets for how much production capacity for W&S should be increased in the future. This will further exacerbate all the known problems.
This approach reminds us to a certain extent of the developments in the GDR at the time: we are convinced that Mr Honecker & Co. realized over time that the implementation of real existing socialism on German soil was not going as they had imagined. But since politicians then as now find it very difficult to admit mistakes and even correct them, the "efforts were intensified." The result is well known...
In the meantime, such large W&S capacities have been built up in this country that the peak power produced even comes close to the consumption or demand - at least for a few hours a year. In most cases, however, the "renewable" sources supply (far) too little electricity, but occasionally too much. A further expansion of production capacities - as is now being vehemently demanded by politicians - will therefore inevitably lead to an increase in surplus energy production. This raises the question of where to put the electricity that is not currently needed. Unfortunately - contrary to Ms. Baerbock's statement - the grid is not a storage facility, but has zero absorption capacity. The predictions of numerous university research institutes - such as the Fraunhofer IWES in Kassel and government-affiliated "think tanks" such as Agora - that a large-scale expansion would lead to a smoothing and thus to a defusing of this problem have clearly not been fulfilled. Such claims have proven to be outright fraud.
But instead of taking a critical look at the situation and admitting that we are on an unrealizable wrong track, the search is on for a way out of the looming catastrophe. And this way out goes by the name of "Power-to-X."
A solution must therefore be found as quickly as possible as to how the surplus power inevitably generated by the accelerated expansion of W&S can be stored and then used to generate energy. In future, the surplus electrical energy should also be used outside the electricity sector, for example in the heat supply, e.g. as methane or hydrogen gas, or in transport, e.g. as so-called "e-fuels", i.e. as electrochemically synthesized fuels, and make a contribution to decarbonization there. X therefore primarily stands for synthetic fuel gases or fuels.
Of course, you can't expect all politicians to have a degree in physics or engineering. But the physical relationships are not complicated or so insurmountably difficult that politicians cannot also understand them. You just have to understand - and accept - that any conversion from one form of energy to another inevitably involves energy losses. For very basic physical reasons, these losses vary depending on which initial energy is to be converted into which final energy.
These differences can again be illustrated very clearly in the case of rail operations: As explained at the beginning, an electric locomotive converts electrical energy in its drive motor into mechanical energy, i.e. kinetic energy of the train. The efficiency of the electric locomotive is 90%. As will become clear shortly, electrical energy plays a very special role in the conversion into other forms of energy.
A diesel locomotive, on the other hand, is a complete thermal power plant on wheels: Part of the thermal energy released during the combustion of the fuel in the engine is converted into mechanical energy in the engine and via a gearbox. This mechanically usable portion of the thermal energy is also referred to, in physically correct terms, as work. However, most of the thermal energy supplied by the fuel is dissipated in the radiator and with the exhaust gases as waste heat and released into the environment. The diesel engine is a heat engine and the limited usability of the supplied thermal energy as mechanical energy is by no means the result of poor engineering, but rather a fundamental physical characteristic of all heat engines. The deeper reason for the limited usability of heat as mechanical work is the second law of thermodynamics discovered by Rudolf Clausius in 1850, a fundamental law of nature that limits the efficiency of energy conversion from heat to mechanical energy.
Now we are traveling back in time to the 21st century and using our surplus electricity to synthesize so-called e-fuels (e.g. diesel). We now run the locomotives with this synthetic diesel. Since it is a combustible or fuel, we are committed to locomotives with internal combustion engines and thus to heat engines, with all the energetic consequences of the second law of thermodynamics. It is precisely this commitment to synthetic fuels that physically determines the miserable efficiency of the entire process. All the research billions in the world cannot and will not change this: We convert excess electricity into the energy of the fuel with 50% efficiency during synthesis and only 25% of that is converted into mechanical energy in the locomotive. The overall efficiency shrinks to 12%.
As early as 1910, the Swiss engineer Aurel Stodola, who was well known in specialist circles, warned in his standard work "Steam Turbines" that "the inventors must therefore be urgently warned to abandon their futile struggle and not to attempt to implement ideas that contradict the second law." One hundred years later, there is no shortage of professors and politicians or countless millions in research to implement ideas whose efficiency is limited from the outset by physical laws. And the green "electricity romantics" will certainly not like to hear it and will be even less happy to accept it: the second law of thermodynamics cannot simply be banned, like so many other things...
From an energy point of view, the synthesis of fuels based on electricity (in whatever form) corresponds to the logic of heating the boiler of a steam locomotive with electricity from the overhead line. Crazy? Not at all! In energy transition jargon, this is called "power-to-heat technology"! Mind you: technology!
In addition to the unavoidable energy losses described above, there is another massive problem: a volume problem, which quickly becomes clear with the following comparison:At Frankfurt Airport in pre-corona times, aircraft were refueled with 5.4 million cubic meters of kerosene every year. The energy content of this kerosene is 50 TWh (terawatt hours). In order to be able to refuel aircraft with synthetic fuels in the future, double the amount of energy is required for fuel synthesis, i.e. 100 TWh, under very, very optimistic assumptions. This is roughly equivalent to the annual production of all 30,000 German onshore wind turbines. In other words, all the wind turbines built on land together are just enough to provide the amount of energy required to synthesize the fuel needed at Frankfurt Airport.For orientation: fuel consumption in Germany is between 52 and 110 million tons, depending on the source. This corresponds to approx. 65 to 135 million cubic meters of fuel - i.e. orders of magnitude more than the volume that has so far only been used at Frankfurt Airport. Given this order of magnitude, is it realistic to believe that synthetic fuels from German wind and solar power are a serious option for a secure energy supply?In addition to the conversion of surplus electricity into "e-fuels", the use of "green" hydrogen should of course also be considered. Unfortunately, the second law of thermodynamics cannot be overridden when converting electricity into hydrogen: The energy expended in operating an electrolysis process to produce hydrogen is twice as great as the energy that is subsequently still present in the hydrogen. In other words, only half of the energy that is put into the process at the beginning comes out at the end. And if this hydrogen is then "converted back into electricity", 25% of the electricity energy originally used remains at the end. This leads to the question: would a rational person ever come up with the idea of running a coal or gas-fired power plant in reverse, in which electricity is used in order to obtain gas or coal at the end...?
Today, the transition to an energy supply based entirely on electricity is often glossed over as a "paradigm shift" because we will have an abundance of electrical energy in the future. And this abundance is an intrinsic, insurmountable characteristic of the fidget spinner. At its core, Power-To-X is all about recycling surplus, unusable electricity waste!
The core problem of all Power To X concepts is that we synthesize fuels with "surplus" electricity. The use of this surplus electrical energy is therefore restricted to heat engines or other heat applications. If we operate a heat engine with these fuels, the second law of thermodynamics imposes a limit on efficiency because the processes inevitably also generate heat, which has to be dissipated again at the end. For the same amount of electricity that has been needed to operate the Gotthard Railway for a hundred years, we would have to install 16 times the generator output in wind turbines today: Factor 4 for the efficiency and factor 4 for the miserable average output.
Since the political discussion is not only about e-fuels but primarily about "green" hydrogen, it should also be briefly pointed out here that we are also dealing with a gigantic volume problem when it comes to the possible replacement of natural gas with hydrogen, for example:
In 2019 (Statista), 89 billion m³ of natural gas was burned in Germany. The calorific value of natural gas is 10.1 kWh/m³ - that of hydrogen "only" 3.0 kWh/m³. Assuming that there are technical solutions for converting heating systems from gas to hydrogen, 300 billion m³ of hydrogen would only be needed in the building sector. For comparison: this volume is 50% greater than the amount of gas Russia exported worldwide in 2020. So here, too, the question arises: where would this amount of hydrogen come from?
We can twist and turn that however we like. That's the heart of the matter! When will we finally talk about it openly and honestly?
The authors
Dr.-Ing. Detlef Ahlborn is Deputy Chairman of the Federal Initiative Vernunftkraft.de and owner of Karl Ahlborn Maschinenfabrik in Großalmerode, North Hesse. He criticizes the energy transition as illusory because the technical dimensions are beyond any reasonable framework.
The physicist Dr. rer. nat. Horst Heidsieck, was CEO of various companies in Germany and abroad between 1990 and 2006 and has been a member of the "Energy Reality Büdingen" working group since 2018. The working group consists of experienced engineers and scientists and has set itself the goal of thinking the energy transition in Germany through to the end.
Thank you for your Support of independent journalism in Germany.
English 
German 
Spanish
53 Responses
The control zones of the European alternating current grid must oscillate stably at 50 Hertz and in the same phase at all times. The stability is based on the instantaneous reserve provided by the large flywheel masses of the synchronized alternating current generators. Statistics confirm the rule of thumb of at least 45 percent of the electricity required in this quality. A maximum of 55 percent wind and solar power can be fed into the grid. If the FRG statistics show higher values for green electricity, then it has been exported to neighbouring countries - by giving it away or paying extra for it, because this electricity is inferior and always destabilizes the grid. It is fake power, a comprehensive fraud, a lie of the century!
The NAEB has been repeating this mantra in its press releases every 14 days for years:
https://www.naeb.tv/Veroeffentlichte-Pressetexte
The power grid is not a children's paddling pool that you fill up, let the children splash around in and then refill after they've had fun.
The supposed electricity turnaround is a technical and economic misery. Why? Instead of 15 cents per kilowatt hour, 32 cents are being paid. For what? For the profiteers of this nonsense and for the ongoing damage. There is no energy transition!
The question is why nobody uses electrically powered locomotives when the efficiency of diesel locomotives is so modest (there are hardly any diesel locomotives, by the way). Sarcasm off.
The other comparisons are also rather tendentious, who produces fuels from electricity when they can use batteries with better efficiency?
The contribution is correct for airplanes and ships, but how much of the total traffic does that make up?
"Given this scale, is it realistic to believe that synthetic fuels from German wind and solar power are a serious option for a secure energy supply?"
Of course not. But the idea behind this question seems to be that Germany should strive for energy self-sufficiency. That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Why electrolysers on coasts, fed from electricity generation in desert-like inland areas, with subsequent conversion into synfuels should not work, I cannot understand from this text.
The decisive factor for evaluation is not the technical efficiency, but the cost efficiency taking into account all costs, including the otherwise unnecessary scrapping of the existing infrastructure.
Just one correction to the hydroelectric power plants: the overall efficiency is much lower than 80%. The losses of the power lines must also be taken into account, as well as the fact that water is pumped up again in Swiss hydropower plants at night or when electricity prices are low, with considerable losses. With cheap nuclear power from France.
Unfortunately, hydropower from large dams is not clean and ecological energy, as we are led to believe. At least in Switzerland. I don't have any figures, but at a rough estimate, about half of all water and nuclear energy is wasted on transportation and pumping, if all factors are taken into account. Any engineer would have to scratch his head in view of this wasteful orgy.
The solution to the problem is obvious. These losses are minimized with small river and dam power plants whose converted energy is consumed directly on site, and real efficiencies of up to 80% can be achieved. However, this is not such a good way to make money, as once these small power plants have been built, the region in question can convert the electricity for free. (Note: you know that energy cannot be generated, only converted)
We should look at the problem from a higher perspective. The decisive question is not whether we can solve flying with synthetic hydrogen, but how we can fly without polluting the earth to such an extent that we can only use the earth for flying for a short period of time. We should therefore use the criterion of what acceptable environmental impact we can fly with as a criterion.
But even this criterion is still one-sided. The benefits in terms of human satisfaction at the expense of the environment should be discussed in general.
A significant proportion of atmospheric emissions come from container ships on our oceans. It would be conceivable to replace these heavy oil engines with small reactors, as is possible with aircraft carriers.
THOUGHTS ON ENERGY
The article and many of the comments on it are of a high standard. But as they say in English, "they are barking up the wrong tree". They miss the point, because unofficially, clean and cheap energy is not wanted at all! There are also new physical findings on the generation of usable energy.
Some of the nineteenth-century ideas about energy have long been outdated. It is not only quantum physics that has contributed to this: some modern physicists (such as Bearden, Turtur, Bedini, etc.) regard magnetic poles and electric charges simply as energy converters. According to these scientists, energy propagates in an electromagnetic field at the speed of light, and the supply required for this flow comes from so-called "space energy". It is continuously transformed into field energy by magnets and charges.
The energy generation mechanism derived from this is generally based on the use of a time difference between flow and pressure (e.g. between current and voltage). This can then be used to periodically extract usable energy for the consumer by means of a high-frequency circuit.
When we talk about alternative energy today, we usually mean the sun and wind as its source. With the help of "converters", such as solar cells or turbines, some of this energy is harnessed. In general, however, it is in principle possible to do this with any dynamic energy source, including gravitational waves, for example. It is therefore theoretically possible to generate usable energy from them! Many inventors, but also experienced scientists, have been trying for years to develop appropriate converters - so-called "free energy generators". Many of these devices are presented on the Internet, but most of them are unsuitable. However, there are a few that have been built and tested and have generated or are still generating usable energy (e.g. the Moray converter, the Swiss Testatika, MEG, MAHG).
In the global economic system, however, free energy is only permitted in minimal quantities, and so successful devices of this kind have been - and continue to be - banned and their developers or distributors prosecuted.
If such devices were brought to industrial maturity and used, they would solve most of our ecological problems. Ten years ago, I therefore submitted a petition to the German government to initiate a corresponding program. The application was rejected on the grounds that there was no such thing as "free" energy! In addition to research and development in this field, the program should also promote studies that show how this energy could be introduced into the economic cycle as gently as possible.
However, as this topic is still an international taboo - and therefore also a taboo for the purchased science - "alternative energy" will remain outdated, expensive and ineffective
The text is good and describes the real context simply and clearly.
These connections have been lost to the general population. Go to kindergartens, schools and universities. There is simply nothing there.
In addition to all the technical and scientific arguments, one should also look at the legal conditions.
Who delivers what and must deliver it.
The legislator has exempted the wind and solar industries from supplying any electricity at all. It was already clear in 2000 that a supply from wind and solar was not possible.
The connection contracts with the grid operators do not pass the buck on the delivery obligation to the wind and solar power producer.
Even the n-1 regulation is excluded for the connection of these energy parks. In the contract design you will only find sentences, We sell electricity (without being able to supply obligations)
This was just an ABM measure for the industry and lobby politicians to make money.
Everything that has been built up in the media around the energy transition is a show for the stupid people.
It is tedious to read such a text... Calculations as to which energy source could be replaced by which are a waste of time.
If not in our time, then in the very near future, oil and natural gas will indeed no longer be available and all, really all
Considerations are obsolete. I know we said the same thing during the two oil crises in the last millennium, which the majority of readers only remember from hearsay, but it will happen.
Conclusion: As long as we believe that "higher, faster, further" is the credo, which is virtually a law of nature and the maxim of our actions, we will not get out of this "thinking trap". Anyone who takes up the cause of nonsensical goals such as sustainability and CO2 mania has already lost anyway, because any view of something "sensible" is completely nailed down. I'm not talking about waste, not at all. Of course it's complete nonsense to burn oil when I want to get from A to B.. Alternatives beyond classic e-mobility are needed here, and that can only mean hydrogen. Because even with a miserable level of efficiency, which Chinese researchers will certainly optimize in the near future (local researchers can no longer be trusted to do this), consumption and thus the creation of rare earths should be reduced (which will be an almost catastrophic consequence of the so-called supply chain law).
But it's so simple: how can energy be generated if I don't have it?
By not needing them in the first place.
So as long as it is common practice to produce more than is needed - in this respect, the food sector has an efficiency rate that easily falls below 50% - we don't need to worry about energy issues at all.
As a previous writer said, the sun shines mercilessly - at least for the next 3 to 4 billion years. Mankind will only use a fraction of this energy. It has not managed to do more in the last 200 years. Nor will it.
There was once a problem that the experts said was technically impossible to solve. Then someone came along who didn't know that and just did it. - According to someone
In other words, how often the 2nd main theorem is used here to combat the irrationality of a straw man with alleged scientificity has almost Dr. Osteaesque traits.
Exa if not zeta watt hours of biomass grow in Germany every year...
So the potential is there and nature has been relying on chemical energy storage for ages without conducting an efficiency discussion orgy (cf. Mrs. Merkel).
So the efficiency is bad? Wayne doesn't care? The sun shines for free, doesn't it?
(And yes, I realize a solar cell doesn't just grow out of the ground, but maybe that's the problem! )
No sun shines at night and far too rarely in winter, and when it does, its angle of incidence is too oblique to deliver decent power. If there is also no wind, we have the problem described in the article. In summer it's often the other way around, too much sun and too much wind. The next problem the article mentions. This is called volatility. The energy transition can only "succeed" if there is a dramatic drop in electricity consumption due to volatile demand, i.e. if there is too little electricity, there is none for half the country. People should finally be told this honestly so that they are prepared for it.
If we wanted to produce 300 billion m³ of hydrogen by electrolysis, we would probably have another problem. Germany has an annual consumption of approx. 33 billion m³ of water (https://www.test-wasser.de/deutschland-wasserverbrauch) and a water reserve of approx. 150 to 170 billion m³. We would therefore probably have to import water or convert seawater. This would further reduce the efficiency of hydrogen production and the No. 1 foodstuff could become scarce.
Trick 17 : Process water instead of drinking water
Trick 18 : Recycling (rain) or should the hydrogen simply be produced in stockpiles?
Thank you for publishing these clear words,
I would just like to point out that such valuable information is of little use if it only circulates in your "own bubble". The lobby-loyal research institutes and think tanks must be exposed.
Such texts must be distributed as widely as possible, right down to the last backyard that still reads a regional newspaper. Perhaps via dpa, so that it also appears in my local newspaper. I could then leave my own comment and incur the wrath of the "energy blenders" and the united lobbyists with great pleasure.
Yours sincerely
Bodo Zierenberg
Hello Mr. Zierenberg, thank you very much for your comment. A friendly suggestion: You are welcome to see yourself as a "marketing employee" of this platform and can thus contribute to making the content known. Yours sincerely, M.L.
I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to both authors for this very convincing text! The laws of nature cannot be overridden by wishful thinking. Every scientifically minded person therefore likes to remember the II. Law of Thermodynamics. But ...: how do I tell my child that the hot majority, the electorate in Germany, would force politicians to abandon their misguided ways. This is also my assessment of the lack of understanding that even many top managers in Germany's economy reveal on this central issue of 'energy scarcity at any price'. Unfortunately, I can't help but think of the head of the global company SIEMENS when her Mr. Kaeser says that it is now necessary to pander to the goals of Greta and Annalena and their dreams of a '+2° global warming limit' and possibly even the 'Great Reset'.
Why are the many experts around us silent about this?
We should not be surprised that all important opinion leaders even support this intellectual short-circuit. It fits in well with the motto of some of the Greens 'Never again Germany'
19.06.2021 - Dr. rer. nat. O H Wilhelms, Lower Saxony
This is an interesting contribution from the point of view of an engineer who is very familiar with the technical side, especially the current technology available.
For me, it is primarily the political and social aspects that are worth considering.
As far as technically possible, we should generally strive for decentralized energy generation in which local people do the business and make business decisions in the way that is best for them.
Fossil fuels are supplied by oligopolies that are closely linked to the ruling political classes. This has long resulted in a fatal concentration of power. Wars over oil production rights and the overthrow of elected governments (Iran, Venezuela) have been the result.
In retrospect, nuclear energy has made a huge loss to society as a whole, just think of the unresolved final storage issue or the accidents in Thernobyl and Fukushima, for example. The scandal in Asse is the responsibility of Jürgen Trittin, then Environment Minister in Lower Saxony, together with the Helmholtz Association. The amendment to the Atomic Energy Act regarding nuclear waste disposal was only made possible by the red-green majority in the Lower Saxony state parliament. Otherwise the German nuclear power plants would have had to be shut down a long time ago. Lobbying and corruption are an obvious explanation. An early fall from grace by the Greens, of similarly far-reaching significance as Germany's entry into the war in Yugoslavia, which violated international law, at the instigation of Joschka Fischer, who now appears to be a Harvard professor without any academic qualifications.
But where are the alternatives?
A first step towards establishing a scientifically based policy here in Western Europe, which can then be supported by a large majority of the population out of insight and not out of fear, is the scientific classification of the effects of emitted CO2. Equally important would be a realistic assessment of the development of CO2 emissions internationally.
It remains to be said that those who do not consider their own error to be possible have left the ground of science and entered that of a faith or a cult.
I don't want to discuss the causes of climate change here, there is no doubt that climate change is happening here and now.
On the other hand, many people realize that oil, gas and coal will continue to be burned worldwide until it becomes financially unattractive.
In relation to the 400 million inhabitants of the EU, we in Western Europe have a standard of living that is well above average worldwide. If we were to halve our consumption, the global effect would be rather small. As prosperity increases, the poorer countries will consume significantly more than we could ever save.
If our planet is to withstand this in the long term, and I am sure it will in the end, one of the first things we need is intelligent technology. Renewable energy is probably more trustworthy than fossil and nuclear energy. Solar energy is available in unimaginable abundance, and in abundance efficiency is irrelevant. Synthetic fuel for mobility is therefore one solution (of many). Certainly where a high energy density is required.
We should be careful not to restrict the open competition of ideas. Our own error is definitely possible, others could develop ideas that could still prove to be very important.
Like, for example, the illiterate man who, in the Sahel region, has brought about a greening of the severely damaged savannahs that was thought to be impossible. This is also an aspect of capturing CO2. The subject of wood. But that's probably going too far here.
Dr. Wessel, when you talk about energy production, you haven't even understood the first law of thermodynamics! That is the law of conservation of energy. I learned that in the 7th grade. You don't need a degree to understand it. Nor should we talk about abundance, especially for reasons of sustainability, as technology must be available for this. You can reduce your standard of living to a minimum. Just tell that to the Indians and Chinese.
Dear Ho We! You can read about the Indians and Chinese in my article. The law of conservation of energy is all very well in a closed system. The Earth's energy balance is an open system. Solar energy is supplied every day and maintains a flow equilibrium. If the solar radiation drops, e.g. due to ash in the atmosphere after a very large volcanic eruption, there is a significant cooling. This can be explained quite simply by cold space.
...the fairy tale of the Asse...just another of the nation's tax graves...
Anyone who reads the options comparison carefully and expertly must realize that the statistical analysis is unfortunately flawed. Politically dark green wanted...
I consider both the article by Dr. Ahlborn and Dr. Heidsieck, as well as the constructive response by Dr. Wessel, to be successful. At least in this forum, please maintain the unarrogant, objective argumentation that was used here! It's no good if only your own disciples (new-speak followers) read the articles and agree with them in a strongly polarizing way!
As someone who, as a chemist, also likes to argue with the efficiency of energy conversion, I found Dr. Wessel's comment interesting: "Solar energy is available in unimaginable abundance; in abundance, efficiency is irrelevant." My concern has long revolved around the question: how much of the sun's energy that shines on the earth per square meter is converted into heat one way or another and not reflected? In this context, it would be a glimmer of hope for humanity if we could determine that: One way or another, everything ends up in heat in the Earth's atmosphere, because then we would be living in a self-service store without a till, so to speak: if we cover large unused areas in the steppes of South America and Asia, in the tundra or Sahara with black, perfectly absorbent solar cells and chemically convert the electricity into transportable forms of energy on site, we could store round about 25% of the infinite solar energy with PtX. Transportation would still have to be included. But is that climate-neutral, heat-neutral? I am really worried because I know that the rest of the captured solar energy that has not been harvested will be released into the atmosphere in the form of heat at a uselessly low level: It doesn't seem logical to me to assume that a running electric furnace in a greenhouse - the heat released during energy conversion - won't add to global warming in the greenhouse instead of cooling it down! Why do we have heat islands in large cities that are already 2-3 degrees above the average temperature? An engineer would argue: A newly installed air conditioning system powered by electricity to cool a house (our earth) heats up the house as long as you can't vent the hot exhaust air outside! Which of the scientists receiving billions in funding can seriously provide me with an overall heat balance of the switch to alternative energy supply? All my inquiries to colleagues have so far been met with a shrug of the shoulders. However, I think this is very, very problematic when it comes to such far-reaching decisions!
Hello,
Why is no "green" or "Fridays for Future" activist talking about "free energy"?
The German Prof. Dr. Claus W. Turtur has been researching in this field for years ("zero-point energy of electromagnetic waves of the quantum vacuum", also known as space energy, vacuum energy or zero-point energy)
https://www.ostfalia.de/cms/de/pws/turtur/nebenwirkungen/
Thank you to the authors for their fact-based explanation of the situation.
However, it is absolutely not the case that those in power in Berlin do not know what threatens us if we run out of "juice", as the following federal printed matter very clearly demonstrates.
https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/17/056/1705672.pdf
All the more reason for citizens - also in view of the possible upcoming Bundestag elections - to think very deeply about why, despite the knowledge that apparently exists, an energy policy is being pushed with all their might that could result in very close to the catastrophic consequences described in the printed matter.
Great article, very clear explanation of the connections.
Many thanks for that.
Nevertheless, I believe that there will be no way around Power-to-X in the long term.
However, as the article correctly states, we must not believe that the CO2-neutral electricity required for this could come from W&S surpluses in Germany alone. Rather, this electricity must be provided in very large quantities in base load. Ideally on a global scale and preferably in places where wind and sun are significantly more productive than here, if it is to be via W&S plants.
However, if you are not ideologically committed to this, you should of course make massive use of CO2-free 4th generation nuclear energy; and then also in Germany: then it might also work out with energy self-sufficiency, but this should not and cannot be a goal in itself.
If, on the other hand, it is implemented worldwide, cheap CO2-free electricity will be available in almost any quantity in the not too distant future and will become a tradable commodity in the form of Power-to-X.
By then at the latest, the discussion about energy conversion and storage efficiency will be over.
Knowledge is power, not faith!
German fantasies of omnipotence have never ended well.
A very clear article. I have checked some of the facts again and they are correct. This is not meant to be mistrustful but just scientific honesty.
In my opinion, Percy Pane's comment is not correct. Efficiency is essential because it determines the hard expenditure. The arguments mentioned by Percy Pane are quite valid, but consider other aspects.
Hello Mr. Fleischmann,
Thank you for your objection.
However, I don't quite understand it. The efficiency only records the energy that is put into the conversion compared to the energy that can be used as electricity after the conversion. So x kWh in the form of coal, uranium, air movement, solar radiation, water in an elevated position versus y kWh of electricity. This is only the "hard effort" insofar as it is a nice precise number that can be determined.
But what is actually the "hard effort" is determined by what you have to do to supply (and convert) the energy.
Otherwise you are comparing apples with oranges in the context we are talking about here.
In terms of efficiency, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants deal more efficiently with the energy supplied by raw materials (!) than wind or solar power plants do with the energy supplied to them in the form of moving air or solar radiation.
But with one technology I put up propellers or cover my roof with flat panels - and I need patience, can't expect too much at once and may have to put up with ugliness.
Whereas with the other technology I get a lot and immediately - but have to dig up my garden and keep windows and doors closed against exhaust fumes.
Only when I've decided which technique I'm going to follow does it come back into play to compare good and less good technique - the same technique.
However, an efficiency analysis is not necessary for this decision.
Even worse - and that's why I'm jumping on this in the first place: a discussion of efficiency distracts from the much more important issues here.
Greetings
Percy
Apples and pears was good! But that also applies to you!
Our schools and universities are instruments of domination..... I only got to know independent sources when I retired and only understood the profit system late in life.... One contribution to this was the book "The Globalization Trap" by Hans-Peter Martin & Harald Schumann. 11th edition 1997.....
KenFM - for me an educational portal.....Positionen - Politik verstehen , What I have learned about politics, the environment and social issues has made me an active supporter. ......When I make contacts, I always come across the MEDIA POWER.....Daniele Ganser, Rainer Mausfeld, or INDEPENDENT media are known to very few people! If we don't all become interested in politics and don't get involved in BASIC DEMOCRACY, then things will be bad!
The US Senate has declared the C-crisis a lie.....The Corona Committee and the many committees will put an end to this scam.....For success, for change, we need the work of the independents ....clubderklarenworte, RUBIKON, Auf1.TV, WochenBlick, KenFm, and many others and a togetherness !
Hello Mr. Langemann,
In this context, there are very promising research activities on heat storage - copied from nature: stones retain heat:
https://www.bmwi-energiewende.de/EWD/Redaktion/Newsletter/2019/07/Meldung/News1.html
Nevertheless, as is so often the case, the policy seems to me to be too far removed from the actual facts. Why is diesel not emulsified with water upstream of the engine? Minimizes pollutant emissions, is already technically established...and is still not done? E-mobility instead...the energy balance of lithium-ion batteries is not countered...And for people for whom Bequerel is a type of French cheese, radioactivity can also be switched off...the nature of radioactivity is that it cannot be switched off - not even uranium fuel rods. Nuclear power plants do NOT lose their accident potential through decommissioning...on the contrary - necessary maintenance work should then only be reduced...We keep shooting ourselves in the foot with our swarm intelligence...miss the necessary targets because nobody takes the scientific basics into account any more...armature made, canceled at the university...but want to be elected...will be fine if the hairstyle is right...:-)
If you also have to pay fuel tax on the water, it becomes uneconomical!
Mr. König, your third option is the only one left to us in our sleepy Germany. But when that happens, I hope soon, it will be very violent. I'm going as far as civil war in my assumption.
Whether energy transition, financial policy (debt, zero interest rate policy), pension policy, environment, defense, economic or health policy. Total failure must be attested in all areas. The reason: politicians whose intellectual level is at grassroots level.
A health minister who can proudly point to 14 years of study. Without a degree. The CDU party secretary studied for 12 years without a degree. Kevin Kühnert, a university dropout, can point to a 6-month career as a call center employee, Labor Minister Heil has not a single minute of employment subject to social security contributions, Scheuer, a student teacher, burns through millions, Von der Leyen wrecks the Bundeswehr, botches vaccine procurement, fantasizes about a Green Deal, they are still in office and dignity despite their proven incompetence, although they have caused serious damage to this country. They enjoy immunity.
The level of education of most MPs is subterranean. In addition, there are the ideologically screwed-up politicians who want to abolish freedom and introduce socialism with religious zeal. It is too late. This state can no longer be saved.
A government elected by the people reflects the mental state of these people in a frightening way. If they were smarter, they would elect a smarter government.
Apart from the massive, structural problems of a party democracy, as they are repeatedly pointed out by independent minds, a propaganda financed by fees has very little problem with such a people to secure the brimming feeding troughs for those who in return dutifully increase precisely these fees - after all, one hand washes the other . ('A cynical, venal, demagogic press will in time produce a people as vile as itself.' - Joseph Pulitzer (1847-1911)')
The argument contains two major weaknesses.
Comparing efficiency levels makes little sense in this context.
Efficiency comparisons help when comparing similar systems. So coal-fired power plant A vs. coal-fired power plant B. Or wind turbines against each other.
When comparing completely different source materials and processes, such as coal vs. wind, efficiency does not help.
Even if 40% efficiency is achieved with coal when converting it into electricity: Finite raw material, harmful exhaust gases, dangerous mining work.
If, on the other hand, only 20% efficiency were achieved with wind: "Infinite" raw material, hardly any exhaust gases, comparatively harmless work.
Of course, this does not mean that the damage caused by wind power is not greater than that caused by coal power. However, efficiency does not play a role here.
A similar example: Even if you generate electricity from sunlight with an absolutely puny yield: I don't have to dig up sunlight at the risk of my life. In contrast, the damage potential of nuclear power remains even if nuclear power plants were to operate with 60% efficiency.
So 5% from harmless sunlight, which is so and so there, versus 60% from uranium ore, ergo mining, chemical waste from processing, risk of accidents - the efficiency at the core is of no interest.
The second point:
Determining demand on the basis of current demand implicitly assumes that this demand must be or will always be as it has been in the past. But it doesn't have to be. If I build a lot of power plants and supply a lot of electricity, there will be a lot of demand and little thought as to whether this is actually a good idea.
However, when it comes to questioning the energy system or thinking through alternatives, current demand is only of very limited relevance to the question of what will be "needed" in the future (and not simply "in demand" because it is easy to have).
Dear Percy Payne,
When you speak of "comparatively harmless" work, you reveal that you are not familiar with the (modern) working conditions in our mining industry (not in China), the dangers of working on wind turbines (risk of falling, offshore) and the possible occupational health and safety measures. The statement cannot remain as it is...
Greetings
Verena
Hello Verena,
Thank you for your reply.
I certainly have no in-depth knowledge of these working conditions. However, in light of your objection, my phrase "comparatively (!) harmless" seems appropriate. After all, a fair comparison would have to be made: Modern occupational health and safety would then already have to be assumed in both areas.
But even then, I think there will be more fatalities and injuries underground than over land or at sea.
A fundamental disadvantage of fossil raw materials is that they have to be "dug up" on a large scale and for all eternity, not only to produce and maintain the plants, but also simply to obtain the fuel.
The former - building and maintaining infrastructure and the associated risks - naturally also applies to wind and solar power plants. But they do not explode, emit radiation or smoke in anything like the same way. Industrial accidents do not affect dozens or hundreds of people at once and can hardly devastate an entire region.
And the latter - the procurement of energy-supplying raw materials - does not apply in the same sense, it simply does not apply. Nobody has to risk their neck for the wind to blow or the sun to shine.
I would agree with you if I said that the working conditions for "fossil fuels" are dangerous and those for "renewables" are not. You really shouldn't just leave it at that. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm making a comparison, and it still seems to me that there are big differences - in favor of wind and solar.
Greetings
Percy
Hello Percy,
It is indeed warm underground and there may be radon exposure. Dust levels are significantly reduced by the technical work equipment and people who work underground undergo regular occupational health checks. The same applies to those who work in nuclear power plants or offshore facilities, of course. Technical safety measures are good. The physical fitness requirements for work on offshore installations are significantly higher than those for underground work - far fewer people are physically suitable for the job.
Wherever there is electricity, there are also magnetic fields - and of course there can also be electrical accidents with solar installations. Falling from a height is still the most common fatal accident at work. The injured person is always injured - no matter where something happened.
Accidents must be avoided everywhere.
If it were up to me, we would have phased out coal first, let nuclear power plants continue to operate, shut down the oldest one, dismantle it completely and only then shut down the second oldest one, and so on. As I said, the potential dangers will only be eliminated once the plants have been completely dismantled and the fuel elements adequately disposed of. But medium and long-term approaches are generally less politically opportune. The real possibilities are not exhausted, but fancy research projects are proclaimed...cui bono?...
Greetings, Verena
Thank you, Mr. Payne, for your comments. However, we are not sure whether your criticism applies to our arguments.
Our article was not about comparing different energy sources. Since the introduction of the EEG in 2000, Germany has been on the path of generating electricity from wind and solar plants. You can take whatever view you like on this. In the meantime, however, politicians have also realized that this path will not work without reliable and affordable storage of electricity (primarily so-called "surplus electricity"). And since it has now also been recognized that electricity storage using batteries is not an adequate solution (e.g. too expensive, environmental problems with lithium extraction, service life, etc.) and that trucks, trains and aircraft cannot be powered by electricity from batteries, the magic words are now "hydrogen" and "e-fuels".
Politicians want Germany to be climate-neutral by 2050 and, as we are the global pioneers of the energy transition, we want to reduce our CO2 emissions by 50% by 2030. That's still 9 years away. Doesn't this make it obvious or even imperative to ask, in a completely neutral way, where the required quantities of hydrogen or e-fuels are to come from? Because one thing is also clear - and will be the subject of another article - national hydrogen or e-fuel production using "surplus electricity" from W&S plants is far from sufficient.
Unfortunately, this is where the stupid efficiency factor comes into play again, as the efficiency determines the technical effort. According to the literature, the efficiency of a hydrogen electrolysis plant is 60 to 70%. (If only "surplus electricity" is actually used for operation, then - as we will show - the efficiency is significantly worse again). Since the hydrogen obtained from excess W&S electricity is to be used for electricity storage, it must be converted back into electricity if necessary. For this purpose, a fuel cell can be used, for example, whose efficiency is 60 to 80% according to the literature. The overall process - electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity - therefore has an overall efficiency of between 36 and 56%. Conclusion: if you put 100% of electricity in at the beginning, only between a third and a half of the electricity comes out at the end. And this problem cannot be solved by doubling or even tripling the amount of "surplus electricity" - it only occurs on a few days a year...
So can the electricity requirements of an industrialized country be reliably covered in this way? We have well-founded doubts. So the question remains: where will the hydrogen come from? Perhaps you have a good idea?
Dear Dr. Heidsieck!
I became aware of this website via EIKE, where I first read this article.
About two years ago, I looked into the subject of hydrogen and efficiency.
I rummaged through doctoral and diploma theses and downloaded data sheets from manufacturers.
My research was practically identical, rounded 70 % electrolysis and 70 % fuel cell.
If we convert electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity under laboratory conditions, we arrive at 50 %.
Under real conditions, the efficiency looks much worse, storage.
The hydrogen has to be stored somehow, usually in tanks at high pressure.
To compress the hydrogen, in the order of several 100 bar, you need a lot of energy.
Pipes and pressure vessels are always somewhat permeable with hydrogen and the pressure.
I came up with a rough estimate of 50 % for storage and transportation.
If I turn electricity into hydrogen, store it and turn it back into electricity, the efficiency is only 25 %.
This means that in physical terms alone, electricity is four times more expensive than direct generation even in the dark and when there is no wind.
In practice, it will be much more expensive; the plants for electrolysis, storage and recovery have to be built.
Hello Percy,
Unfortunately, it is not true that the poor efficiency of "Power to X" technologies is insignificant in view of the apparent inexhaustibility of the primary energy used. The exact opposite is the case - the poor efficiency clearly proves that this strategy is a sham sold in sweet words.
Quite simply, if the efficiency of the planned "Power to X" process is 20 % or 30 %, this means that in order to generate the required target power for one day, this system must first be "charged" with the target power for 3 to 5 days. During these 3 to 5 days, the wind power generation can therefore be used for no other purpose than to generate "Power to X". With an efficiency of 20 % and a target coverage of 20 % of the time, the entire electricity production would have to be put into "Power to X".
That's a bit more than simply using the surplus production that occurs every now and then for free. We would have to double the infrastructure just to be able to operate "Power to X". Who would pay for it, where would it be built, how long would it take? No chance.
How can you expect people for whom 5+2+1 = 7 (Baerbock to her employees, whom she employs - with what, actually? It can't be careful research ;-)) ), even begin to understand what you have explained here in a really easy-to-understand way? We must not forget that we have arrived in the post-factual era and that you cannot convince ideological fanatics with sober data and facts. For them, Orwellian Newspeak is quite normal and logic and neutral science are out of the question. How did harmful ideologies come to an end in earlier times? That's right, they were stamped out with fire and sword. Today, we might have other methods at hand.
Incidentally, I see a connection between the green ideas of energy production and climate hysteria. Anyone who believes that they can subject nature to energy production also believes that although they have no direct influence on the weather, they do have an influence on the climate (statistical average of the weather over 30 years). Along the lines of: the tail wags the dog, the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.
Regarding this and other currently popular topics: I have NO more HOPE.
Sooner or later, humanity will do away with itself. The question remains as to who will then build and manage the new world. This is probably only written in the history of creation, which we all do not know in its entirety.
Is humanity doing away with itself?
Sometimes I have the very cynical thought that at some point this will no longer be a dystopia, but the official main demand in the Greens' election program. Even worse: this demand will have a positive echo. It only has "advantages". Viruses will no longer find human hosts and will be eradicated (yes, I know that's nonsense). The planet and the climate will be saved because humans and man-made industry will no longer emit C02. Meat industry, factory farming? Are a thing of the past. Wars? No more, because who should be at war? And we Germans should lead the way in this humanistic suicide as a true and final penance for the Nazi era.
We all have to take our own lives out of fear of death. There are enough people who will say "Where can I sign?"
If measures do not fit the specified goal, the question is: Which goal do they fit?
The morning dew plan, i.e. the reduction of the German population and transformation into an agricultural country. Naturally with a considerable reduction in prosperity and thus also in life expectancy. But it seems to be the only way to cure the Germans of their export surplus disease, which is already costing them a massive amount of prosperity. But don't worry, neither party is aware of this. The politicians are just staggering around in nirvana, egged on by a sensationalist press and always on the lookout for voters' wishes.
"There are no stupid questions."
Who hasn't heard this phrase? Heard a thousand times by teachers and our own parents. I have a different opinion. When I tell a good friend something and he then spontaneously asks me a question that completely misses the point of what I have just said and also my feelings, I find the question stupid. At the very least. Asking the right questions shows understanding, insight and empathy.
Related to politics, in this case energy policy: Wrong questions/topics can mean two things. The person has not understood the problem. However, the other phenomenon occurs much more frequently: He has understood it very well and the wrong questions/topics serve as a distraction.
"Where will this amount of hydrogen come from?" Clever question.
Our politicians, led by a physicist with a doctorate, nevertheless want to implement the paradigm shift in an almost religious frenzy with the support of a deliberately under-educated population and also save the climate and the whole world's hunger. If you raise doubts, you often hear: "Our scientists and engineers will think of something".
So, let's finally start the experiment, the sooner the spook is over!
For some time now, I have doubted both the intellect and the willingness of the majority of the population in our country to pursue education and training.
A failed attempt to implement nonsensical, green eco-fascism will only open the eyes and mouths of a few.
We have become too spoiled, too fed up, too lazy. We elect the most stupid and the most incompetent from our ranks to speak for us - why? Because we want others to do the job for us that we no longer feel like doing.
If the Green Party comes to power with the competence of Ms. Bb, we will be completely exposed to ridicule....
When I was young, it was said that if you don't want to hear, you have to feel. One of my teachers then said that you can roughly divide people's behavior into three categories: 1. those who learn from the mistakes of others. 2. those who only learn from their own mistakes. 3. those who learn neither from their own mistakes nor from the mistakes of others.
What does that mean? Reason alone will not solve the problem, especially when Category 3 is in charge of the government.
Ergo: there will only be a reaction and reflection if the power goes out in the middle of the international soccer match and the smart phone no longer works due to empty buffer batteries in the network stations.
So the sooner all nuclear and coal-fired power plants are taken off the grid, the sooner category 3 will be "voted out" of government office.
There is nothing to add!