_here_search_with_expressions_from_this_page ... (_text_below_will_NOT_disappear)
v. March 20, 2017
Energy supply: Truth?
Optimal investment related to energy? The best for future energy supply might be geothermal energy. This text includes a very short comparison table, helpful for money investors. The author of this page would supply extended comparisons and more on geothermal energy on this site, if sponsoring can be obtained.
Suggestions to: ok @ fin7.com
Comparison and ranking
Renewable energy / major types and setbacks:
Geothermal: "unlimited". This is perhaps the best choice. (Earthquake risks?)
Hydro power: Availability volume limits and other disadvantages.
Solar power: To recommend if production cost can be reduced? For locations with enough sun hours per day?
Tidal power. wave power: Technology innovations required before being competitive?
Wind power: Various limitations, basic problems and disadvantages.
Nuclear energy : It is listed here as renewable because perhaps "unlimited". The major problem is the risk level in case of accidents.
Not renewable energy :
Biofuel is not to recommend, at least not when in competition with traditional agricultural production. This is not a renewable energy type. A rarely discussed main problem is long-term soil quality reduction in case of later reuse for food production. It is generally discussed that this type of energy production is in competition with food production. It also competes with water resources.
Oil and gas can not be recommended as an energy source (energy "production"): The setbacks are now generally recognized. A major aspect is rarely discussed. It is a big loss for the future of mankind to burn such high value substances, just for the purpose of energy production. Do we have the right to burn within 150 years what has been created during the long earth history?
Is geothermal Energy the best source of energy supply?
For clarification: Geothermal energy is not "renewable". But for various reasons, it can be considered in simplification as "unlimited" and as "impossible to exhaust".
Significant technology problems require ongoing testing and pilot projects.
Geothermal energy is considered by the author of this document as the best choice - at least as long as nobody proves the contrary.
As of 2008, geothermal power supplies less than 1% of the world's energy. (In the Philippines and Iceland, 15-20% of power comes from geothermal plants.) - The whole energy needs of Germany could be satisfied by geothermal energy from future energy plants within Germany.
A major risk of geothermal plants is that of earth quakes or at least of damage to buildings. This risk can be reduced by various precautions and choices of options.
We do have risks of at least a similar level for most other energy supply types. There are much higher smilar risks and problems from hydro power, and nuclear power has a multiple risk of resulting possible damage.
A small part of the deserts of the world would be sufficient for the required enery supply of the world.
Many unresolved technical problems For this energy resouce concept are still unresolved. These technical problems will perhaps progressively be settled by innovation steps.
A different unresolved major problem is on the political level. The goal of this energy concept is on an international level while the required territory belongs to single nations. There are solutions for this problem. It is important to try to apply new forms of international agreements for this type of problems.
All problems can be resolved if information about nuclear energy would be free of lobby influence.
Really valid security concepts can multiply the amount of investment. Managers are not paid for increasing expenses and reducing risks. They are paid for increasing earnings.
Business lobbies are paid for the goals of managers. NGO lobbies are paid for satisfying majority emotions. Politicians behave as if they were paid for finding compromises between suggestions of opposed lobbies.
It is documented in some internal information archive how all major accident consequences of nuclear plants could have been avoided in case of much differing and much more expensive concepts for nuclear plants.
For all major accidents of nuclear plants, some rare key information from independant experts (engineers) and scientists is archived about the involved conceptual causes. Such information is rare. The information channels are filled at a rate of close to 100 percent with the huge information flow produced permanently by the two opposed lobbies.
This internal archive of scientific key information is a registry of proof of human errors. It is a registry of permanent attempts to increase earnings by neglecting securtiy aspects on the initial conceptual level.
The solution of the risk problem of nuclear plants can not be found on a level of religious belief. It can not be found on a lobby level. It can not be found on a political level, because this is driven be the lobby level.
The solution of the risk problem of nuclear plants can only be supplied on a scientific level about much differing security concepts. This concerns first the construction concepts. Possible very different concepts are part of the internatl archive. There is empirical evidence available that nuclear plants can this way have a zero risk for the population. Not a single of the current power plants conforms to this conceptual security level. This concerns all existing power plants as well as all just under construction.
It also concens the accident precautions. In case of the Japanese power plant accidents (2010), there was apparently no strategy of measures for the case "nothing works any more". It belongs to the basic general rules of security concepts to prepare measures fot just this case. These measures have to be available at any point of time and have to be tested from time to time.
Nuclear energy sources will under such intensified security conditions probably still be profitable.This may change in the long run when other solutions for the energy problem probably will become cheaper.
... in favor of publishing archive extracts on comparison and best choice
This existing archive comprises analysis results and comparisons from approxímately 100 different scientific studies und institutions on energy supply types. In addition, there is a collection of scientists' clarifications related to common errors and to intentional wrong information (lobby information, marketing and so on).
The task is to bring abstracts of all these results and opinions into the Internet and to find out and show the true truth in case of opposed statements und results.
Then it would be required to inform media journalists where to find the true truth on the truth. This would enable them to check in the future all information supply related to energy and to reject opinion manipulation by lobby organizations.
At present, 80++ percent of published information on energy type advantages is basically wrong and is frequently an attempt of opinion manipulation in a sense opposed to truth. This intentional opinion falsification is typically based on financial interest, in the worst case on subsidies in favor of some bad-choice type of renewable energy.
Financial sponsoring needs
For nearly instant availability of most high-value information of the mentioned archive, an amount of at least 10 000 Euro is needed.
Offers please to: ok @ vox7.com
Negotiations can only take place after some proof that the future sponsor has the serious intention to supply the required and suggested amounts.
» Projects: Energy, Environment EN DE
» Project: Climate, Environment EN DE
» Climate future: Funding truth analysis EN
|-ana-pubcc-pha11465# D=17320 F=tee-trueb-en.htm|