NL1016048C2 - Electricity generating process, by burning seaweed grown by hydroculture at sea and returning the combustion gases to the seawater - Google Patents

Abstract

Seaweed grown at sea by hydroculture is harvested, dried and burnt to produce electricity. Combustion gases are returned to the sea water so that carbon dioxide can be used for photosynthesis. The ash is added to the seawater as nutrient salts for the seaweed. Seaweed is grown at sea in an open or closed hydroculture system with the aid of nutrient salts obtained from the sea itself or from the ash of burnt seaweed. A small amount of the seaweed (e.g. 0.1 %) harvested for burning is cut into pieces with a size of e.g. 1 cm and thrown back into the sea so that seaweed continues to grow. The rest of the seaweed is dried and burnt, the combustion gases generated when the seaweed is burnt are treated to remove carbon dioxide, by passing the gases through the seawater. The carbon dioxide is useful to the growing seaweed for photosynthesis.

Description

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS F.N PK ALTERNATIVES - CHANGES - 3.

1. I would like to draw your attention to the possibility of a completely different approach to energy and environmental problems and alternatives; in their current form, they are increasingly unclear and threaten to become more and more arbitrary and priceless # The energy problems include, among others .; the finite supply of oil, gas, coal; the ever-higher energy prices and taxes.

#The environmental problems concerning pollution on land, at sea and in the atmosphere. In the latter case it is mainly about the greenhouse effect, the smog in the big cities and the hole in the ozone layer.

10 #The alternatives (wind turbines, solar cells, solar boilers, nuclear energy, biomass, hydroelectric power stations, etc.); they all turn out to be completely unprofitable and even if we add these energy sources together there is still no question of a complete alternative.

All of this comes to us faster and faster and it doesn't look like anything useful has already been found.

On the one hand, the alternatives on which losses are incurred (solar cells) are compensated by an increase in the gas price.

On the other hand, agreements that cannot be complied with can be compensated by taxation (ecotax).

In both cases the consumer is the victim, but progress cannot be expected; instead of technological improvements, only administrative and economic measures have been taken.

# Most attention is currently being paid to wind turbines and solar cells (and occasionally biomass).

20 * Both devices have to do with an energy efficiency, which in the meantime will have been developed as optimally as possible, but always applies for an efficiency of 0 <η <1 ♦ Next, it concerns sunlight that emits on earth and where only a part of it is nature surface is made available. It is expected that around 0.2% of the land area will in the future be covered with solar cells and / or wind turbines. The total world land area is approximately 148,822,000 km1.

25 For orientation purposes, the Netherlands has a surface area of 40,840 km1 and 0.2% of which is 82 km1, however, it is expected that a surface area of 40 * 40 = 1600 km1 is needed to control only the electricity supply in the Netherlands, but that is 3 , 92% instead of. 0.2% ♦ With all this equipment falls among others. that a lot of material is needed to make the devices, such that soon not only an oil and gas will be short, but also a material too short will be added, and if the devices also have a short lifespan, in about 10 years, a huge garbage dumps in • This equipment is very maintenance sensitive with regard to. dust, mosquito and bird poop, which ruin the returns.

♦ The investment costs, possibly islands in the sea, are very high.

#To look like, there is not much more to see than sadness; there is hardly a single bright spot. All problems are exactly the same as they were, there is only administrative shifting of existing problems without any new vision.

1016048

It is about time for a completely new vision and approach to. to provide energy and environmental problems and alternatives and to compare the expected energy yields of the various alternative energy sources, and to shed light on the environmental pollution.

40 2.1. Current energy processing mainly uses the finite supply of fossil fuels coal and the hydrocarbons oil and gas and for pollution the “waste gas COj” 2 is mainly designated because there could be a greenhouse effect, or that is true let's not ignore the fact that CO 2 accumulates in the atmosphere from 300 ppm (parts per million) to now 370 ppm CO 2 used to be absorbed by land plants (forests and agricultural crops) to a sufficient extent to get there again via photosynthesis The land plants were therefore the CO 2 sink and if this crop consisting of carbohydrates decays it will eventually be converted back to the fossil fuels coal and the hydrocarbons oil and gas. is unusable for a long time Because of the increasing world population and increasing demand for energy, the finite supply of fossil fuel is being depleted further. increases and forests are cut down for. farmland. All this means that the land plants fall short as a CO2 sink and CO2 starts to accumulate in the atmosphere.

10 #There are thus two problems on the one hand the cause: increasing processing with a shortage of fossil fuel and on the other hand the consequence: an excess of CO2 waste gas, which are inextricably linked to each other as a "chicken-egg" problem.

In order to address the cause of faulty energy processing, alternatives such as wind turbines, solar cells, solar boilers, biomass, hydroelectric power stations, nuclear power stations, etc. are being considered (see below), but it will appear (see below) that these alternatives are absolutely inadequate. They only count for a few percent of the world's annual primary energy consumption.

Apart from the low capacity of the alternatives, the electricity that is produced is also much more expensive than the regular electricity, so it will cost money

To address the consequence of the CO2 waste gas problem, one opts for austerity and higher tax rates for ecotax, but attempts are also made to pump CO2 gas into empty oil and gas sources, or as carbon dioxide-hydrate crystals at the bottom of the sea. to store at a certain temperature and pressure, or to store as a liquid also at the bottom of the sea at a certain temperature and pressure, or a better forestry policy.

2.2. If we think we can obtain alternative energy from the sunlight on earth, then we first have to know how much sunlight falls on per m2 and how large the world land surface and world sea surface is.

25 Solar energy: what does the earth receive on land and on the sea in sunlight.

The Nasa has set standards for the energy from the sunlight that the earth receives: “the ΑΜ0, the AM1 and the AM2.” This concerns all wavelengths from that sunlight spectrum and one chooses an average day

Table 1. Solar energy received on land and at sea:

Land area 148,822,000 km2 1,488 * 1014 m2

Sea surface 361,128,000 km2 3,611 * 1014 m2

Total area 509,950,000 km2 5,100. * 1014 m2

Land area * AM2 (740 watts / m2) = 1.103 * 1017 watts

Sea surface * AM2 (740 watts / m2) = 2,671 * 1017 watts

Until received Energy from the Sun 3,774 * 1017 Watt

In 1 year or 365 days with 12 h of sun irradiation, solar energy will be received:

On land 14,831 * 102 "Wh 4,831 * 10IV kWh

To the sea 1,170 * 1021 Wh 1,170 * 10w kWh

Up to solar energy in 1 year 1,653 * 1021 Wh 1,653 * 10 “kWh

The AM0 = 1350W / m2 applies to perpendicular sunlight. for. the space travels outside the atmosphere 1Π160 43 30 3

The AM1 = 1000W / m2 applies to perpendicular sunlight entering the atmosphere on an average day. So if the solar cell can be aimed at the sun's rays, this is the practical value.

The AM2 = 740W / m2 is applicable for sunlight that enters the atmosphere at sea level at an angle of 60 ° for an average day.

5 #Compare the data from table 1 with the data for the year 1984 from tables 4 to 10 and the expectation for the years 2000 and 2030 with an energy increase of approximately 5% per year and we also take that 3A of the world population is demanding its energy share, which will then amount to an increase of a factor of 4; even then, the world annual primary energy consumption remains below the solar energy that is radiated in ...................... The solar energy on land for 1 year amounts to 4,831 MO-7 kWh see table 1 10 In 2030 the world annual consumption of primary energy will amount to 7,526 * 1014 kWh see table 8

This is only 0.156% of the solar energy that is radiated in, easily achievable in principle.

#The question now becomes how should we turn this solar energy into alternative energy, one thing is clear the sunlight must always be involved over large surfaces and an increasing world population also requires space and agricultural land for urbanization, one even burns the forests for.

15 People want to miss as little land as possible. It is estimated that, worldwide, no more than 0.2% of the land area is used for energy extraction, the rest should be done at sea by building islands in shallow water, which is very expensive. · - VB.1. Windmills and solar cells are considered as clean alternatives; but what can we expect from these alternatives are sufficient? 2.3. Windmills.

#Wind energy is obtained from solar energy; as a result, on average no more wind energy can be generated than the solar energy. There are cyclones, but there are also periods when there is no wind, therefore, we need resources, the return is not clearly calculated. Subsequently, a windmill again uses a fraction of that wind energy, for the efficiency the windmill energy can best be compared with the solar energy, whereby we have to take into account the surface area that is required for that windmill. power consumption in the Netherlands a windmill park with an area of 40 * 40 = 1,600 km2 is needed; for orientation The Netherlands has an area of 40,840 km2, the Wadden Sea has an area of 2,000 km2 and the Dselmeer has an area of 1,200 km2 one of the two could be "drained and planted with windmills". Roughly 1 windmill with a wicked diameter of 60 meters and a height of about 100 meters on a surface of 100 * 100 = 104 m2, gives an energy of 2.4 * 106 kWh / year. This also results in the efficiency of that mill compared to the incident sunlight on that 104 m2 η «Mmole ·· = 2.4 * 106 / (0.74 MO4 * 365 M 2) = 0.0741; (7.41%) * The number of mills on those 1600 km2 or 1.6 * 109 m2 and with 1 mill per 104 m2, that is 1.6 * 10 * mills.

* The electrical energy that can be generated with this is a maximum of 1.6 * 105 * 2.4 * 106 = 3.84 * 10h kWh / year 35 These mills have to run on average day and night for a year when there are mosquitoes killing and sticking to the blades can sometimes reduce the efficiency of such a mill by up to 50%, and one must also take into account maintenance and repairs of the mechanically rotating parts.

#In 2030 the world annual consumption of primary energy is 7,526 * 1014 kWh; the number of windmills to generate this energy is 7,526 * 1014 / (2.4 * 106) = 3.13 * 108 mills 40 The required surface area 3.13 * 108 * 104 = 3.13 * 1012 m2; that is approximately 2% of the total world land area of 1,488 * 1014 m2 instead of. 0.2% 1016048 4 2.4. Solar cells.

# With solar cells, a so-called quantum efficiency of 15% can be calculated, so η —__ = 0.15 (average during the day, ie 12 out of 24 hours); other η ——i = 0.075 (24-hour average)

That seems to be twice as high as that of wind turbines, but no energy is supplied at night, so we have to calculate an average of 12 hours a day for 1 year, which means no improvement for solar cells and no delivery during the night is a problem.

Dust, mosquito and bird droppings reduce the return, so here too a lot of maintenance (cleaning) is required. The wind turbines and the solar cells require a lot of maintenance and consume a lot of construction material, which will be due in due course. a large shortage can also occur further, the lifespan is limited and a garbage belt is made from material 10 fall, instead of. to shorten fossil fuel, there are now construction materials to shorten.

#For a solar cell of lm2, the light is 740 Watt or 0.74 * 0.15 * 365 * 12 = 486.2 kWh / year We know how much solar energy is received on the land see table 1: 1.103 * 1017 Watt .

It is desired to provide 0.2% of the land surface with solar cells and furthermore the efficiency of a solar cell is 15%.

15 η area = 0.002

The total solar cell energy then becomes 1.103 * 1017 * 0.002 * 0.15 = 3.309 * 1013 watts and per year it becomes 3.309 * 1013 * 365 * 12 = 1.449 * 1014 kWh #This would be a nice alternative for the years before 2000 see table 8 with 1,741 * 1014 kWh, but for the years after 2000 this alternative is rapidly falling short, because the energy consumption increases faster than the solar cells can keep up with, for 2030 see table 8 7,526 * 1014 kWh is needed; but then the solar cells have long been due for replacement. The surface area of 0.2% of the world's land area of 1,488 * 1014 m2 = 2,896 * 10u m2 of solar cell surface, if a solar cell is also 1 m2, this amount also represents the number of solar cells and that is an unimaginable amount. to be able to achieve total world annual primary energy consumption with solar cells, we need 2526 * 1014 / 486.2 = 1.55 * 1012.

Such considerations apply to all alternatives, which are all quickly put behind and can therefore no longer be accepted as an alternative, the investments will also be prohibitive.

The problem is that on the one hand the energy efficiency (ONE FRACTION) is far too low and that on the other hand the surface area that can be spent compared to. the total area (again ONE FRACTION) is too small and it is not easy to improve on that; ηί (Λβι = 0.075 * 0.002 = 0.000.15 which is very low.

We still have to ask ourselves if there is enough material to make and install those wind turbines and / or solar cells. Maintenance and replacement of old devices for new ones that cause a huge garbage dump is also needed.

A single or joint alternative energy source (s) must provide so much energy that they can always provide more energy for 35 years than the global annual consumption of primary energy from coal; oil and natural gas, and it does not seem like that at all, rather it seems that we are falling further behind because these alternative energy sources cannot grow with it.

In addition, there is still a cost to pay; alternative energy must be cheaper than regular energy. #It must be clear that we do not have to look for the solution for wind turbines, solar cells, 40 solar boilers, hydroelectric power stations, nuclear energy and biomass, they all fall short.

Apparently no progress has been made to date.

1016CU8 5

With a match in hand (a windmill or a solar cell) one does not yet have an alternative energy source, we have not much more than a little "additional heating", the intention is of course the possibility of a complete alternative energy source . to get hold of fossil fuels and to realize an inexhaustible energy source, without using raw materials, without environmental pollution and low prices.

5 2.5. Biomass # When biomass is burned, we must think of wood, alcohol, sewage sludge, and manure, animal meal and household waste. It has recently become clear what the return for timber cultivation looks like:

Wood and scrub have been planted on a test site of 100 m * 100 m = 104 m2 and this appears to yield 20 goed.00Θ kWh / year after burning in a well-profitable bolt gasification oven; we can now calculate the 10 return compared to. sunlight.

η ____- ~ 2 * 105 / (0.74 * 104 * 365 * 12) = 0.00625 (0.62%) #A windmill could have been installed on the same 104 m2 site and it would have had 2.4 * 106 kWh / year delivered and that is 12 x as much. There is still a lot of work to be done to exploit the wood, fatten, irrigate, cut down, transport, etc.

15 How much wood comes from 104 m2 can be calculated as follows: the combustion heat of wood is 15.1 MJ / kg see table 3 or 15.1 * 103/3600 = 4.144 kWh / kg of wood and for 200,000 kWh / year then 200,000 / 4,194 = 47,682.12 kg wood / year and per m2 that is 4,768 kg wood / (m2 * year).

During combustion, CO2 comes into the atmosphere, and because the land plant sink works poorly, the CO2 accumulates in the air, so it is not green energy. In fact, the CO2 content in the atmosphere is low, but tav. the greenhouse effect is too high, counteracting plants with a higher CO 2 content growing much faster, that is often used in glass greenhouses, but these in turn prevent sunlight. This method of exploitation means a lot of material costs and a lot of labor costs (fattening, logging, transport) and always only on a small scale. Here, efficiency improvement must be "bought", but from what?

Nonetheless, biomass incineration is useful, but that only applies to household waste collection and incineration.

25 2.6. Photosynthesis of CO * in the sea for the growth of marine plants.

#In all electrical, physical, chemical and mechanical processes it is not possible to make energy multiplication (energy amplification) without this being taken from the pre-setting of the chips, photomultipliers and transistors or the devices, amplifiers being used ie. we never get anything for free, there is always a (quantum) return, a FRACTION between 0 and 1 30 Furthermore, we have seen that when we start using the sunlight on land, there is again a FRACTION between 0 and 1 , close to 0; because the majority of that land surface already has other destinations.

#Now, in another field, that of photochemistry, photosynthesis and photocatalysis the term quantum yield is in fact to be interpreted as quatum multiplication (nt> l) in the long term and that is 3 5 term in this reasonable case (so usable), it is now a FACTOR m> 1.

Furthermore, we should no longer use the sunlight on land, but instead use it at sea, then again there is a FRACTION between 0 and 1, close to 1; because almost the entire sea surface is freely available.

#When CO2 is blown into the atmosphere, we simply lose it; the gas accumulates in its concentration from 300 ppm (0.0300%) to now 370 ppm (0.0370%), it could cause the greenhouse effect and uptake by the CO2 sink of the land plants is very limited, moreover exploitation is not very profitable.

1016048 6

We therefore have to include a CO2 sink from the sea plants, and it also turns out to be very cost-effective. #When we prefer to blow CO2 into the sea freely, it becomes due to. photosynthesis by the sea plants included with the formation of cellulose the carbohydrate of those sea plants usually seaweed.

In this way, seaweed is promoted in its growth, if the CO2 concentration is high enough and sunlight can be added, then the seaweed will grow faster and if the CO2 concentration drops or the sun shines less brightly, the growth of itself stops.

Sunlight is adsorbed by water, the growth of the plants will be less in deep water.

The sea serves as a large hydroponics tank in which all necessary nutrient salts are already present and furthermore distribution and mixing of nutrient salts; of the C02 blow-in and shredded seaweed as cuttings 10 automatically and free arranged by ebb and flow and sea currents.

Once the plants are large enough, they are raked from the sea or raked from the beach and placed on the beach to dry and then burned in an oven of a power plant.

The resulting flue gasses are returned to the sea and the ash residues also to prevent exhaustion; we are really only interested in calories.

With this obtained heat, water is brought to steam for a steam turbine, which then drives a dynamo generator for electricity extraction and distribution. #This method is called photosynthesis - applied to the growth of, for example, marine plants using. CO2 and H2O and incident sunlight, over the largest possible surface, the sea, - and provides us with seaweed as an energy fuel, which as a result of. 100% recycling of the waste gas and ash residues in very large quantities 20, at very low prices.

# In this photosynthesis applied to recycling CO2 with H2 O and sunlight energy into carbohydrates C x (H2 O) v, cellulose CeHioOs in marine plants over very large surfaces (the seas); we also make use of the principle of quatum yields and quantum multiplication and the ability to calculate the reaction rate ;, it will appear that this process can perfectly adapt to demand even though it is 100 times greater.

#The answer to alternative energy extraction is now probably clear after years of research, there is still no trial found and the question is whether it will be found. In my opinion not at windmills; solar cells; solar water heaters; hydroelectric power stations; nuclear energy or biomass. What is considered as an alternative is not much more than a piece of "completely inadequate additional heating"; with a match in hand, they think they have found the alternative energy source. In many cases, the introduction of alternative energy is delayed until the price of the regular energy is driven up in such a way that alternative energy becomes finally interesting, such processes and views are therefore not only bad but also suspicious.

# Then there is a disturbing CO2 emission in the atmosphere; the most disturbing being not just the greenhouse effect; but simply losing it by wasting an enormous amount of CO2, which was very recyclable and could have generated an enormous amount of energy, this appears to be the best alternative.

#There are many power plants that produce electricity and use everything that can produce calories as fuel (eg coal, oil, gas, biomass, etc.).

1 0 1 8048 40 7

These power stations also produce a lot of off-gas, the harmful gasses such as NOx, SOx and mercaptans from coal, oil and biomass will be attempted to be removed and in the end fairly clean CO2 gas will remain, just as with the combustion of natural gas; However, there is nothing useful to do with this gas than to blow it into the air.

#Applicably this gas is responsible for the greenhouse effect and agreements have been made in a European context and 5 worldwide to limit and possibly tax CO> emissions into the atmosphere: while America will reward limiting CCK emissions into the atmosphere.

There is not yet a clue of CO · »emissions in the sea and because no greenhouse effect can be expected from this, one should not tax these emissions (but instead reward them).

This is especially interesting for Energie'Bedrifveh 10 #The coal and oil plants also produce combustion residues such as ash and tar-like substances (asphalt).

The government comes head over heels with windmill ideas and ecotax taxes; Green Peace tries to make the Shell solar cell production commitments and the Shell increases the gasoline price once again - and the consumer can pay everything for a moment without getting anything in return and without any prospect of improvement.

15 # In this consideration we assume that if land plants such as C02 sink fall short in their task, then we include marine plants such as C02 sink; this can be done by analogy by blowing CO2 into the sea rather than the atmosphere. As a result, the growth of marine plants is controlled through photosynthesis. promoted seaweed. The chlorophyll in the cells of those marine plants allows photosynthesis in which the cell wall, the cellulose or carbohydrates are formed. When the plants are large enough, they are raked from the sea and a part of that weed is shredded and released into the sea as a sort of cutting to continue growing. The seaweed harvest is dried on the beach and then burned by a power plant, water is heated to steam, this steam drives a turbine, the turbine drives dynamo generators for the production of. .flow. ·

We see here that the role of the CO 2 gas is no longer waste gas, but CO 2 is very useful and desired as production gas and to recycle it into a fuel seaweed. During that incineration, CO 2 and ash residues are returned to the sea. 100% recycling and energy production without waste and without raw materials at a very low price.

We can think of the sea as a very large hydroponics tank, in which all the nutrients are already present, as seaweed is also growing in the sea, CO2 is blown into as much loss as possible and as long as there is CO2 and sunlight, seaweed can also grow . If the CO2 or the sunlight is too low at night, growth is inhibited.

Low tide and tide and sea currents ensure the proper distribution of CO2, ash residues and cuttings released into the sea when shredding coarse seaweed.

#It is not about small-scale food productions for people, animals or fish feed and nutritional supplements eg algae tablets from homeopathy; produces in sterile breeding trays, heated or otherwise, with the addition of nutrient salts, (distilled) freshwater, artificial light, tumble driers, etc. These methods often produce micro-algae or fine seaweed.

2.7. For energy processes that make direct use of the sunlight (wind turbines, solar cells, biomass and photosynthesis on land or at sea) we have to deal with two returns, the first has to do with the efficiency of the process itself and the second has to do with the size of the available surface area Furthermore, one has to take into account the labor costs to run a certain process and the material costs that will be consumed and the transport costs etc.

1016048 $ 3. A point-by-point summary of this system: a. Do not blow clean CO2 gas, at least that of the natural gas plants, into the air; but into the sea b. Due to the temporarily increased CO2 concentration, seaweed can be caused by. photosynthesis in the sunlight grow faster and as soon as a CO2 impoverishment arises, the seaweed growth stops.

5 It will be clear that we are going to use seaweed as the competing fuel. coal, oil and gas.

When seaweed is burned, the off-gas is relatively clean CO2 gas. If that is not the case, the same gas cleaning could be applied as in the power plant for burning coal, oil or biomass. We assume that this problem is easily solved; while the ash residues from the seaweed can easily be discharged into the sea.

C. Excellent seaweed extraction must be ensured; from now on it will become just as important as oil, gas and coal extraction.

The seaweed is dried on the beach and then burned in the furnace of the power plant d. We blow the resulting CO2 gas back into the sea and the ash remains and all the chemical elements and compounds that arise during this incineration are also discharged into the sea to allow residual seaweed to grow again and quickly.

e. We are really only interested in the calories that are generated during this seaweed incineration, everything else is returned to the sea, to allow the remaining seaweed to grow again, a cheap 100% recycling apparently £ With the yield of calories, the known methods of the power plant, steam made, a turbine driven, a dynamo generator put into operation and the resulting flow transported and distributed.

g. This cheap power can be used for all kinds of applications; for home heating, rechargeable batteries and for the expensive extraction of hydrogen gas that can be used again as motor fuel and in the fuel cell for cars, ships and aircraft. no more smog problem in cities insofar as it was caused by cars, or no more ozone depletion as far as it was caused by aircraft; see Ex.6.

. The emission of CFCs (Chlorine Fluorine Carbon Compounds) causes low ozone depletion, a reduction in emissions has meanwhile seen recovery; afterwards aviation has expanded considerably, especially in the Northern Hemisphere; is the recovery now continuing? In the meantime and afterwards one sees so-called in Europe. Mini-30 Ozone holes ”, which we didn't have before? The ozone hole was mainly in the Southern hemisphere although there is less air traffic there. If an airplane is flying very high, the air is rarer and kerosene can be burned incompletely and is then sprayed freely into the atmosphere.

h. Seaweed can be crushed into blocks similar to briquettes and can be used as fuel for ships, for example, then waste gas and ash residue can be discharged into the sea.

35 j. The total amount of CO2 from incineration resulting from the world annual consumption of primary energy can be recycled in this way and one and again obtains an amount of energy that is almost equal to that world annual consumption; see VB.3.

i. Coal, oil and gas are only important for the production of plastics, special chemicals and medicines and not for energy extraction or motor fuel.

40 #What we are aiming to achieve is very clear: 101 6 & 4 «···’ 9 a. An inexhaustible energy source - without raw material consumption, without environmental pollution, as a result. 100% recycling - for large amounts of energy at low prices.

b. A complete and lasting alternative to. coal, oil, gas and nuclear fuel that are raw materials finite c. No consumption of building and construction materials raw materials, even those raw materials are finite.

5 d. No CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, but no CO2 wastage in the sea but recycling via photosynthesis.

e. A very cost-effective way of sunlight conversion over very large surfaces, without being distracting f. Very large amounts of energy extraction at very low prices g. A repeated 100% clean recycling, without garbage, calls h. No petrol, diesel, kerosene or other hydrocarbon fuels for motor vehicles; 10 planes and ships. See VB.6. the comparison of a diesel engine with a hydrogen engine or fuel cell i. A very large environmental improvement on land, at sea and in the atmosphere in the latter case is the elimination of the greenhouse effect, the smog problem and possibly the hole in the ozone layer.

j Simple equipment centrally installed and managed and not to be purchased individually due to. with guarantees, malfunctions, service life, maintenance and repair, waste of material, (so no wind turbines, solar cells and 15 solar boilers that are not profitable to use)

All this seems to be an almost unimaginable dream and can become a true "energy revolution". I expect that this "can indeed be realized" and, moreover, also "very quickly" when there is understanding and cooperation for this, because self and alone can nothing at all.

4. Plants absorb CO and EUO through their assimilation process and make carbohydrates / cellulose! from and 20 blow O, out

Table 2. Some physico-chemical data:

A photon hv = hc / λ in Joule or Wsec Avogadro N = 6.023 * 1023 molecules / mol

Const, van Planck: h = 6,623 * 10 "34J.s At.mass H = 1; C = 12; 0 = 16; S = 32; N = 14

Light speed: c = 2.988 * 108 m / sec Molar mass C6H10Oj = 162; CO2 = 44

Choose λ = 500 nm (green light) 1 mol v / e gas = 22.4 liters

Incinerator CéHioOj = 525 Kcal / mol Charge of the electron q = 1.602 * 10 ~ 19 Coul 1 Kcal = 4186 J = 4186 Wsec = 1.1628 Wh Coul = Amp * sec; Volt * Coul = Joule

This process is promoted under the influence of sunlight and is called "photosynthesis".

25 The fact that sunlight is absorbed means that the reaction is "endothermic" and energy absorbed is indicated in the reaction comparison with a (-) sign: # In the sea, the process therefore follows: 6C02 + 5HiO - lhv -> l ( C6 H10 O5) + d02

Incorporated Carbohydrate, polysaccharide sunlight, photon starch, or cellulose from or quant in Joule a marine plant. quant for.

1016048 10

The plas grow in this way through the production of carbohydrates, polysaccharides, starch or cellulose and thereby blow out as many liters of O2 as liters of CO2 were taken up (instead of liters one can also read gram molecules).

The blown out O2 thereby ends up in the air and not in the sea, because it is already saturated with O2. while 5 CO2 can best be absorbed from the sea.

This process is called "photosynthesis"; the seaweed will grow if there is enough CO 2 available and as there is more sunlight and the process will stop as soon as a CO 2 is too short or there is less sunlight

With a good spread of CO2 over all seas (through ebb and flow, wind and sea currents) and with sunlight irradiating the enormous sea surface of the entire earth, we can expect that the growth of seaweed will be enormous. In the various examples, one and the other can be calculated precisely.

Of course, one must ensure that good seaweed management is conducted, which is now just as important as the oil and gas management was before. The seaweed must be harvested regularly both at sea and on the beach, a matter of regularly mass raking, drying and burning in the furnace of the power plant. There is now no material cost, so no material shortages for the future and no material contamination of broken equipment.

Land plants also grow at low CO2 percentages, eg in the air is only 0.0370% CO2 370 ppm (parts per.

million); the concentration in the sea will increase only slightly as a result of the CO2 blowing into the sea, see calculation VB.3. ffAnimals absorb O. via their respiratory system and expel CO · and tt> Q and burn the carbohydrates.

20 The same actually happens when we burn the carbohydrates or cellulose in the furnace of the power plant

All combustion reactions are typically "exothermic" and the energy released is indicated with a (+) sign in the reaction equation.

# In the oven, the process therefore follows: 1 (C6H10O5) + 602 -> 6CO2 + 5H20 + 1w w is the combustion heat of QH10O5 per molecule in Joule 25 W = Nw is the combustion heat of QHioOs per mole. in Joule N = 6.023 * 10 "the number of Avogadro or the number of molecules per mole. hv is the energy of a sun light photon or quant approximately 3,971 * 10 "19 joules

It appears that W - N * hv is> 0; nl W = 525 * 4186 = 2.1998 * 106 Joule and N * hv = 6.023 * 1023 * 3.971 * 10 “19 = 2.301 * 105 Joule 30 m = W / N * hv = 9.19; ie m> 1 means that there is energy or power amplification; after all, the irradiated sunlight quanta N * hv are multiplied by m> 1 to obtain the combustion heat W. Plants also grow partly on their own energy and not only on sunlight, which energy is released again during combustion. # In chemistry the reversible process is known: 6C02 + 5H20 + w - hv o (Cf, Hi0O5) + 602.

35 This process is as old as the world and will continue to exist as long as the world exists. It is, as it were, a relationship imposed on creation that exists between plants on the one hand and animals on the other, that blow the right breathing gases O2 and CO2 to each other. The correct gas ratio is provided completely automatically.

The reaction comparison applies to all people and does not make a distinction between rich or poor people, they were not there before, we made it. Furthermore, power plants can also be included in the comparison, as long as they behave like an animal and only burn cellulose, there is no problem, all quantities adjust themselves automatically, it cannot be simpler.

1016048 11

The reversibility of the comparison is long-term and not instantaneous and not in one and the same reaction vessel

Apparently a different use is made of the reversibility of this comparison, namely the left and the right part of this comparison. the o reversibility sign; are each used separately.

5 The reversibility has thus been converted into a 100% recyclability that can be used at any time. # Other ideas are still: # Light must in any case be absorbed for light to be affected; but sometimes nothing happens despite light absorption.

Often the converted amount of dust is proportional to the amount of absorbed light, with many exceptions.

According to the law of the photochemical equivalent of Einstein: the number of converted molecules is equal to the number of absorbed light quantities (photons); but this is not always true What can happen is:

A substance absorbs light but nothing usually happens because the wavelength is too short or too long 15 Sometimes several light quantities are needed to convert a molecule; but also

Sometimes a suitable light quantite causes an entire reaction for several molecules, after which the reaction stops, which looks like photocatalysis and that is very interesting. In the case of planting, we might have to think of land plants that can also grow very well in the shade or of marine plants that can grow well in deep water, where it is dark; but also 20 Sometimes a suitable light quantite causes a whole reaction for all molecules at the same time, then we have to deal with an explosion that cannot be stopped.

These substance conversions are called t molecules per absorbed photon; the QUANTUM YIELD of the process and t can apparently be between 0 and e.g. 106. (t is a FACTOR); this provides extra mass

One should not confuse this with the quantum efficiency η of a solar cell that is between 0 and 1 25 (η is a FRACTION)

On the other hand, there is the QUANTUM MULTIPLICATION for exothermic processes: the combustion heat W = m * N * hv and (m> 1 is a FACTOR); this provides extra energy.

# It is precisely this principle that some plants, wholly or partly aided by sunlight, can start growing so quickly that they will form extra mass and that when their plant parts are burned, more energy is generated than that plant during its growth before formation of those parts of plants that have received sunlight, can of course be spread over the same area, for example per m2.

I.e. that the energy from the sun has fallen in and that is exactly what we need.

We will not just come across this with other alternative processes; and because it involves very large amounts of energy, we must also consider very large surfaces such as the sea and the sea plants.

3 5 #It is quite possible that for this reason we will not find any other alternative processes that are more effective, or even clearer if you ignore this situation. NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS KNOWN !!!. We can write the reaction equation in various ways depending on the meaning we are aiming for 1.6tCO 2 + 5tH 2 O + tw-1 hvo tfCeHoOs) + ötO * ie 1 photon yields t (QH10O5) groups 40 2. 6C02 + 5H20 + w - 1 hv o (Ο ^ Ηι0Ο5) + 602; ie 1 photon gives a yield of 1 H 10 O 3) group 3. 6 CO 2 + 5 H 2 O + w -1 hv o (C 6 H 10 O 5) + 602; that is, t photons give rise to 1 (CeHioOj) group 1 01 SO 48 12

Equation 1 could be considered photocatalytic; equation 2 could represent the photochemical equivalent and in equation 3 the course is inefficient.

VB.2. From this photosynthesis process we can compare a "photosynthesis cell of 1 m2" surface with a "solar cell of 1 m2".

5 With a photosynthesis process, we know exactly what the reaction speed is in number of moles formed per second, see below

We know how much sunlight falls on 1 m2 surface in watts ie AM2 = 740 W / m2.

This results in the photon flux in number of photons / (m2.sec)

We set the quantum yield t = 1 ie per 1 photon; 1 molecule and 1 combustion heat unit w; 10 according to comp. From this follows the number of molecules CeHjoOs / (m2 sec); this is the reaction rate in number of moles of C6 H10 O5 / (m2 sec).

If the combustion value W of QH10O5 in Kcal / mol is known, we know the combustion value V in Watt / m2

Quantum multiplication follows from the yield of the photosynthesis cell m = V / AM2 or V / 740. We find wem = W / Nhv> 1 for the quantum multiplication from the combustion heat.

# The calculation: hv = hc / λ = 6.623 * 10 ~ 34 * 2.998 * 108/500 * 10 "9 = 3.971 * 10" 19 [Wsec / photon]

Number of incident photons = 740 / 3,971 * 10 "19 = 1,863 * 1021 [photons / (m2.sec)]

Number of resulting molecules CeHioOs = t * 1,863 * 1021 = 1,863 * 1021 [molecules / (m2. Sec)] Number of resulting moles C6H10Os = 1,863 * 1021 / N = 3,094 * 10 “3 [mol / (m2.sec)]; this is the reaction speed

The combustion value V = 3.094 * 1 (T3 * 525 * 4186 = 6800 [Watt / m2]

The quantum multiplication from the yield m = V / AM2 = 6800/740 = 9.19.

The quantum multiplication from the combustion heat m = W / Nhv = 525 * 4186 / (6.023 * 1023 * 3.971 * 10 “19) = 9.19 # We have chosen a photon with a λ = 500 nm We have treated everything as monochromatic light instead of as a light spectrum of sunlight with short and long wavelengths that can be ineffective.

Furthermore, the quantum yield t = 1 is set ie. convert 1 molecule per 1 photon see cf. 2.

For a catalytic process, t should be> 1 eg t = 10 ie. 10 molecules per photon, see reaction. 1.

#We can now come to a direct comparison and analogy with the solar cells and find which method is more cost-effective.

# We set the efficiency for solar cells at 15%, which is already an optimum value and it will therefore not vary as much anymore, one must keep the light window clean (daily misery).

# The light incident on the solar cell is AM2 = 740W / m2 and with a quantum efficiency of 15% the yield is 111 watts / m2, 35 The photosynthesis cell in the calculation example gave 6800 watts / m2; however, this required 3,094 * 10 “3 moles ΟΗ1005 / (m2.sec)

In order to also achieve a yield of 111 watts / m2, we need 3.094 * 10 "3 * 111/6800 = 5.050 * 10" 5 moles of QH10O5 / (m2.sec)

We state that the solar cell is in use for 12 h per day and then the seaweed yield should also yield 12 h per day for the 40 calculated number of moles / (m2.sec) and that will then be 12 * 3600 * 5.050 * 10 per day. 5 = 2.182 moles CeH 2 O 2 / m 2 or 353 grams of C 4 H 10 O 5 / m2 1016048 13

Roughly this amounts to burning 350 grams of seaweed per day per m2 is equivalent to a solar cell of 1 m2.

#Otherwise the photosynthesis cell gives 6800 Watt / m2 compared to the 111 Watt / m2 solar cell a factor of 61 more; that is apparently the difference between quantum multiplication compared to. quantum efficiency 5 ^ Then the entire sea surface (3.61 * 1014 m2) is available to the photosynthesis cell without any problems and for comparison 0.2% of the land area is available (2 * 10 ~ 3 * 1.49 * 1014 m2 = 2.98 * 10n m2) the solar cell is available with difficulty; then at least a factor of 1200 is added; and furthermore, no material and production costs and maintenance are needed for the photosynthesis cell, since all we have to do is burn the seaweed yield in a power plant.

10 # For a comparison between the energy price of the solar cell (111 W / m2) compared to. For the photosynthesis cell (6800 W / m2), we still have to take into account the fact that raw materials have been used for the solar cell and no raw materials are being used for the photosynthesis cell.

^ Moreover, we can lead the resulting CO2 gas back into the sea and the ash remains as well etc.

In principle there is an enormous amount of energy to be gained in this way and solar cells are no longer involved, and therefore not solar boilers and wind turbines.

# The power plants will have to be built along the coasts or on artificial islands or in strategically useful places. Nationally, the Wadden Sea could be suitable instead of the oil and gas drilling. In terms of Europe, the Baltic Sea, the Adriatic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and internationally the various oceans. The location of the European countries is very ideal especially as a start.

• 20 Table 3. Combustion heat from various Fuels lKcal = 4186 J = 4186 Wsec = 1.1628 Wh

Fuel MJ / kg MJ / m3 Kcal / mol

Natural gas 31.68

Benzene 06 40.1 155

Hexane CeHu 44.7

Gasoline 42

Butane C 4 H 10 123

Ethanol C 2 H 5 OH 27.1

Graphite C + 02 - * CO2 3 ^ 8: 94.03

Graphite C + / 202 CO 26

Carbon monoxide CO + / 2 O 2 -> CO 2 10.2 12.7 68

Methane 0 1 10 35 ^ 9 213

Petroleum, Diesel, Kerosene C10 H22 41

Propane ¢ 3¾ 93

Spirit CH3OH 25.2

Coal 33.8 34.2

Fuel oil 40.0 42.0

Hydrogen 119.9 10.8 57.3 CH 2 group 157

CeHioOj group (valuation) 13.6 525

Wood Ï5J

1016048 14 # It may be useful to use a genetically begotten plant later on with various pleasant properties:

The plant should react catalytically to light, for example per photon. Convert 2 or more molecules.

The plant should form a larger molecule group eg Ο ^ Ηβ, Οιο or CigH ^ As; provided that they have a greater 5 heat of combustion than 06Η10Ο5. and must have a high cellulose content.

The plant must float and be easily extractable.

We have seen that the reaction speed is also known and that means that we can calculate how quickly the CO2 concentration can be converted

The reaction speed is by. photosynthesis has been pushed up, but further acceleration is possible in catalysis, and that can be very interesting for converting CO2 even faster if necessary; see VB.4. hereafter Damage to food production from marine plants, to people, land or marine animals should never be caused as a result of. genetic manipulation of those marine plants.

6. CO · »emissions: blow clean CO-> gas not into the air: but into the sea 15 # If CQ> is blown into the air, it is wasted and we are simply lost

The percentage of CO2 in the air is approximately 0.0370%. If nothing is taken into account, it will accumulate. The other important gases in the air are N2 about 77% and 02 about 20% #The "washing out of CO2 from the air by seawater" is very inefficient, since the CO2 percentage is too low and the CO2 percentage is too low. air column height too large and the contact surface too small.

The seawater is certainly not saturated with CO2

About 1.002 L CO 2 / L water can dissolve at 15 ° C; this high concentration is never achieved !!! # At very low temperatures in the atmosphere of the Southern hemisphere, CO2 can condense at -78 ° 5 C. and, as it were, "snow" down it comes, among other things. into the sea. The sea around Antarctica may therefore contain a lot of seaweed. Another place where a lot of seaweed is found is the Sargasso Sea. 25 #The "washing of 02 from the air by seawater" is much better, since the percentage is much higher

The seawater is almost certainly already saturated with O2. About 0.0362 L O2 / L water can dissolve at 15 ° C

# When CO2 is blown into the sea, e.g. in the manner of FIG. 1, we can recycle C02 Then all agreements are regarding. the CO2 emissions directly from the orbit for all countries, the greenhouse effect has been solved to the extent that it was caused by CO2.

The mixing of CO2 in seawater is no problem at all and ebb and flood and wind and sea currents bring the matter to an end, sufficiently and completely free of charge, and ensure proper transport of CO2 in the sea in principle across all seas around the world.

The CO2 percentage accumulates in the air; in the sea the percentage is kept up to date by continuous conversion into seaweed and extraction thereof

In the sea, CO2 is automatically converted into seaweed, so the concentration is kept low. The CO2 residence time is dependent on the reaction rate, if it is large, the residence time is small, see VB 2 and 4.

If one is allowed to blow CO2 into the air, why should one not be allowed to blow CO2 into the sea, the control is better there 40 1016048 15 VB.3. The total amount of CO2 from incineration resulting from the world annual consumption of primary energy in 2000 will be approximately 3.68 * 1013 kg of CO2.

We blow the specified amount of CO2 into the sea in one go, which is normally impossible because we do not have that much CO2 available; After all, we would normally have 5 years for that, while seaweed had already been formed, nb. and nevertheless: we convert this to liters 3.68 * 1016 * 22.4 / 44 = 1.873 * IQ16 L CO2.

# The total sea volume is hard to find; instead we make a valuation, for example, we set the sea volume on the total sea surface times a depth of only 1 meter; at least that is far too little. The sea volume then becomes »3; 61 * -K) 14 m2 * 1 m = 3.61 * 1014 · na? = 3, -61- * 1017L 10 #The concentration of CO2 in the sea is then increased by 1.873 * 10 “L CO2 / 3.61 * 1017 L seawater = 0.0519 L 0 (¾ / L seawater

This increase in concentration will never be realized because the sea volume has been chosen far too small and because the blowing in of 0 (¼ was done in one go instead of in one year).

According to the Guldberg and Waage principle for chemical equilibrium, 6C02 + 5H20 o QHioOj + 602 15, the system protects itself in the sense that a change in the concentration of one of the participating substances causes the reaction to happen in such a way that the change is canceled is going to be.

The only thing that could ever be important is increasing the reaction speed and regularly removing formed seaweed.

This CO2 concentration increase is so low that hardly any environmental requirements or objections can be made. 20 # When that total amount of 3.68 * 1013 kg of CO2 is 100% converted into CeHioOj and subsequently burned again, we arrive at: 3.68 * 1016 / (44 * 6) mol of QHioOj = 1.394 * 1014 mole CeHioOs The combustion value is 525 Kcal / mole 1.394 * 1014 * 525 = 7.318 * 1016 Kcal - 7.318 * 1016 * 4186 = 3.063 * 1020 W.sec = 8.5009 * 10h kWh.

Incidentally, this is the amount of energy that we can reclaim annually for virtually no money and that we can recycle with hardly any environmental problems. After all, we are also solving a global greenhouse problem.

# Instead, we blow this amount of CO2 into the air annually; what a form of pure waste is, we are then lost forever and it may still have a greenhouse effect on it # The C02 is, as it were, pumped around and reused again and again. The question is whether there is a better alternative. We can calculate the number of grams of seaweed formed: 3.68 * 1016 * 162 / (44 * 6) = -2.26 * 1016 g CöHioOs.

Spread over the entire sea surface of 3.61 * 1014 m2; it becomes 2.26 * 1016 / 3.61 * 1014 = 62.55 g of C 2 H 5 O 5 / m2 to be collected once in a year.

35 We see that this as a tax does not mean anything at all, it could even be increased by a factor of 100 or more. The problem is that there is not enough CO 2 available for this yet, this also does not mean that we have to wait 100 years, because we can recycle the CO 2 emissions of each year, then year in year out, (even once a month see VB .4.) Or continuous recycling.

Another very good option is to use a genetically begotten plant that grows very quickly, for example 40 such that an annual production of CO2 yields a full plant yield several times a year.

1016048 16 # We see in any case how economical we are to be on C02 and nothing is as beneficial as making nit COj plus H20 a fuel and nb. to repeatedly recycle the reformed CO2 according to a completely clean process.

One should already store CO2 in the sea as soon as possible and the seaweed collected from it would process 5 blocks of fuel as long as there are no power stations on the coast.

# We can see from table 8. that in the year 1984 the world annual consumption of primary energy amounts to 8,372 * 10 hours kWh; we want to deduce from this what the global annual consumption of primary energy would amount to in 2000. Under Opm there is correction with 5% per year, ie a factor of 2.08 * 8.336 * 1013 = 1.701 * 1014 kWh. This is roughly twice as much as the 8,509 * 1013 kWh, so we have to recycle again to reach 1,741 * 1014 kWh 10. In reality, CO2 can be recycled in a continuous process.

The most alternatives are only limited to a FRACTION of the world annual consumption of primary energy and can hardly be increased; this C02 recycling process provides a FACTOR of the world annual primary energy consumption because it is very easy to increase by, for example, recycling more often per year or increasing the amount of C02 15 For the future, this means ENERGY SAT and a complete alternative to coal, oil and natural gas industry in the short term and for ¾ of the world population who did not participate in the unequal energy distribution is sufficient energy «VB.4, How fast can the amount of 3.68 * 10 ° kg CO2 from VB .3. are converted to C «Hi« Os.

20 In VB.3. it is stated that after combustion of the entire world annual consumption of primary energy, the resulting CO2 would be fed into the sea in one go. We assume that this CO2 is evenly distributed over the entire sea surface and is then converted to CeHioOs. The question is how long does that take.

3.68 * 1013 kg CO2 = 3.68 * 1016 / (44 * 6) = 1.39 * 1014 mol C6H10O5

Over the sea surface of 3.61 * 1014 m2, it becomes 1.39 * 1014 / 3.61 * 1014 = 3.86 * 10-1 mole CeH 10 O 2 / m2 = 62.55 gQH 10 O 5 / m2.

The reaction speed see VB.2. for t = 1 for C 6 H 10 O 3 is 3.094 * 10 -3 moles of QH 10 CV (m2 sec) • The required reaction time then becomes 3.86 * 10—1 / 3.094 * 10—3 = 124.8 sec.

I.e. that everything is processed into seaweed in more than 2 minutes, that is very fast; plants breathe it in as it were.

The nuisance of CO2 is therefore small because it is so quickly converted into seaweed.

30 If this seaweed is collected and burned again within 1 month and CO2 is blown into the sea, recycling can take place 12 times a year.

VB.5. When we burn petroleum, a certain number of Joule is created and a certain amount of CO2 is produced; then that CO2 is converted to C «Hi0Os and then it is burned and a certain number of Joules and the same amount of CO2 can be recycled again, etc.

35 We start from 1 kg of fuel oil, the composition of which is known according to Table 4.

After combustion, 41 MJ are produced according to Tables 3 and 44 * 0.86 / 12 = 3.153 kg CO2 and 18 * 0.12 / 2 = 1.080 kg H2O We assume that CO2 is completely converted into CeHo

From 1 kg of fuel oil, 3,153 kg of CO is formed, and therefrom 3153 / / 44 * 61 = 11.94 mole of CJImO * or 1,934 kg of CcHmCk. In Joule 6270 * 4186 = 26.25 MJ 40 Fuel oil therefore releases more energy when burned (41 MJ) than later CO2 after recycling to CeHjoOj can give back 1016048 17 (26.3MJ) the percentage is 26.25 * 100/41 = 64.02%, however, CO2 can now be recycled many times, eg once a month or continuously recycled; while you can only burn oil once.

Here, photosynthesis is not taken into account, but CfiHjoOj formation from CO2 was taken as the starting point 5 We should consider this recycling as an alternative method and then 64.02% stand out as a high percentage.

By recycling we get more energy than was originally offered regularly after all, after the 2nd recycling 52.50 MJ was obtained compared to. the 41MJ from heating oil.

# £ and comparison for oil storage space. seaweed: 10 Both oil and seaweed float in seawater. We assume that their specific masses are approximately the same, eg 0.9 g / cm3; i.e. that equal weights take equal volumes. Now the same weights do not have the same combustion values for 1 kg of fuel oil which is 41 MJ / kg and for 1 kg of seaweed CeH ^ Os is 13.6 MJ / kg.

It takes roughly three times as much space to store seaweed as we look for the same energy supply: but continuous recycling can save a lot of space 15 'VB.6. The comparison of a diesel or kerosene engine with a hydrogen engine, (fuel cell).

Applying and interpreting the term "recycle".

# We assume that in the comparison between a kerosene engine and a hydrogen engine these two engines will use · the same amount of Joules to deliver the same performance we will use an energy balance for both of these fuels.

#When a fuel can no longer be recycled after use, we must at least pay the raw material price of that fuel, so for kerosene we have to pay, we calculate the energy for combustion that must be paid * #When a fuel produces C02 and this CO2 is emitted into the air, we have lost this substance, we calculate the energy that we could have recovered during recycling, now as being lost.

#When a fuel is recycled after use, we never have to pay the raw material price, instead we pay the recycling costs to make that fuel and we calculate that in energy value; both hydrogen and ΟΗ1005 are recycled.

#When we can recycle substances repeatedly, the energy can be used repeatedly, but we also repeatedly lose the recycling costs. When a certain amount of substance is recycled once, we also lose the recycling costs once; so we could have recycled that amount of dust once for the same costs. #We now assume that 1 kg of kerosene is burning, which yields a number of Joules and we consider how much hydrogen is needed to produce the same number of Joules.

It is also possible to introduce the hydrogen into a fuel cell and electronically convert it with oxygen from the air into water while supplying an electrical power.

We interpret kerosene as CioH22 with moles. mass of 142; 10 moles of CO2 and moles are formed after combustion. mass of 44.

The number of grammol. CO2 is therefore 10 * 1000/142 = 70.423 grammol CO2.

40 Recycling 70,423 grammol of CO2 results in 70,423 / 6 = 11.74 grammol. CeHioOj.

'101 00 48 18

That would have resulted in incineration 11.74 * 525 * 4186 = 2.579 * 107 Joule = 25.79 MJ this was lost due to non-recycling.

From table 3 we see that 1 kg of kerosene produces 41 MJ. This way we lose a total of 41.0 + 25.79 = <6.79 MJ. The price for energy, for example per MJ or kWh, is not always the same, that price depends on how the energy is obtained, for example, energy from raw materials or energy. from recycling.

#Now we have to get from the combustion of hydrogen with a combustion value of 119.9 MJ per kg see table 3, which achieves 41 MJ, so 41 / 119.9 = 0.342 kg H2 is needed.

We need to get this 0.422 kg 1¼ from the electrolysis of water according to 2H20 - »2H2 + 02 eg by acidifying water with H2S04 and using graphite electrodes. The question is how much energy will that cost.

10 For the electrolysis of water, roughly a direct voltage of 2.4 Volts is required.

The charge of 1 gram of H = N * q = 6.023 * 1023 * 1.602 * 10—19 = 96.488 Coulomb Thus, for the development of 1 gram of H2, 2.4 * 96.488 = 231.571 Joules of 342 grams of H2 by. making water electrolysis is necessary 342 * 231.571 = 79.197.282 Joule of79.197 MJ #Now we have to get out of the combustion of C6Hi0O5 with a combustion value of 13.6 MJ per 1¾ see table 3 which achieves 79.197 MJ so 79.197 / 13.6 = 5.823 kg of CeH 10 O 3.

#Because both H2 and CeHioOs are recyclable, no resources are lost and we only need to know the recycling costs for the 342 grams of H2, which is equivalent to the combustion costs of 5.823 kg C6HioO $; these costs are of course very low; that means that the hydrogen engine can also be very cheap, so we need 41 MJ among others. pay the raw material price and for the 25.8 MJ only the recycle costs; also 20 for those 79.197 MJ we only pay the recycling costs.

For the cost price calculation see below at point 7.

#Also there is a reversible reaction equation 2H2 + 02 o 2H20 that is split in two, namely the combustion reaction from hydrogen to water H2 + 1/2 02 -> H2O + w and the decomposition reaction from water to hydrogen for which we have chosen for electrolysis of water acidified with H 2 SO 4 and graphite electrode H 2 O - qV-> HT + OH ~

For the electrolysis of 1 grammol of H2 the following is required: 2NqV = 2 * 6.023 * 1023 * 1.602 * 10—19 * 2.4 = 4.63 * 105 J For lgrammol H2 the combustion value is: see table 3 W = Nw = 57, 3 * 4186 = 2.40 * 105 J

Here too, reversibility has been converted into 100% recyclability. # We also see that W is <2NqV, the burning of hydrogen compared to. the electrolysis of water is therefore not that advantageous. m '= W / 2NqV <1 this is therefore an energy attenuation. The automotive industry has an electronic hydrogen-oxygen conversion process, the fuel cell that is probably more cost-effective than simple combustion.

VB.7. A comparison for the possible flow of energy production in the Netherlands through. wind turbines, 35 solar cells or photosynthesis of marine plants.

#WindmoIens: By providing a surface area of 40 km * 40 km = 1600 km2 of approximately 160,000 wind turbines, a power requirement of 3.84 * 10 n kWh / year could be met in the Netherlands; see VB.1.

# Solar cells: With a light incidence of 740 W / m2 and an efficiency of 0.15, 0.74 * 0.15 * 12 * 365 = 4.862 * 102 kWh / (m2 * year) comes from a solar cell. For a capacity of 3.84 * 1011 kWh / year, a surface area 40 of 3.84 * 10h / 4.852 * 102 = 7.988 * 108 m2 is required; or rounded 8.0 * 108 m2 = 800 km2 = 40 km * 20 km 1016048 19

The number of solar cells of 1 m2 will therefore also be 8 * 10®, but this is already unrealistic for the Netherlands; if one can make 1 million solar cells per year, it will therefore take 800 years before everything is ready.

#Photo synthesis; The combustion heat of seaweed CeHioOs is 13.6 MJ / kg = 13.6 * 103 kWs / kg = 13.6 * 103/60 * 60 = 3,778 kWh / kg. For a capacity of 3.84 * 1011 kWh / year, 3.84 * 1011 kWh / 3,778 = 5 1,016 * 1011 kg C «HIOs / year; or with 162 as a mole mass of 6.272 * 1011 gmoles of QH10O5 / year; or 3,763 * 1012 gmol CO2 / year, or 8.43 * ΙΟ13 I COj / year.

#When the light incidence AM2 = 740 W / m2 would be fully utilized (without taking into account if necessary.

quatum revenue); situation. for year O, 74 * .365 - * .. 12. = 3241kWh / (in2 * year) .................. ............ ...

#The sea surface to make 3.84 * 10n kWh / year is then 3.84 * 10h / 3241 = 1.185 * 10® m2 or 118.5 km2; 10 eg a sea surface of 40 km * 3 km compared to. 40 km * 40 km, that is more than 13 times smaller than 160,000 wind turbines are not needed, so much cheaper. This would be possible without many problems in the Wadden Sea and in the short term.

#The number of kg of seaweed / (m2 * year) becomes 1,016 * 10h / 1,185 * 10® = 857 kg / (m2 * year) or 2.35 kg / (m2 * day).

7. Various mii known prices for 2000: 15 # For raw materials: * The natural gas price is approximately 53.68 Hctn / m3

The petroleum price per barrel of 159 L is approximately USD 29 .; 1 USD = 2.30 Hfl .; The specific mass is approximately 0.9 kg / L * The oil price then becomes 29 * 2.30 / 159 = 42.0 Hctn / L or 46.67 Hctn / kg The prices at the pump in Jul 2000 in Hctn / L 20 Diesel = 184.8 & Pura unleaded 95 = 274.0 & Super plus = 280.0 & · Euro = 265.0

It is not the intention of this story to understand how the oil price and the dollar rate are included in the price at the pump * The coal price is approx. 33.05 Hctn / kg 25 #Price for generating electricity x Combustion value = Energy price

Natural gas plant 6.1 ct / kWh x (31.68 MJ / m3 # 8,800 kWh / m3) = 53.68 ct / m3 Fuel oil plant 4.1 ct / kWh x (41.00 MJ / m3 # 11.39 kWh / kg) = 46.67 ct / kg Coal-fired power plant 3.5 ct / kWh x (34.00 MJ / kg # 9.4444 kWh / kg) = 33.05 ct / kg 30 // Nuclear energy in the Netherlands EPZ (small power plant) 3.6 * 10® kWh / year (or 411 MW / year) approx. 3.6% of electricity production in the Netherlands There are 455 nuclear power plants in the world

Total nuclear energy worldwide is then approximately 455 * 3.6 * 109 = 1. 638 * 10 hours kWh / year.

This is less than 1% of the world annual primary energy consumption of 1,741 * 1014 kWh / year in 2000.

35 However, that annual consumption does increase by 5% per year, ie. that nuclear energy does not keep up with this.

Price for generating electricity for a nuclear power plant is 1.8 ct / kWh.

In the Netherlands that will be 3.6 * 10® * 1.8 = Hfl.6.480 * 107 / year or 64.8 million guilders per year.

For the world that becomes 1,638 * 1012 * 1.8 = Hfl. 2,948 * 1010 / year or 29.48 billion guilders per year.

40 #The Raw material prices for the world annual consumption for the year 2000: ·; n 1 Hf) 48 for *

Natural gas 3.970 * 1012 m3 to 53.68 Hctn / m3 = Hfl 2.131 * 1012

Fuel oil 5.918 * 1012 kg to 46.67 Hctn / kg = Hfl 2.762 * 10 12

Coal 5.591 * 1012 kg to 33.05 Hctn / kg = Hfl 1.848 * IQ12 +

Total Hfl 6,741 * IQ12 or 6741 billion guilders per year: this amount 5 is released when switching to alternative energy that does not use raw materials.

#If from 2000 onwards 3.68 * 1013 kg of CO2 is blown into the air every year; as indicated in VB.3 .; which corresponded to 1.394 * 10w mole CeHioOs or 2.26 * 1013 kg CêHioOs or 8.509 * 1013 kWh and the price for generating electricity during this recycling is 1 ct / kWh; then we are for Hfl 10. 8.509 * 10n or 850 billion-guilder -ur · yaar-kwittaan-the "greenhouse effect": the amount can easily be recovered quickly by blowing CQ> into the sea and recycling.

#The recycle price then becomes: 2.3125 ct / kg CO2 or 0.6105 ct / mol C6Hi0Oï or 3.7655 ct / kg CgHioOg or 1 ct / kWh or 0.2778 ct / MJ.

# In VB.6. we saw the comparison between a diesel or kerosene engine. a hydrogen engine.

15 We can now indicate a little more about the costs: # The diesel or kerosene engine was based on the use of 1 kg of diesel or 1.11 L of diesel. while the price at the pump is 184.4 * 1.11 = 204.9 ct / kg. In addition, for non-recycled CO2 25.8 MJ that costs 25.8 * 0.2778 = 7ct # The hydrogen engine, which has no raw material consumption, does require a capacity of 79.2 MJ from recycling 20 and that amounts to 79.2 * 0.2778 = 22.00 ct and this is considerably cheaper 8. A possible embodiment for the growth and distribution of seaweed and for the loss-free dissolution of CO in »seawater # It will be clear that we have a not be able to offer a fully functional practical version.

25 A point-by-point summary of important aspects can be given: 1. It is mainly about "an open system" ie. a large part of the sea surface until later the complete sea surface and the full incidence of light on that large sea surface. "Closed systems or test set-ups" will always fall short in this respect, the seaweed will then have to grow more on nutrient salts than on the incidence of light. This seaweed could sometimes obtain a different composition, so that more waste substances are produced during incineration. Seaweed that consists of cellulose as much as possible, preferably produces as little waste as possible during incineration.

2. Nutritional salts are not added separately, they come from the sea itself or from the ashes from the seaweed incineration; the sea itself is a very large hydroponic tank with flow and renewal.

3. If algae are fished, then a part of them can, for example, be 0.1% "shredded into pieces of 35 cm, for example 1 cm", these chips are sown in the sea to be able to "grow into cuttings" again and to exhaust to prevent. Low tide and high tide and wind and sea currents ensure further free distribution, which means that seaweed will be able to form everywhere.

With different types of marine plants, you can select the type that is most desirable for quality and shred it for propagation.

4. If the C02 off-gas from the seaweed combustion is not clean enough, it will have to be cleaned, for example, in the same way as with the power stations for burning coal, oil or biomass; while ash residues are discharged directly into the sea 5. The CO2 in bladder in the sea must be free of losses as much as possible, and as little CO2 as possible must bubble out of the sea, because one can think of an embodiment in which one or more times CO2 from the combustion gases from seaweed incineration is washed out into seawater; see FIGURE lt A = the atmosphere Z = the sea.

1 = a suction · press compressor for sea water 10 2 and 3 = suction press compressors for the combustion gases 4 = suction line for sea water via a filter 11 5 = pressure line for sea water, with the one-way high pressure non-return valves 16 and 17 6 = suction line for the C02_ rich furnace combustion gases 7 and 9 = pressure line for furnace combustion gases; with one-way high-pressure check valves 12 and 13 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21 = spaces in which CO2 has been pressurized to dissolve CO2 in seawater, for example 2 to 4 at 14 and 15 = one-way high-pressure check valves 22 and 24 = porous filter labyrinth of plastic mesh or fiber material such as rock wool or glass wool, etc.

23 and -25 = pressure space of CO2 and seawater 30 and 31 = bell jar to capture the respective CO2 reduced and CO2 depleted combustion gases 32 and 8 ~ CO2 reduced combustion gas 34 and 35 = CO2 containing seawater 33 and 10 = CO2 depleted combustion gas; at a sufficiently low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, blow off 36 and 37 = seawater containing CO2 26.27,28 and 29 = open / closed valves to blow coarse material from time to time, if necessary 25 1016048 22

Table 4. Composition of various Fuels.

Oil (fuel) | 86% C [22% H | -% H20 -% Ö2 2% Rest

Coal 76 5 4 7 8 CöHioÖj 4M 6 ^ 2 ~ 4 ^ 4 _

Diesel oil 85 14 - -

Gasoline 85 15

The global annual consumption of petroleum in 2000: 76 * 106 barrels of oil / day; that is per year 76 * 106 * 159 * 365 = 4.41 * 10121 oil / year 5 With a specific mass of 0.9 kg / 1, this becomes 3.97 * 1012 kg oil / year

Table 5. The world annual consumption of natural (fuel) oil

Year Quantity No. mol C02 Number_L C02 Number kg.0¾ ........ KWh .......................

(contains 86% C) After-burning After burning After burning After burning 1968 2.001 * 10 “kg 1.434 * 1014 3.212 * 1015 6.310 * 1012 2.299 * 10“ 1970 2.334 * 1012 kg 1.673 * 1014 3.777 * 1015 7.360 * 1012 2.668 * 1013 1972 2,598 * 1012 kg 1,862 * 1014 4,171 * 1011} 8,192 * 1012 2,959 * 1013 1973 2,798 * 1012 kg 2,005 * 1014 4,492 * 1015 8,822 * 10li 3,187 * 10b 1975 2,725 * 1012 kg 1,953 * 10U 4,375 * 1015 8.593 * 1012 3,103 * 10 1979 * 3,125 * 10 · 2 kg 2,240 * 1014 5,017 * 10,115,856 * 1012 3,559 * 1013 1984 2,845 * 1012 kg 2,039 * 1014 4,567 * 101S 8,972 * 1012 3,240 * 1013 2000 valuation 2.08x 5.918 * 10 * 2 kg 4,241 * 1014 9,499 * 10b 1,866 * 10'3 6,739 * 1013 2030 valuation 8.99x 2,558 * 101J kg 1,833 "* 1015 4,106 * 1016 ~ 8,066 * 1013 2,913 * 1014

Table 6. The world annual consumption of natural gas in million tonnes of oil equivalent = 107 Kcal 1968 8221) 9.5858 * 1012 kWh 1973 1108.4 1.289 * 10 ° kWh 1978 1252.5 1.456 * 10h kWh 1981 1374.4 1.598 * 1013 kWh 1984 1444.4 1.680 * 1013 kWh “2000 appraisal 2.08 x 3004.4 3.494 * 1013 kWh 2030 appraisal 8.99 x 12985.2 1.510 * 1014 kWh 10

Table 7. The global annual use of coal in million tonnes of oil equivalent = 107 Kcal 1984 coal 2167.5 2.489 * 1013 kWh

Bituminous coal + anthracite 3034.4 3.529 * 1013 kWh

Sub bituminous coal + lignite 1103.21 1,282 * 1013 kWh 1016048 23

Table S, World annual consumption of primary energy in tons of oil equivalent = l07 Kcal Year Ton of oil equivalent = 107 Kcal Kcal KWs KWh 1965 3.50 * 10 * 3.50 * 1016 1.465 * 1017 4.070 * 1013 1968 4.58 * 1041 4,58 * 1016 1,917 * 10n 5,325 * 1013 1972 5.60 * 10 *: 5.60 * 1016 2,344 * 10 * '6,511 * 1013 1973 5,91 * 10,91 * 1016 2,474 * 101' 6,872 * 10li 1975 5.95 * 109 5.95 * 1016 2.451 * 1017 6.919 * 10 "

1979 6.94 * 10 * 6.94 * 1016, 2.905 * 1017, 8.069 * 1015

1984 7.20 * 109 ~ 7.20 * 1016 3.014 * 1017 8 ^ 72 * 10y ----- 2000 valuation 2.08x 1.45 * 10 '° 1.45 * 1017 6.269 * 10n 1,741 * 1014 2030 valuation 8.99 x 6.47 * 10w 6.47 * 1017 2.710 * 10 ^ 7.526 * 10w

Table 9, World annual consumption of primary energy to fuel in tonnes of oil equivalent = 107 Kcal in 1984 Fuel Oil Natural gas Coal Hydropower Nuclear boot 2,844 * 10y 1.41 * 10 * 2.18 * 10 ^ 0.46 * 10 * 0.28 * 10 "1984 kWh kWh kWh kWh kWh 3.31 * 10U 1.64 * 1013 2.54 * 10K 535 * 10“ 3.26 * 10lz 2000 appraisal 2.08x 6.89 * 10h 3.41 * 1013 5, 28 * 10 "1.11 * 10kj 6.78 * 10 ° 2030 valuation 8.99x 2.98 * 10H 1.47 * 1014 2.28 * 1014 4.81 * 10ώ? 2.93 * 10 °? 5 Table 10, Estimation of global energy consumption.

For the period 1960-2000 of 40 years 4.88 * 1015 kWh

For the period 2000-2030 of 30 years' 1.39 * 1016 kWh

Note: #lKcal = 4186 J = 4,186 * 10 ~ 3 MJ = 4186 Wsec = 1.1628 Wh = 1.1628 * 10-3 kWh # Let's put the increase in the annual annual consumption of primary energy at 5% from 1984 ; then the increase is: in 1990 (1.05) 6 = 1.34; in 2000 (1.05) 15 = 2.08; in 2005 (1.05) 20 = 2.65; in .2010 (1.05) .25 = 3.39; in 2020 (1.05) 35 = 5.52; in 2030 (1.05) 45 = 8.99.

# If only V * of the world population participates in the world annual consumption of primary energy; then the remaining V * is added later than the world annual consumption of primary energy increases by a factor of 4.

15 #The world population was - in 1971-3.706 * 109; in 1985-4.948 * 109 - growth 2.1% per year - in 2000 - 6.0 * 109 - growth 1.3% per year.

101 SO 43

Claims (2)

Instead of recycling a certain amount of material one time, one can also recycle n times that amount of material once for the same costs. No raw materials are needed for this energy process. The saving on the raw materials oil, gas and coal is 6741 billion guilders annually !! 2.7. There is a large and inexhaustible energy source without raw materials consumption due to 100% recycling and simple energy extraction, so low energy prices. 2.8. No difficult equipment is needed, so that we will not have any resource shortage problems either. 2.9. Various examples and tables indicate what is reasonably predictable; they provide answers to various possible questions 2.10. With a low energy price one can think of as much conversion as possible to electricity; the transport thereof is simple and safe and the costs are low; ie the heating of buildings and cooking in households can be on electricity. 2.11. Furthermore, the hydrogen engine, the fuel cell, will have to be considered for cars, ships and planes; it appears that the diesel or kerosene engine is more expensive than the hydrogen engine, that has once been completely different !!. Cars with a gasoline or diesel engine pollute the atmosphere in the cities and 40 cause smog; airplanes pollute the atmosphere and probably cause the hole in the ozone layer. 2.12. The current environmental problems on land, at sea and in the atmosphere will greatly improve respectively 1016048 On land: leaking oil pipelines, subsidence through drilling for oil and gas, malicious transport of gasoline, oil, gas and LPG and storage, including nuclear waste. At sea: discharges of nuclear waste and oil, dangerous shipments of nuclear waste and oil, drilling for oil and gas in the sea 5 In the atmosphere: the CO2 greenhouse effect, smog problems in the cities, the hole in the ozone layer. These environmental problems are canceled; while recycling CO2 will yield around 850 billion guilders a year. !! CO2 is no longer a waste gas, but a useful production gas, without CO2 no photosynthesis 2.13 The following remarks can be made regarding the implementation: * It is possible that the released CO2 gas still needs to be cleaned when seaweed is burned If the methods for this are known and are used by the power plants for coal, oil and biomass, one could adopt those methods. * A portion of the extracted seaweed could be shredded into 1 cm pieces, and then spread in the sea by. ebb, tide, wind and sea currents so that they end up everywhere to guarantee further growth. Coarse seaweed harvesting; continue to grow fine seaweed. FIG. 1 is a sketch of a possible embodiment for the loss-free dissolution of CO2 in seawater. 2.14 This way of generating energy is so simple and the investments are very low, as a result of which the poor countries are also able to start their own energy production; they do not have to wait for any arrogant policies of the rich countries. 3.0 Not only the conclusions under points 1.0 and 2.0 in this patent, but also countless other features of the current problematic energy extraction and energy processing are very worth mentioning and comparing with the energy extraction and processing proposed in this patent: 3.1 Earth shocks are observed during gas and oil extraction (Groningen, Limburg and N.Holland). 3.2 The hydroelectric power stations, which often work in combination with locks, seemed environmentally friendly. The reality appears to be different; fish that live in both fresh and salt water (salmon, eel) do not pass through the locks and when the locks are opened they do not pass the hydroelectric power stations without being ground by around 5 to 15%, incidentally, this also happens without locks . 3.3 When biomass is burned, people are very open-minded and throw everything in one go, eg no difference is made between plants, animal meal, manure or alcohol burn; apparently everything here is green energy, but the CO2 does enter the atmosphere just like with the burning of fossil fuel. It is thought that the land plants will act as CO2 sinks, but unfortunately there are too few of them and what there is will only become less in a long series of years; resp. too much CO2 is blown into the atmosphere where it accumulates, and by origin there is no interest In the biomass combustion according to this patent, CO2 is dissolved in the sea and not in the atmosphere blown here, sea plants are the CO2 sink and they are in it sufficiently, there is real recycling, a distinction must be made between them. 3.4 The current method of energy extraction is highly dependent on the countries of the Middle East; it will be highly desirable to be less dependent on this in the future. We must even strive to be completely politically independent of the countries of the Middle East with regard to oil; gas or, where applicable, kenis fuel. 40 3.5 Current energy processing and extraction is also very susceptible to terrorism, then: "Oil, gas and nuclear energy processing and extraction. 1016048 * 01ie, gas and nuclear energy transports on land or at sea and then storage, for example in Rotterdam , Groningen, France or England. "" Oil rigs, pipelines. * High windmills can easily be rammed by planes, moreover they stand in the way of the construction of airports, eg what people want to make in the North Sea are windmill parks or airports. actions from 11-09-2001 are partly dependent on the oil pipelines of Kazakhstan, Toerkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan that are planned by the Americans through Afghanistan and Pakistan to a port on the Arabian Sea. in the future all possible forms of corruption must speak well 10 3.6 Finally, there is still a major problem for the Insurance Companies against terrorism. layers, who are responsible: the government, which has already imposed too high taxes in advance, and must therefore come over the brag; the energy companies that are affected or all together who have the same energy processing and extraction; after all, they have done nothing to prevent disasters. What will the insurance premiums be and what will be the energy prices for energy that is won in a terror-sensitive way? At the moment it looks as though people have already spent more on combating terror than on environmental improvements, we also see that the time spent on combating terror within a few weeks led to action; while for environmental improvements people have not achieved anything after many years of meetings. 20 1 0 1 8048