Electricity Requirements – Where to be supposed to get in Future?

Energy saving?
In fuel and room heating it’s doable, though the electricity is always expanding.

Coal?
More and more of those power plants? Today, 40% of the global electricity generation is resting upon coal. And CCS? Would obviously increase the price – and burn up more of this fuel, the self–depreciating Ozzie „Greenhouse–Mafia” may rejoice.

Nuclear power?
The economical minable ²³⁵U will be run down by 90% in the year 2035.

Wind?
Is calling for an area–wide grid, and 40 countries have none. Germany has a wind-quota of 8%, the USA 1%. Supposing, the global middle achieves 5% of today´s consumption, this would be 3% in 2035. More offshore? To the most countries the demand on furtherance strikes as too high.

Oil?
Traffic and heating bolt down the most. In decreasing resources on shore the share in behalf of generation of electricity can’t rise; – and upcoming electric cars want current even more

Natural gas?
On various occations gas is replacing oil and about 2020 presumably the gas resources will be half–finished. For the generation of electricity then will rather remain less.

Biogas?
In 2035 biomass and waste could cover all around 7% of the global demand of primary energy. In Germany 0,5% of the electricity come from biogas, in Sweden not any.

Tar sand?
On account of the big energy requirement for removal, generally more CO₂ is released than even with oil. Strip mining eats into the ladscape and effluents, contaminated with mercury and other, poison the environs.

Photovoltaics?
Where a power supply network is missing, it is often the best solution, but for areal basis beyond one’s means. Its global percentage is 0,06% at present. If an annual growth of 15% will be put upright, in 2035 the part comes in 1,4%.

Solar thermal power?
Solar power tower and parabolic trough just exploits the direct light and the locations are in the sunbelt. And which breaks even on site, doesn’t bear added investments in transport.

Tidal rise?
The tidal range is profitable from 5 meters. This is found only selectively and so the theoretic contingent is 0,7%.

Waves?
The entire wave energy along Germany’s North Sea coast would be equal 0,5% of the power consumption in the country. – Winter storms deliever hundred times as much normal days – the rigor with which the utilization of waves is confronted also on more promising shores.

Ocean currents?
Many umteen millions of pounds and dollars falled flat and nothing had made profit. The salt and the sea do bring costs whose degression needs a scaling which is hardly to present fairly so far. And if? For Europe, it would get 2%

Solar updraft? Downdraft?
Hurdles would be to clear: pilot costs of half a billion dollars on the first; and 1 bn $ on the second. – Both are bound up with definite earth regions; the first needs a desert area, the second warm dry air and much water.

Geothermal energy?
At present, cum geothermal energy 60 TWh are generated yearly. The estimates in question the potential diverge enormously: from thinkable 350 TWh/a to spekulative 40.000. Making the former value to 2035, this would be 1,3%.

Usual waterpower?
Are to be more valleys flooded, people resettled, woods drowned, microclimate and groundwater level changed, ascents broken and every minute millions and millions of smallish fishes cut in twain by turbine blades?

Other mayhap?
Warmth of the oceans, methane hydrate from the shelf – or helium3 from the moon? OTEC would be local tropical and fails because of the hunger for energy of its pumps. The gas hydrate is fraught with danger. And the space? There’s something to be said for it, but until nuclear fusion per se once does pay off, that would be too late.

Free energy?
The energy density of the vacuum of 278 quintillionth kWh/m³ is of not much use to man.

Topmost electricity tariffs?
Energy and finance are weaving economy. By skyrocketing energy costs it breaks.

Lutz Kroeber 2009 Transverpello