Not so long ago, the media reported on the development and adoption by the European Commission of the so-called "Green Pact for Europe", according to which by 2050 Europe should become carbon neutral, that is, almost completely eliminate carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. In order to achieve the stated goals, it is planned to introduce quotas on carbon dioxide emissions and significant monetary fines for those "bad" who do not fit into the quotas, as well as restrictions on the admission to the market of the products of these "bad". As a carrot, it is proposed to reduce taxes and other fiscal fees to "excellent students" who managed to keep within the quotas.
The restrictions and emission quotas are so strict that no hydrocarbons fit into their framework (even natural gas, which is the cleanest in this respect, does not fit). Therefore, it is assumed that industrialists and businessmen will begin to massively switch to "green" technologies of energy production in the form of solar and wind energy. Such a global restructuring of the energy infrastructure will require enormous costs, and therefore the Green Pact provides for the allocation of up to a trillion euros for the stated goals.
At the same time, restrictions will affect not only products manufactured in Europe itself, but also products exported to Europe from outside: if products are made with energy, the production of which is accompanied by carbon dioxide emissions, fines and restrictions are imposed on it, up to a complete ban on import. Such a policy is very reminiscent of an economic war with the whole world, and articles with eloquent headlines are already appearing in the media space about Europe preparing to declare an economic war on the whole world for the sake of ecological prosperity.
But solar and wind energy, which seems to be the main emphasis in the European initiative, turn out to be economically very unprofitable and not even "green" at all. First, about the economic weakness of these types of energy.
Burning one kilogram of coal releases about 25 megajoules of thermal energy. For one kilogram of air to have such kinetic energy, it must move at a speed of 7.1 km / sec. Satellites fly at such speeds in low earth orbits. If the air moves at such a speed near the earth's surface, it will carry not only the wind generator, but even the mountains. The real range of speeds in which the wind generator operates is 5-15 m / s. Thus, the energy potential of the air flow turns out to be 400,000 - 1,000,000 times less than the energy potential of coal. Comparison of the flow of solar energy passing through a square meter of solar panels with the flow of thermal energy passing through the same square meter from the burning natural gas shows the same result:The sun is several hundred thousand times inferior to gas.
It should be noted that the sun and wind have such an advantage as generating electricity immediately, while hydrocarbons give heat during combustion, which needs to be converted into electricity, which requires a lot of additional equipment in the form of steam generators, heat exchangers, pumps, turbines and others. gland. And this feature largely neutralizes the low energy content of the wind flow and sunlight. Significant, but not complete. All the same, the Sun / Wind is inferior to hydrocarbons in terms of economic competitiveness. If one dollar invested in coal mining can then receive up to $ 30-40 profit from the thermal energy of its combustion, then for solar and wind energy this figure drops to $ 5-6. That is, “green” energy largely works for itself and not for the consumer.
Now about environmental friendliness. Even 40 years ago, meticulous Americans calculated the harm caused to nature by the use of different types of energy, taking into account all the production operations required for the manufacture of devices and units in which this energy is released. It turned out that the cleanest energy source is natural gas. Its pollution factor is taken as a unit. The next in cleanliness is, oddly enough, nuclear energy (Chernobyl and Fukushima did not happen yet): pollution coefficient k = 3. Then coal (k = 8), wind (k = 16) and the Sun (k = 200). Why is the sun a much dirtier source than traditional hydrocarbons? The reason lies in the technology for making solar panels.
Batteries are made from silicon. Silicon is the most common sand on any seashore. But as a rule, sand contains various impurities that make it unsuitable for making a solar battery. Impurities should be removed, for which different concentrated acids and alkalis are used to dissolve the sand. And after cleaning the silicon, these used acids and alkalis with various contaminants need to be thrown away somewhere. So they pollute the environment.
Promotional video:
In addition, the solar battery does not last forever; it reduces energy production over time due to damage and failure of individual cells. Therefore, the batteries must be replaced regularly with new ones. If we start a global transition of all energy to the solar principle, then we automatically begin global environmental poisoning with waste from the production of solar panels. And when we replace the last thermal or nuclear power plant with a solar battery, we will be surprised to see that global environmental poisoning has not stopped from this: the very first batteries have already become unusable and need to be replaced, so the process of making new batteries with its toxic waste will continue …
A similar picture is observed with wind turbines. For the operation of the wind generator, neodymium magnets are required (why exactly neodymium magnets are required, and not ferrite ones, I do not know, but this is a fact). Neodymium is a metal from the lanthanide group. As a rule, it is found in combination with other lanthanides. The similarity of physical and chemical characteristics of lanthanides complicates the process of separating neodymium from ore and requires the use of numerous toxic substances, which then have to be thrown into a landfill with inevitable pollution of the surrounding space.
Many experts say the European Commission's insane plan is likely to bury the European economy. At first glance, this fear seems justified. Indeed, it is easier for a businessman to transfer his production to countries with more benign environmental legislation than to look for an alternative source of energy. The real state of "green" energy is such that it pays off only if there are no taxes on its products. But when the Green Pact is fully operational, many tax breaks will have to be lifted, otherwise the tax-free state will simply go bankrupt. In addition, the need to eliminate toxic waste from the production of solar panels and neodymium magnets will require large financial costs and, therefore, the introduction of additional fiscal burden on the business. And no good wishesthe “excellent students” written in the pact will not be able to outweigh the objective laws of economics. So the Green Pact will really ruin the European economy?
It turns out that "in the Crimea, not everything is so simple." To begin with, the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, who is promoting this ambitious program, is German. And from this moment an interesting intrigue begins.
In Germany, an unusual company "ROSCH INNOVATION" has been operating for several years now, producing the world's first free energy generators, with which Nikola Tesla and Viktor Schauberger (very famous people in the circles of alternative scientists from science) worked in their time. A standard ROSCH generator has a power of 50 kW, a weight of about one ton and is made in the form of a column up to ten meters high. The generator works on the principle of using the buoyancy force of Archimedes: compressed air is supplied to the very bottom of the water column, which is collected under the buckets fixed on an endless closed chain and pulls the buckets upward, thereby setting the chain in motion with the subsequent transmission of the chain movement to the electric generator. The generator does not consume any fuel,it means it does not emit carbon dioxide (and therefore fits perfectly into the requirements of the Green Pact). It does not need sunlight or gusts of wind to work. Also, warm water from an external source is not needed, on the contrary, it produces warm water itself, although not in very large quantities.
The management of the company invites any interested person or skeptic to its office to inspect a working sample and perform any measurements. You can bring your own equipment, measure whatever comes to mind, check for any possibility of cheating or deception. Those who are especially persistent are even given the opportunity to assemble a working sample of a low-power engine from the parts provided by the company right in the office, fill it with water and make sure that the device is working. But so far, no one has been able to catch the firm in deception.
Such amazing generators are already operating not only in Germany, but also in Croatia, Thailand, Mexico (in the Mexican state of Chiapas, there is even a whole power plant with such 50 MW generators). The efficiency of the new technology is officially confirmed by the documents of the energy agencies of the listed countries. Therefore, it is no longer possible to doubt the effectiveness of such "perpetual motion machines".
When the company's employees are asked about the source of energy in their devices, they get off with very vague and vague phrases about the kinetic energy of the water circulating in the device. But where does this kinetic energy come from - the employees of the company do not say. True, sometimes you can hear from individual representatives of the company or numerous would-be experts trying to unravel this riddle, as if the source of energy in this engine is the gravitational field.
In principle, it is possible to extract energy from the gravitational field. Any hydroelectric power plant does just that, because the energy of the falling water is the converted energy of the planet's gravitational field. But in order to extract energy from the gravitational field, the following condition must be fulfilled: it is necessary that the working medium circulating along the contour changes its phase state during the circulation, that is, in some parts of the contour it moves in the form of a liquid, on others - in the form of vapor. A hydroelectric power plant is part of the natural water cycle and the noted condition in such a cycle is met: water rises in the atmosphere in the form of vapor, and then rains down in the form of a liquid. But we do not observe this in the ROSCH generator: the air in the generator constantly remains gas and does not condense into liquid. Hence,employees of the company either themselves do not understand the physics of the processes occurring in their devices, or they deliberately avoid giving a truthful answer to the questions asked. I am leaning towards the second option. Let's remember recent history.
In 1947 (or a little later), the famous physicist Viktor Schauberger returned to Germany from the USA, whom the Americans, along with other scientists, took to their home immediately after the end of the Second World War. Schauberger is famous for building the first free energy generators in Germany and (supposedly) engines for a German flying saucer during the Nazi Reich. In the United States, he was offered good conditions to continue his scientific activities, but Schauberger refused to work for the Americans, and then even managed to return to his homeland. Taking this opportunity, the German post-war government decided to test some of Schauberger's scientific results. In particular, they decided to check the claims of the German physicist that the spirally swirled flow of water in a pipe experiences noticeably less hydraulic resistance than a straight flow.
The check was entrusted to the German professor Poppel, who was very skeptical, if not even hostile, towards Schauberger's ideas. The professor turned out to be an honest person and did not distort or falsify the test results. It turned out that with an increase in the flow rate, the hydraulic resistance of the spirally swirled flow first increases, then decreases, again increases and decreases again. And so several times. But at high costs, it becomes negative.
Negative resistance means that a certain force appears in the flow, which pulls the flow forward so strongly that you can even turn off the pump, but the movement of water in the pipe will still continue. Professor Poppel could not explain the nature of the force arising in the stream, he only stated the fact itself.
And in the 1960s, a pond fish farming company emerged in Germany, whose bosses were looking for ways to reduce the energy consumption for blowing pond water with air. Some of the employees of the company were familiar with the results of the verification of Schauberger's ideas and suggested that the authorities use the fact of a decrease in the hydraulic resistance of a spirally swirled flow, confirmed by Professor Poppel. After long research, an air nozzle of a complex helicoidal shape appeared, in which the air was sharply twisted in a spiral with a subsequent decrease in energy consumption to overcome friction. The bosses were very satisfied with the achieved result and implemented it in all their farms.
After a certain number of years, this fish company was visited by one of the co-founders of today's ROSCH company and got acquainted with an interesting technology there. As a result, a generator was born, in which air was supplied to the lower part of the water column for a reason, but through a special helical nozzle. An additional aerodynamic head arises in the nozzle, which overcomes the hydrostatic pressure of the water column and thereby allows us to obtain useful energy. But where does this useful energy come from? From the gravitational field? Not. Energy comes from the physical vacuum.
Schauberger worked not with a gravitational field, but with a physical vacuum. And in the effects he found, a physical vacuum acts, which should not be confused with a technical vacuum. The physical vacuum is another name for the luminiferous ether, the very ether that the American physicists Michelson and Morley could not detect at one time, and on the basis of which Einstein then created his theory of relativity. Today in Russia all adherents of ether and vacuum energy are declared pseudoscientists and are not taken seriously. But the successes of these very pseudoscientists in the search for and use of new forms of energy indicate that it is just academic science that can be mistaken.
Do ROSCH employees know about all these nuances? Must know. But economic necessity makes them distort reality and hide their true knowledge. If they tell the truth, a lot of people will rush into this area and the company will have strong competitors. Do you need it? In the ROSCH generator, the gravitational field plays the role of a kind of catalyst that promotes the reaction, but is not consumed in the reaction itself. Such reactions are well known in chemistry, but as it turned out, they are also found in physics. Due to the fact that the participation of the gravitational field in the operation of the generator is very clearly visible, the company has a strong temptation to declare the gravitational field as the main source of energy in its apparatus and thereby lead all potential competitors on the wrong path. For this reason, in their conversations and reports, the company's employees try not to mention at all the presence of a helicoidal air nozzle in the apparatus, which is the main part of the apparatus.
Returning to the Green Pact and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Does the President of the European Commission know about the existence of ROSCH in Germany? He may well know, since the company has been operating since 2015. And during this time, she managed to be noted even in a judicial investigation about her alleged scam and deception of gullible buyers, which she brilliantly won. Therefore, it is highly probable that, when adopting its Green Pact, the European Commission's leadership did not stake on the sun / wind / biogas, but on new energy technologies such as the one demonstrated by ROSCH.
But this company is not alone. There is also a similar company in Spain, which also works in this area and also received a very decent result. Another company operating in the United States has created a 25 kW generator based on a magnetic field, and its leadership has already been nominated by the US government for the Nobel Prize in Physics. And given the assertiveness of the Americans, they can get the prize. There are also similar firms in India and Singapore.
But here a conflict of interests may arise between businessmen and politicians. It is desirable for businessmen from companies a la ROSCH to maintain a monopoly on their knowledge and their products. After all, there is a trillion euros at stake. And politicians want to break the monopoly of a single producer in order to create competition and thereby reduce the costs of switching to a new technological order. Here are some figures: the cost of building a 5 MW power plant is 20 million euros for ROSCH generators, 6 million euros for solar panels and 13 million euros for wind turbines (high capital costs for the construction of a ceiling due to the high height of the generators - more than 10 meters,while solar panels and wind turbines stand in the open). But solar panels work at full capacity for only 4 or 5 hours a day, after which their production decreases as the sun sets. And the wind generators also do not work constantly. But ROSCH generators operate 24 hours a day. And thus they give out much more total energy to the grid (42.7 million kWh per year versus 4.9 million kWh for the Sun and 16.4 million kWh for wind). Therefore, the use of a power plant on ROSCH generators turns out to be a very profitable business for the owner of the station, but construction costs a lot of money. We'll have to go to the European Commission with a request to subsidize the construction of the station. This is what requires a trillion euros. And the wind generators also do not work constantly. But ROSCH generators operate 24 hours a day. And thus they give out much more total energy to the grid (42.7 million kWh per year versus 4.9 million kWh for the Sun and 16.4 million kWh for wind). Therefore, the use of a power plant on ROSCH generators turns out to be a very profitable business for the owner of the station, but construction costs a lot of money. We'll have to go to the European Commission with a request to subsidize the construction of the station. This is what requires a trillion euros. And the wind generators also do not work constantly. But ROSCH generators operate 24 hours a day. And thus they give out much more total energy to the grid (42.7 million kWh per year versus 4.9 million kWh for the Sun and 16.4 million kWh for wind). Therefore, the use of a power plant on ROSCH generators turns out to be a very profitable business for the owner of the station, but construction costs a lot of money. We'll have to go to the European Commission with a request to subsidize the construction of the station. This is what requires a trillion euros. Therefore, the use of a power plant on ROSCH generators turns out to be a very profitable business for the owner of the station, but construction costs a lot of money. We'll have to go to the European Commission with a request to subsidize the construction of the station. This is what requires a trillion euros. Therefore, the use of a power plant on ROSCH generators turns out to be a very profitable business for the owner of the station, but construction costs a lot of money. We'll have to go to the European Commission with a request to subsidize the construction of the station. This is what requires a trillion euros.
Which countries will benefit most from the implementation of new energy technologies? Naturally, those that do not have extensive sources of hydrocarbons or other cheap energy and are forced to import energy from abroad. These are, first of all, the countries of old Europe, East and Southeast Asia (China, India, Japan). And, oddly enough, Ukraine. Of course, provided that the Ukrainian elite does not plunder the money allocated for the development of new energy.
The reason for the future benefits of our non-brotherly neighbors from the implementation of the Green Pact by the European Commission lies in its current desperate energy situation. When life circumstances drive a person into a corner, he begins to feverishly search for a way out of a dead-end situation and, if there is one, must find it. A similar situation is now observed in Ukraine. The reduction in gas transit and the absence of oil deposits puts Ukraine in a very difficult position and forces the country's leadership to look for new unconventional sources of energy. And it doesn't have to be oil, coal, gas or wind. There are already two companies operating in Ukraine that are studying the possibilities of obtaining energy from the physical vacuum. While they work separately from each other. But joining forces can be explosivewhen the output turns out to be a compact, inexpensive generator that supplies the consumer with energy in the amount of hundreds of kilojoules per second. And then this united company will ideally fit into the requirements of the Green Pact, and its products will begin to conquer old Europe.
And what about Russia? And in Russia there is peace and quiet. On the one hand, this is understandable. As one of my opponents said in a dispute with me, "Why strain somehow if there is oil and gas?" And tactically, you can understand him. On the other hand (this is already a strategy), the emphasis on the export of hydrocarbons will definitely drive Russia into a technological dead end: the bet on the export of raw materials always ends in a strategic loss, although at first it can bring big dividends, because sooner or later a technology will appear that makes this raw material unnecessary.
The draft "Energy Strategy of Russia until 2035" has written a lot about oil, coal, gas, nuclear energy and renewable sources such as the sun and wind. Unfortunately, the project presupposes the exclusion of the concept of non-fuel energy presented in the RP of the Russian Federation No. 1715_r dated 2009-13-11 "Energy strategy of Russia for the period up to 2030". The project contains a clause on new breakthrough technologies in the energy sector. But underneath breakthrough technologies are methane hydrates from the seabed. And methane hydrate is the same hydrocarbon as ordinary natural gas. And therefore falling under the restrictions of the "Green Pact".
And even hydrogen energy, which is also discussed in various versions of the Energy Strategy, will not correct the situation. Today in Russia there is a rapid construction of gas processing plants, which, among other things, provide for the extraction of hydrogen from natural gas with its further use as a fuel for thermal power plants. During combustion, hydrogen gives only water vapor by the reaction 2H2 + O2; 2H2O and does not form carbon dioxide. But what to do with the carbon that remains after the separation of hydrogen from natural gas? It will not be possible to drive it into various plastics due to the discrepancy between the scale of gas consumption by energy and oil and gas chemistry: according to the European Union 10 years ago, out of every 10 tons of oil in the fuel energy one way or another, about 9 tons are used, and in petrochemistry less than a ton. It is unlikely that the situation in the gas sector is fundamentally different. Therefore, you will still have to throw excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby block your access to European markets.
The worst thing is not even the loss of future oil and gas export revenues, but the abandonment of new technologies if we continue to focus on hydrocarbon exports. Technologies for the production of energy from a physical vacuum will pull along a lot of new technologies in related fields and thereby provide a technological breakthrough for those who dare to take risks. And on the basis of a technological breakthrough, huge dividends and profits will go to the European economy. Because champagne is drunk only by those who are not afraid to take risks.
Author: Igor Prokhorov