A hydroelectric power plant which is operated underground with seawater according to the principle of a pumped-storage power station.
The solution I would suggest for this is essentially based on the idea for a power plant that works according to the principle of a pumped storage power station. I found an inspiration for my suggestion in Moscow Metro. In principle the general basic structure of my proposal is due to this structure. Theoretically, according to this principle, any amount of electricity can be generated. The problem is that the amount of water available is limited and that a corresponding location for the difference in height must be present. To solve this problem with the limited amount of water, I would use the sea as a source of water. But in contrast to other solutions, the sea is used as the upper water basin and the sea water in the process remains at sea level. The power plant itself would not be in the sea but under the coast in an underground cavern in about 75 meters depth. Since I would like to use the sea as a water source for my suggestion, the power plant could be built at a depth of less than one hundred meters. So not essential deeper than most subways in the world ( Moscow metro 80 meters deep).The entire world-wide coastal areas could be basically used for the site selection. The function of the lower water basin take over at my idea tunnel tubes as they are used in road construction. In order to be able to pump the water used for the generation of electricity again from the plant, it needs a further energy source, in my solution it would be a wind turbine. The selection of the second energy source depends essentially benefits and its performance.
Is this proposal for a practice or a project?
What actions do you propose?
My proposal would certainly make it possible to meet the worlds electricity requirements. But like every idea, it needs a starting point to make it work. In order to find this, the key players should not only be involved, but also take a leading role.This is intended to avoid competition from the outset. Many ideas fail because they are in competition with existing forms or systems. In addition,these potential actors ( such as the energy suppliers ) have the necessary knowledge, the appropriate staff and above all about the financial resources to be truly successful. Because of this consideration are the US is best suited to be the starting point for my proposal and to take the appropriate measures. One of the first measures would then be to convince the US economy of my proposal. This would enable them new to reposition in the field of energy supply, either in their own interest or for commercial purposes. Important climatic goals could not only be reached but even exceeded. A further advantage of this measure would certainly be that the construction of such power stations is a economic stimulus program with many new jobs ( It might be a comparison with the construction of the railway lines connecting the East to the West. ). Since the power stations are located in an underground hall, the use of workers with experience in the mining industry is certainly a good thing. For example, a large number of coal industry workers could find a new employment.This measure would ultimately have the effect that the US would be able to produce its electricity as far as possible free of emissions. This in turn would have an impact on the global power supply and would increase the pressure to generate the electricity of the future free of emissions. The next measure would be the independence from fossil fuels. With the possibility of generating large amounts of electricity, areas such as deserts could be developed and used. Here, among other on an industrial scale, fuel could be obtained from plants. This enables the automotive industry to continue to use combustion engines in the future, while at the same time reducing, the pollutant emissions. Important actors such as the petroleum industry should play a leading role, this would certainly increase the chances of a becoming independent of the oil. It would be possible to realize a vision of Rudolf Diesel - to operate engines on a exclusively with oils from plants basis. Even if it seems at first glance contradictory, the mineral oil companies are to use for my suggestion. But, finally, oil from plants in sufficient quantity and, above all, economically profitable, would certainly be highly welcome. If the corresponding decision-makers in the USA would like to get to my idea, similar projects would soon follow worldwide. An advantage that would result from this measure would be that it would be much more independet of climatic influences such as caused by droughts or flooding. There are certainly many other measures or ideas resulting from my suggestion and a direct impact on global pollutant emissions. But a major advantage of my proposal is is that in principle no major changes in daily life or even restrictions are necessary to achieve important goals of the climate and environmental protection. I understand my suggestion exclusively as a new additional possibility to gain electricity, which could then be used appropriately. An important measure must then be observed and implemented in my proposal. In the introduction under section "Transfer and distribution" was pointed out. A new power grid would be needed for such large amounts of electricity. My suggestion allows to build a power station in the immediate vicinity of the consumer as long as they are within the vicinity of a sea or body of waters. In order to reach other areas, should be routed electricity cables installed in artificial and natural waterways. This would enable significantly more potential consumers to supplied. If this is not enough, maybe it could be possible to use large roads like motorways to install underground power cables. These roads are fully developed, easily accessible, the property question is largely clarified, is can be laid relatively quickly or conveniently, could be well guarded, is better protected from external conditions and leads directly to many potential electricity consumers. The existing electricity networks would not have to be used at my proposal. It would be a new independent electricity network.
publication of my proposal l establishment of a trading company in the USA l realization of my proposal l emission-free electrification of the USA l l l construction of a reaching national economic stimulus power grid in the climate goals in program for the US USA with the help the US of natural and artificial l l waters (rivers/canals) emission-free the conversion to as well as roads electrification an emission-free l worldwide economy and establishment of a l production in the US worldwide electricity achieve international l network with the help climate a general economic of rivers, canals and upturn worldwide roads l l the conversion to an new living space for emission-free economy many millions of people and production worldwide l new cultivation areas for agriculture l l l l cultivation of plants cultivation of food grazing land for for the production for humans farm animals of fuels l l feed for farm cultivation of plants animals for industry
Who will take these actions?
A) The energy suppliers, could use my suggestion to improve and modernize their possibilitis for the generation of electricity. This gives them the opportunity to make an important contribution to achieving important climate and environmental targets. At the same time, the power supply and the electricity requirements could be ensured or covered by these companies. B) The industry, could make the production and manufacture of their products largely free of emissions and certainly increase their competitiveness. The future of companies and their employes would be much safer. C) The economy, could generate sufficient electricity based on my proposal, for example, to operate a variety of desalination plants economically. This would make it possible to develop new cultivation areas in order to plants for the production of fuels ( such as sugar cane, oil palm trees, etc. ) without the known side effects. The area of transport, global trade and logistics could largely function without harmful emissions. But also other important areas of agriculture and livestock would then mainly produce emissions free. D) Cities and conurbations could become independent of fossil fuels and produce their own emission-free electricity. These could contribute to a significant reduction in pollutant emissions. E) The countries by means of such power plants have sufficient electricity available to achieve economic and political stability. It would then be possible to use funds for the expansion of those countries.
There are certainly still more key actors who play an important role through in my proposal, but I think the question is have answered as far possible.
Where will these actions be taken?
The measure could be carried out wherever the topographical prerequisite conist ( near a sea or a like waters ) and where there is a the willingness to reach the power supply free of emissions. The most important reason why one should decide for my suggestion and thus also the question about the site selection clarifies is that my proposal would ultimately be better and more effective than the existing possibilities for generating electricity. But so that my proposal can really be successful and would be applied worldwide, someone would have to take the lead role. The metropolitan areas in the leading industrial countries are probably best suited to take a decisive role by the site selection in relation to my proposal. There my proposal should be realized first because, in the end, the main causes, of man-made emissions are mainly in these places. A realization of my proposal in these places could provide visible the evidence for my suggestion and that would lead to a realization everywhere in the world. Thus, the question of location selection could be answered by the people themselves precisely and comprehensively. The site selection for industry sector is mainly based on the advantages my proposal for this could offer. For instance, the heavy industry, especially the steel industry, could produce its own electricity without emissions. This would certainly be a great advantage compared to those which depend on an external and possibly fossil energy source. Accordingly, these companies would look carefully to choose a location where their interest would best combine with my proposal. Since my proposal is a purely theoretical option for generating electricity, no specific location is proposed for my proposal.
In addition, specify the country or countries where these actions will be taken.
What impact will these actions have on greenhouse gas emissions and/or adapting to climate change?
My proposal is primarily aimed at people and companies who want to convert 100% of their to electricity requirements to emission-free generation. Therefore, it would certainly not be very serious a result even to present with the corresponding comparative data. But it would is possible is to fix a result to the given 100% achieve. If the relevant actors would agree to my proposal, for example, all relevant and man-made emission sources could be replaced 100% in a timely future. In order a achieve the greatest possible and positive effect on climate change.
What are other key benefits?
This is probably best explained by theoretical examples. If the US economy would be convinced of my suggestion, they would certainly to build not only in the USA but also worldwide such power plants. An area which is particularly suitable for such an investment is the North African coastal region with the adjacent desert. Together with other possibilities for generating electricity ( wind and sun ), enormous amounts of electricity could be generated there. This electricity could then be used to create new living space for hundreds of millions of people and a new market with a huge potential. In new metropolitan areas, a large number of products could be produced. Agricultural products such as plants for the production of oils could be planted there withhout destroying an important ecosystem such as a rainforest. Millions of people would no longer have to leave the African continent and could chance build a secure future there with the help of American companies. This example shows very well which advantages a such suggestion brings with it. To show the advantage of my proposal with regard to a city I would like to take the example of New York. For my example, I use fictitious average to be able to represent the whole better and would therefore go out from 3 million homes for New York. If the owners of these households, with an average lump sum of 50 dollars per household and month for 10 years, participate in the construction of such power plants, these would be provide available 18 billion dollars. For this, they receive not only emission-free electricity after completion, but also free electricity depending on the proportion. They would be joint owners of these power plants and would have a right to this electricity. The city itself could safely reach its targets with regard to an emission-free city. I would like to use Germany as an example in the context of achieving a country's climate goals. There, a turn in the energy supply was initiated in order to become more independent of fossil fuels. But that seems to be more difficult than expected. My proposal could there certainly be very helpful, which would apply to the generation and distribution of electricity.
The danger of a power outage (blackout) could be significantly reduced.
What are the proposal’s projected costs?
In estimating the costs for my proposal I have mainly oriented to the costs of a nuclear power plant. For real comparison data, I have therefore used the nuclear power plant of Hinkley Poin C with two reactors 1600 megawatts each. The planned costs for this reactor were estimated at €3 billion euros, or about €950 million euros for 1000 megawatts. As the first reference point, I have therefore set $1 billion US dollar for a 1,000 megawatt power plant. As a second reference point, I chose the pumped storage power plant in Goldisthal/Germany with an output of 1060 megawatts and the cost total of €600 millions euros. In my suggestion I would take over these costs for a power plant in my proposal for $800 millions dollars and the costs for the tunnel tubes, wind turbine, tunnel boring machines etc. $1,5 to $2 billion US dollars. So I get a presumed basic price for my proposal at a power 1000 megawatts from $2,5 to $3 billion US dollars. If the actual costs of a new nuclear power plant (1000 megawatts)for a comparison become used, my proposal could also cost $4.0 to $4.5 billion US dollars and would be still cheaper. If the information for the new Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in England and the new nuclear power plant Oliluoto 3 in Finland are correct, would have my proposal in terms of costs certainly had good chances for a realization. My proposal is primarily to be an option, for very large companies such as energy corporations or investment companies. These have the necessary capital to be realized about my suggestion..
According to data from the Internet, some 28 million companies are registered in the US. If from these average 10 million would willing to pay 100,000 dollars a year into a common fund, they would have 1 trillion dollars in year to disposal. If these would ready to do so for 10 years, such a trading company would be able to get the incredible sum of 10 trillion dollars. And this with an average equity ratio of 1 million dollars. With this huge sum, US companies can continue to meet their leadership role needs in the world and respond appropriately to the most important challenges of our time. I am sure my suggestion would there highly welcome and could be fully financed.
The first impact of my proposal would probably be an economic upswing that would result from the construction of the new energy supply. With the financing of my proposal is based on the described financing example, a fast and comprehensive realization of my proposal is to be expected. I consider 30 to 35 years as realistic for the worldwide implementation of an emission-free energy supply. The year 2050 would probably be a suitable target for this. During this period, the effects on the environment would first become apparent in the metropolitan areas, where would a clear reduction in air pollution. Since the automobile industry can offer vehicles with electric motors or combustion engines with plant-based fuels in sufficient numbers. Power plants with fossil fuels such as coal are replaced and switched off. Through the possibility to gain new surfaces for agriculture, relevant ecosystems can be preserved and protected. It would give the nature time and space to recover. I measure the timeframe for such an impact in the medium term with 15-50 years, depending on the degree of destruction. The long-term impact would be the human society independence from external influences and conditions. There would be no lack, there would be enough of everything for all. People could finally concentrate on the important aspects of live. The world would provide enough space for people and nature or people could in live harmony with nature.
About the author(s)
Regrettably, it must be noted that the description of my person with regard to my proposal seems not enough to fill in order to approximately 2000 characters. Well my name is Attila Deutsch and I live near Budapest, essentially I have no qualifications or significant expertise on this subject. My motivation to participate in this contest is an opportunity to get my proposal published in a matching framework. So that perhaps more is derived from it than just a theoretical thought and perhaps even for many people from would be of use. I am the sole Author and it is my thoughts on this subject. Therefore, my presentation perhaps is not as professional as the other suggestions.
I could not find a direct reference to other proposal, but there are certainly some common points of contact. The most striking feature of this is probably the relation to the sea as the key factor for a new energy source. On the Internet, there are some examples of this topic, and I also found a contribution to the monthly news of the MIT. What ultimately differenttiates my proposal from the others is that the plant for electricity generation is not in the sea and is therefore not exposed to the element water directly. And the second difference is to use the sea as an upper water source without having to pump it to a higher level. And to combine these two points into a proposal is the most striking difference in relation to other proposals.
- a socket on the wall - the Bible - a brochure of the energy supplier "Vattenfall" - Wikipedia entry on the seawater operated pumped storage power station in Japan on Okinawa - Wikipedia entry about tunnel boring machines - Wikipedia entry generally about the sea as a source of energy - Wikipedia entry on the use of former mining power plants - a reference to the distribution of electricity generated - Moscow subway