"Decarbonization" of the world energy can leave Russia out of work


Does it often happen that the date is known exactly in advance when the socialeconomic a model of an entire state? In the case of our country, the deadline falls on 2050, but the clock will start its relentless countdown from 2030. However, they are already ticking.


As you know, about two-thirds of the federal budget of the Russian Federation is formed from the income of the oil and gas sector. The country is firmly on the pipe, and endless talks about diversifying the economy remain just talk. Soon we will be forcibly removed from the notorious "oil and gas needle", and the big question is what Russia will then be left with.

The preparatory work on the transfer of their economies to carbon-neutral fuels has been carried out by the leading powers for a long time. In Europe, the project was named Green Deal, and it is compared in terms of cost and significance for the entire planet with the landing of American astronauts on the moon. According to this program, by 2050, greenhouse gas emissions from economic activities in the EU should be zero. This will require a complete restructuring of the industry, infrastructure, transfer of houses to modern heating systems, transfer to vehicles that operate without exhaust into the atmosphere. As the costs of European corporations increase, Brussels intends to protect them by introducing increased duties on the import of foreign products.

In the Old World, Germany will skim the cream off this, which is going to combine the "greening" of the economy with the promotion of the interests of its industrialists. Berlin has adopted a "National Hydrogen Strategy", in which 9 billion euros will be spent on the transition to a new type of fuel. The scheme is simple: Germany sets some new standards for "green energy" and at the same time intends to make money on the sale of equipment to everyone who will be forced to work on them. As a matter of fact, this is directly written about in the specified document:

Germany intends to position itself as a leading supplier of green hydrogen of technologies to the world market.

It is worth explaining that "green hydrogen" is a product of simple seawater electrolysis, produced with the help of "green energy", namely, wind energy and other renewable sources. Here, giant German wind farms will be used with might and main, floating wind turbines are being designed. Berlin is making the most of its own "green" infrastructure, the low efficiency of which we once ridiculed so-called "experts".

This is very bad for Russia. news... We also have the ability to obtain hydrogen, but it will be “blue” or “turquoise”. It will not be easy to convert existing gas pipelines of Gazprom to hydrogen either, due to the phenomenon of stress corrosion. Alternative “green energy” in our country, which could be used in the production of the “green hydrogen” required by the Germans, is almost completely absent. The government has already fussed with the adoption of the hydrogen energy development program until 2024, but experts who have familiarized themselves with it note the lack of specifics.

Nor does Russia have much hope for the eastern markets. China also intends to squeeze the most out of "decarbonization". By 2050, Beijing will invest 15 trillion dollars in restructuring the country's energy sector. On the development and implementation of relevant technologies, 2% of the gigantic GDP of the Celestial Empire will be spent annually. The Chinese economy will receive a new drive for its development, and additional highly qualified jobs will appear. Analysts point out that the start of China's real transition to new types of fuel should be expected by 2030. Japan follows the same path.

So far, Europe is not going to completely abandon Russian hydrocarbons. The share of oil and gas consumption will steadily decline during the entire transition period, and with them our federal budget revenues. How the government intends to tackle the problem further is a big question.
136 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. bzbo Offline bzbo
    bzbo (Black doctor) 29 October 2020 14: 32
    +3
    Loham sell expensive and meaningless equipment, but they themselves will switch to firewood?)))
  2. passing by Offline passing by
    passing by (passing by) 29 October 2020 14: 37
    +3
    Europe still has to live up to 2050. Even Merkel has a panic. the second wave of the crown is stronger than the first and the resources of Germany for a month. the rest are much worse. they will not buy oil, but black bags of this oil.
    1. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 30 October 2020 14: 45
      +1
      Modern history introduces modern new processes and relationships. The redistribution of production also leads to the redistribution of associated resources. Today, the tendencies of developed countries to shift energy-intensive production to less developed countries, for that Europe is no longer the main energy-intensive producer, and therefore energy needs are significantly reduced. This means to redirect hydrocarbons and so on to those who need them more, to countries where energy, industry and consumption are developing ... Example China and all of Asia, then Africa, Latin America are ready for a leap ... In addition, up to 400 million Europe attempts to reduce emission of hydrocarbons (even norms and fines), - only false casuistry, when multibillion-dollar Africa and Asia, Latin America, and the United States, energy and others live at the level of the "dirty" mid-20th century, so what such ephemeral attempts of one Europe in the global world will achieve ...?
  3. Igor Pavlovich Offline Igor Pavlovich
    Igor Pavlovich (Igor Pavlovich) 29 October 2020 14: 41
    -6
    +++ For the most part, Mr. Marzhetskiy writes competent analytical articles. good
    1. Oyo Sarkazmi Offline Oyo Sarkazmi
      Oyo Sarkazmi (Oyo Sarkazmi) 29 October 2020 17: 47
      +4
      Quote: Igor Pavlovich
      Mr. Marzhetsky writes competent analytical articles.

      Only with numbers does not get along.
    2. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 29 October 2020 17: 50
      +2
      +++ For the most part, Mr. Marzhetskiy writes competent analytical articles.

      You will do yes By relics and firs smile
  4. Berkham Ali-Tyan (Berkham Ali-Tyan) 29 October 2020 14: 56
    +7
    Why sell gas and oil? You can recycle all this and develop organic synthesis with composites. Raw materials are always cheaper than the finished product or intermediate materials. Natural gas is methanol, and there is so much of it ...
  5. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 29 October 2020 15: 43
    -8
    For some time I have nothing to argue with Mr. Marzhetsky. True, it is too early to say that Europe and other developed countries by 2050 will definitely switch to completely "green" energy (man proposes, but God disposes).

    But there is indeed a downward trend in dependence on hydrocarbon (and coal) fuels. There are quite promising technologies in this area. There are also examples of successful application of these technologies.

    I am also interested in one moment here - not so long ago one of the authors (I do not remember exactly who) rubbed me that, they say, Europe is ruining itself by investing in “ruinous” and “subsidized” green energy. I wonder if he will object to his colleague - Mr. Marzhetsky?
    1. cmonman Offline cmonman
      cmonman (Garik Mokin) 29 October 2020 16: 43
      -6
      “... they say, Europe is ruining itself by investing in“ ruinous ”and“ subsidized ”green energy.”

      Europe invests in the future, and does it at "any price", because mankind has no prospects on Earth. If ALL glaciers melt, then the level of the World Ocean will rise 8-10 meters, and the climate with the melting of thermafrost in Siberia (methane and, as a result, the greenhouse effect) will lead to a sharp change in climate. Humanity will be mired in wars for land / water / crops. On youtube you can find the ocean level in 2100, 80 years later. We will have to wash off the Earth as quickly as possible. Europe, and not only Europe, wants to delay this process, because technologies for ATAS / run_nado are not ready yet. But you need to prepare ...
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 29 October 2020 16: 47
        -5
        So I mean that developed countries investing in the development of green energy are exactly what they are investing in the future.
        1. Oyo Sarkazmi Offline Oyo Sarkazmi
          Oyo Sarkazmi (Oyo Sarkazmi) 29 October 2020 17: 50
          +2
          Quote: Cyril
          exactly what investing in the future is doing.

          but not their future. Most likely, with the degradation of industry, European specialists will disperse to China, India, Russia, Brazil.
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 29 October 2020 23: 42
            0
            but not your future

            In his

            with industrial degradation

            There is no "industrial degradation"

            specialists will leave for China, India, Russia, Brazil.

            Aha, and the hair is running back.
        2. Dear sofa expert. 29 October 2020 23: 27
          +4
          So I mean that developed countries investing in the development of green energy are exactly what they are investing in the future.

          Whose future?
          Everyone lives on the same planet. What is the use of the fact that Europeans switch to climate-friendly electric cars, and sell their "dirty" diesels and gasoline in the millions to neighboring Africa?
          Do you think if you move the exhaust pipe from one place to another, the notorious "greenhouse effect" will be less?

          The Americans, by the way, shout a lot, but they themselves are in no hurry to change from their pickups with 8-12 cylinder "stinkers". )
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 29 October 2020 23: 56
            -2
            Everyone lives on the same planet. What is the use of the fact that Europeans switch to climate-friendly electric cars, and sell their "dirty" diesels and gasoline in the millions to neighboring Africa?
            Do you think if you move the exhaust pipe from one place to another, the notorious "greenhouse effect" will be less?

            First, in addition to atmospheric pollution, there is also water and soil pollution. And here the emissions are localized much more strongly. Although atmospheric emissions also have localization, albeit less definite.

            Secondly, car manufacturers are reducing the share of cars with internal combustion engines not only in the domestic but also in the foreign market.

            The Americans, by the way, shout a lot, but they themselves are in no hurry to change from their pickups with 8-12 cylinder "stinkers". )

            Firstly, no, the share of cars with internal combustion engines in the United States is declining. Not directly at a frantic pace, but declining.

            Secondly, in addition to electric vehicles, there are other technologies for environmentally friendly or at least less dirty vehicles. Hybrids, fuel cells, etc.
            1. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 00: 12
              +4
              Secondly, car manufacturers are reducing the share of cars with internal combustion engines not only in the domestic but also in the foreign market.

              Well, yes, it's not bad, very much even reduced.)
              in 2019, 67 million personal cars with internal combustion engines were produced in the world (and they are not in a hurry to reduce) and as many as 1,2 million "electric trains".

              Not straight at a frantic pace

              That's for sure!)

              Secondly, in addition to electric vehicles, there are other technologies for environmentally friendly or at least less dirty vehicles. Hybrids, fuel cells, etc.

              Hybrids are bullshit. Self-deception. No energy savings are obtained due to the increase in the total weight of the vehicle. This has already begun to be understood.

              Fuel cells (hydrogen) - that's what this article is about. There are also enough difficulties. Green hydrogen is stupidity a la Greta.
              So much energy and harm to the same ecology is thrown into the production of green "energy sources" that there is simply no justification for their existence, a priori.

              Take a closer look at what Kapitsa said, and of course - in the fundamental laws of nature (especially the law of conservation of energy).
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 30 October 2020 00: 49
                -1
                Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                Take a closer look at what Kapitsa said, and of course - in the fundamental laws of nature (especially the law of conservation of energy).

                It seems that in Europe these laws have ceased to operate.
                https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/articles/2020/07/22/835175-evropa-zamenyaet

                The share of RES in the first half of the year was 40%, and fossil fuels - 34%
                1. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 01: 03
                  +2
                  The share of RES in the first half of the year was 40%, and fossil fuels - 34%

                  So what? It's just that energy consumption has temporarily dropped this year: the economic crisis, hysteria about the environment, coronavirus.
                  The economic crisis will be won by cyclicality)
                  Hysteria will end by turning on the mind
                  Coronavirus - only God knows.)
                  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 02: 15
                    -3
                    It's just that energy consumption temporarily dropped this year: the economic crisis, hysteria about the environment, coronavirus.

                    The share of renewable energy sources (RES) in electricity production in Germany in 2019 reached a record 46%, according to data from the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE Fraunhofer).

                    Was there a coronavirus in 2019?

                    https://renen.ru/res-in-2019-for-the-first-time-generated-more-electricity-in-germany-than-fossil-fuel-power-plants/

                    Well ... in Germany, the share of renewable energy has been growing steadily since the very beginning of the 2000s. Probably, all this time the poor country has been terrorized by the coronavirus in the conspiracy in Greta.
                    1. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 02: 43
                      +2
                      Was there a coronavirus in 2019?

                      There was no virus yet, but the crisis with hysteria was already in full swing.

                      in Germany, the share of renewable energy has been growing steadily since the very beginning of the 2000s.

                      The share has to grow with the exit from nuclear energy. Mathematics.
                      As a result, electricity in Germany has risen in price very much - the most expensive in Europe (maybe in the world), and continues to rise in price. I think that the patience of the German people, due to such insanity of politicians, will sooner or later come to an end. And the AfD is gaining strength for a reason.
                      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 03: 30
                        -2
                        There was no virus yet, but the crisis with hysteria was already in full swing.

                        There was a crisis in 2008, and the "ecological hysteria", as you called it, began 2-3 years ago) And a stable growth in the share of renewable energy has been observed since 2000.

                        The share has to grow with the exit from nuclear energy. Mathematics.

                        You are confusing cause and effect - just the rejection of nuclear energy is caused by the introduction of renewable energy sources and the growth of its profitability.

                        As a result, electricity in Germany has risen in price very much - the most expensive in Europe (maybe in the world), and continues to rise in price.

                        The rise in the price of electricity in Germany is caused not only and not so much by the introduction of renewable energy sources. For example, the most expensive electric power industry in the world is in the Solomon Islands, the main share of which is - surprise - hydrocarbon fuel :)

                        And the AfD is gaining strength for a reason.

                        In Germany, the ultra-right parties periodically "gain strength" since the very existence of the FRG as a state :) The gain in strength, however, is limited to a maximum of 13 percent in of local land parliaments, the ultra-right has not played and does not play any key role in the political life of Germany after 45 years.

                        Plus, the growing popularity of AfD is associated with the problems of immigration and the reluctance of the German population to drag on the less developed countries of Europe. The problems of introducing renewable energy sources are in the last place there.
                      2. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 11: 09
                        +2
                        There was a crisis in 2008 too,

                        2008 was predominantly a financial crisis. The fight against it - through the elimination of cash gaps and the crisis of confidence - was successfully carried out by expanding the balance sheets of the Central Banks, but later and to this day, it has transformed into an economic one - a sharp decline in investments, orders in industry, a noticeable drop in consumer demand.

                        The fall in consumer demand is caused, among other things, by the accumulation of a large number of "wrong investments", which leads to a "crisis of overproduction." Investors and business leaders make these mistakes under the influence of a systematic large distortion of information necessary for making investment decisions. And this is already directly related to "environmental" hysteria.
                        Demand for the products of many very important industries has collapsed: from nuclear energy, automotive, etc.

                        The pandemic has exacerbated the existing crisis with a further drop in demand in the transport, logistics, tourism, entertainment, sports, etc. industries, and with this, a general drop in energy demand.
                        Hence the deceptive figures showing, as it were, the energy "sufficiency" of renewable energy sources.

                        All this will pass. Sobering up will come.

                        https://www.capital.ua/ru/publication/139984-chem-krizis-2020-goda-otlichaetsya-ot-krizisa-2008-goda
                      3. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 11: 16
                        -2
                        The pandemic has exacerbated the existing crisis with a further drop in demand in the transport, logistics, tourism, entertainment, sports, etc. industries, and with this, a general drop in energy demand.
                        Hence the deceptive figures showing, as it were, the energy "sufficiency" of renewable energy sources.

                        Once again, an increase in the share of renewable energy sources in the energy sector in Germany has been observed from year to year since 2000.

                        In addition, the decline in the economy causes a drop in the total demand for energy, and not only for that obtained from hydrocarbons.
                      4. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 11: 41
                        +2
                        In addition, the decline in the economy causes a drop in the total demand for energy, and not only for that obtained from hydrocarbons.

                        Correctly, only the energy obtained from hydrocarbons can, if necessary, be suspended, thereby giving the opportunity for wind and solar energy to statistically improve its share.
                      5. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 12: 13
                        -2
                        Correctly, only the energy obtained from hydrocarbons can, if necessary, be suspended, thereby giving the opportunity for wind and solar energy to statistically improve its share.

                        laughing laughing laughing Yes, after all, "inefficient" solar power plants or wind turbines cannot be turned off, they have been there since the very formation of the Earth, right?)

                        What else do you think of?)
                      6. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 12: 19
                        +2
                        Yes, after all, "inefficient" solar power plants or wind turbines cannot be turned off, they have been there since the very formation of the Earth, right?)

                        You can disable everything, but why disable them?
                        They have to work off the funds invested in them.
                  2. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 12: 10
                    +2
                    Once again, an increase in the share of renewable energy sources in the energy sector in Germany has been observed from year to year since 2000.

                    In addition, the decline in the economy causes a drop in the total demand for energy, and not only for that obtained from hydrocarbons.

                    I have already answered this.
                    I will repeat briefly:
                    1) growth per year - 0,8%
                    2) When demand falls, the production of hydrocarbon energy can be temporarily suspended, thereby shifting the statistical use of wind and sun power to a plus.
                    Is this all so hard to understand?)
                  3. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 12: 17
                    -2
                    1) growth per year - 0,8%

                    Lying. In 2019, the share of renewable energy sources in energy production was 46%, in the 1st quarter of 2020 - already more than 50%

                    If you have 50 - 46 = 0,8, then you urgently need to go to the first grade, retrain.

                    If demand falls, the production of hydrocarbon energy can be temporarily suspended

                    Why suspend a more efficient (from your point of view) energy source in favor of a less efficient one? Do you think a wind turbine or solar panel cannot be turned off? :)
                  4. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 12: 25
                    +3
                    ... Lying. In 2019, the share of renewable energy sources in energy production was 46%, in the 1st quarter of 2020 - already more than 50%
                    If you have 50 - 46 = 0,8, then you urgently need to go to the first grade, retrain.

                    Try without rudeness.
                    Are we talking about growth? If you finish your studies before grade 10, then theoretically, you can speak a foreign language.
                    Here's the gain:

                    Der Anteil am weltweiten Endenergieverbrauch steigt nur langsam und das Wachstum lag von 2006 bis 2016 durchschnittlich bei 0,8% pro Jahr.
                    https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erneuerbare_Energien

                    We have already discussed the share of renewable energy sources.
                  5. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 12: 33
                    -2
                    Are we talking about growth? If you finish your studies before grade 10, then theoretically, you can speak a foreign language.

                    Great, I was just learning German. And since I knew him well, I will point you to this little aspect in your quote:

                    Der Anteil am worldwide Endenergieverbrauch steigt nur langsam und das Wachstum lag von 2006 bis 2016 durchschnittlich bei 0,8% pro Jahr.

                    The highlighted word is translated as "world". Do you understand that the world consists of almost 200 states, most of which are not at the level of development to introduce green energy technologies?

                    We analyzed the development of renewable energy sources using the example of Germany. She has this annual growth in 2020 amounted to more than 4 percent. And now you are talking about global growth, which statistics will be completely different, because the introduction of green energy in countries is very uneven.

                    Do you know what a substitution of concepts is? This is what you are doing now.

                    Try without rudeness.

                    So you give normal arguments, and there will be no "rudeness".
                  6. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 12: 53
                    +3
                    She has this annual growth in 2020 amounted to more than 4 percent.

                    It is not.
                    let's take the numbers as a basis:

                    Die Stromversorgung in Deutschland wird Jahr für Jahr "grüner". Der Anteil der erneuerbaren Energien am Stromverbrauch wächst beständig: von rund sechs Prozent im Jahr 2000 auf rund 42 Prozent im Jahr 2019.

                    https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/erneuerbare-energien.html

                    As you can see, the growth in 19 years was 36%

                    36: 19 = 1,89% per year. (that is, there can be no question of 4% you named too).

                    But even this 1,89% is statistically “improved” by the last years of the economic crisis. (reduced energy consumption, and the possibility of stopping the production of energy by hydrocarbons).

                    Plus, the last 3 rather warm winters also had a positive effect in favor of renewable energy sources (heating in Germany is predominantly gas.)
                  7. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 13: 00
                    -2
                    As you can see, the growth in 19 years was 36%
                    36: 19 = 1,89% per year. (that is, there can be no question of 4% you named too).

                    But these calculations of yours would be correct if the growth from year to year was the same.

                    I gave you links with specific data:
                    in 2019, the share of green energy was 46%, and already in 2020 - more than 50 percent.

                    Are you able to subtract 50 from 46?

                    But even this 1,89% is statistically “improved” by the last years of the economic crisis. (reduced energy consumption, and the possibility of stopping the production of energy by hydrocarbons).

                    Again 25.
                  8. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 13: 24
                    +3
                    But these calculations of yours would be correct if the growth from year to year was the same

                    that's what I'm talking about. Recent years: hysteria, crisis and crown - raise the percentage of equity participation from the notorious +/- 0,8% to your 4%
                    making an average of 1,89%.
                    If it were not for these factors, we would not have seen such an increase.

                    in 2019, the share of green energy was 46%, and already in 2020 - more than 50 percent.

                    The 4% growth over the last year of force majeure only confirms what I said above.
                  9. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 13: 39
                    -2
                    Yeah. And the same growth rates were in 2006-2007 (3 percent), in 2010-2011 (4 percent), in 2014-2015 (4 percent), in 2016-2017 (almost 5%), in 2018- 2019 (6%) and finally in 2019-2020 (4%).

                    It looks like poor Germany is hit by an economic crisis every 1-2 years, right?) A new word in the world economy :)
                  10. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 13: 50
                    +2
                    Yeah. And the same growth rates were in 2006-2007 (3 percent), in 2010-2011 (4 percent), in 2014-2015 (4 percent), in 2016-2017 (almost 5%), in 2018- 2019 (6%) and finally in 2019-2020 (4%).

                    It looks like poor Germany is hit by an economic crisis every 1-2 years, right?) A new word in the world economy :)

                    contradict yourself.)
                    If there are so many such figures, then how did the increase in 19 years (2000-2019) total only 36%?
                  11. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 14: 12
                    -1
                    Because in other years this increase could be less or even zero.

                    The point is that there is no correlation between the rate of growth and economic or epidemiological crises, as you are trying to prove here. And in "well-fed" and "difficult" years, this growth could both increase and decrease.
    2. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 12: 26
      +2
      ... Why suspend a more efficient (from your point of view) energy source in favor of a less efficient one? Do you think a wind turbine or solar panel cannot be turned off? :)

      I believe that you understand the inconsistency of your question?)
    3. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 12: 34
      -2
      I have an absolutely normal question to which I have not received an intelligible answer.
    4. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 13: 10
      +3
      I have an absolutely normal question to which I have not received an intelligible answer.

      Everything is intelligible.
      When you are driving down a mountain, you can use the forces of gravity. When you drive in a straight line, you can use the force of inertia for a while, but when you start climbing the hill, the force of inertia dries up, and gravity works against you. That's when you need an engine.
      To date, the power of renewable energy is sufficient. You can save carbon-based energy. But everything will change when energy is needed again.
      Nobody talks about the worthlessness of RES, just its efficiency does not meet today's energy consumption requirements.

      By the way, the efficiency of RES (as well as any other source) is growing with the use of more economical means of consumption.

      If they are brought to perfection, then the energy consumption will also decrease significantly.

      If you take a car, then by far the most efficient engine in existence is the diesel one. From the costs of its manufacture, use, and subsequent disposal.
  6. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 11: 30
    +2
    In Germany, the ultra-right parties periodically "gain strength" since the very existence of the FRG as a state :) The gathering of strength, however, is limited to a maximum of 13 percent in the local state parliaments

    AfD is a right-wing liberal party.
    To the ultra-right, it was "pre-demonized" by those controlled by today's ruling parties. For its Eurosceptic and anti-globalization orientation.
    In short, propaganda.
    I'm not going to argue with you about interest. The indicators are different across the lands, and in some they have filled more rulers. This is a separate topic.
    The ultra-right parties in Germany (NPD) are prohibited by law, and the AfD has a seat in the Bundestag, receiving, among other things, 7,5 million euros in subsidies from the state.
  7. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 12: 01
    -2
    AfD is a right-wing liberal party.

    "Alternative for Germany" is ultra-right liberal party.

    How else to call the party. whose head says that Germany can be proud of the exploits of its soldiers during the First (okay) and Second World Wars?

    The ultra-right parties in Germany (NPD) are prohibited by law, and the AfD has a seat in the Bundestag, receiving, among other things, 7,5 million euros in subsidies from the state.

    In Germany, only those far-right parties are banned that either use the very methods of unconstitutional political struggle (in particular, terrorism or street violence), or openly call for such.

    If a party, even with a clearly expressed ultra-right rhetoric, does not use such methods, it is not prohibited. NPD, by the way, is not prohibited in Germany. There were attempts to do this by the Social Democrats to recognize the party as extremist, but the German Constitutional Court rejected this.

    Likewise, the German People's Union, whose program also contains pronounced right-wing extremist provisions, was not banned.

    By the way, the ability of the ultra-right to enter the Bundestag or the Landtag and openly express even frankly radical views is precisely the merit of the very democracy and liberalism that the ultra-right dislikes.
  8. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 12: 35
    +2
    How else to call the party. whose head says that Germany can be proud of the exploits of its soldiers during the First (okay) and Second World Wars?

    Please discard the link in the original?
  9. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 13: 09
    -2
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/de/marcusengert/afd-spitzenkandidat-gauland-findet-deutsche-sollten-stolz#.kxLJnM7ny - наслаждайтесь.



    - and here he makes excuses. Like, he meant Stauffenberg and Rommel, not the SS.
  10. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 13: 46
    +2
    and here he is justified. Like, he meant Stauffenberg and Rommel, not the SS.

    The first link is not the original, but a media feed.
    The second is the original for me, because there I heard what he said.
    There is no excuse. He just specified what he meant and confirmed it again.
    By the way, the video was specially cut, not allowing to hear what Gauland answered to the question about his attitude to Hitler. His answer apparently did not really correspond to the information that they wanted to convey to the layman. The bias is obvious.
  11. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 14: 18
    -1
    The first link is not the original, but a media feed.

    In the first link, in fact, there is a video in which the subject under discussion says this :) Or do you have false blindness - what you do not want, you do not see?

    There is no excuse. He just specified what he meant and confirmed it again.

    When a person first (without specifying about Stauffenberg or Rommel) says that one should be proud of the exploits of the Wehrmacht during the Second World War, and then, after his words caused a furor even among many sympathizers of his party, he speaks with a “clarification” - this is exactly what an excuse.

    By the way, the video with his words about the "feat of the Wehrmacht" was originally posted on the AfD YouTube channel, but now it has been removed. It would seem, why delete such an innocent video?)

    You can try as much as you like to dodge and justify him (and yourself at the same time), but the fact remains - he spoke about the "exploits of the Wehrmacht" (video in the first link).
  12. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 14: 26
    +1
    There is actually a video in the first link,

    Ha ha ha .. these 36 seconds, taken out of the context of speech, you call it - video?))

    Or do you have false blindness - what you don't want, you can't see?

    So this is just about you!
    Dig like a mole, looking for what you want to hear.)
  13. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 12: 06
    +3
    You are confusing cause and effect - just the rejection of nuclear energy is caused by the introduction of renewable energy sources and the growth of its profitability.

    The rejection of nuclear energy in Germany occurred in 2011 after an accident at a Japanese nuclear power plant, and was not caused by any introduction of renewable energy sources.

    By the way, your "growth" of renewable energy in Germany, according to statistics from 2006-2016, was only 0,8% per year.

    The rise in the price of electricity in Germany is caused not only and not so much by the introduction of renewable energy sources. For example, the most expensive electric power industry in the world is in the Solomon Islands, the main share of which is - surprise - hydrocarbon fuel :)

    It is the transition to renewable energy sources, as well as the rejection of nuclear energy.

    https://www.google.de/amp/s/m.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/steigende-kosten-wieso-strom-in-deutschland-so-teuer-ist-16319580.amp.html

    Well, to cite some islands as an example .. it's not at all serious.

    In Europe, in terms of electricity prices, the Germans confidently compete with the Danes, with a price of more than 32 cents per sq / hour, with an average price in Europe (and the world) of 12 cents.
  14. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 12: 23
    -3
    The rejection of nuclear energy in Germany occurred in 2011 after an accident at a Japanese nuclear power plant, and was not caused by any introduction of renewable energy sources.

    Again a lie.

    In 2000 year German coalition government adopted a law establishing a plan for the phased shutdown of nuclear power plants and the abandonment of nuclear energy. In 2010, the plan was adjusted towards extending the life of nuclear power plants. New closure dates for the reactors were set in 2011 by the government following the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant after extensive negotiations.

    So it was in 2000 that the rejection of renewable energy sources began. And it was then that the RES development program was adopted.

    "By the way, your" growth "of renewable energy in Germany, according to statistics from 2006-2016, was only 0,8% per year."

    Lies again. I answered this lie above.

    Well, to cite some islands as an example .. it's not at all serious.

    Why is this not serious? Does it matter what size the territory has?
  15. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 14: 09
    +1
    So it was in 2000 that the rejection of renewable energy sources began.

    And adjusted for further use in 2010.
    Again - contradict yourself. )

    Why is this not serious? Does it matter what size the territory has?

    What kind of boltology? What does the territory have to do with it?
    Here, relevance in the global economy plays a greater role.)

    The concept of "material point", I hope you know? Islands ...)))
  16. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 14: 24
    -1
    And adjusted for further use in 2010.
    Again - contradict yourself. )

    Can't you tell the difference between "corrected" and "started"? Oh, troubleaaaa ... you said that

    The abandonment of nuclear energy in Germany occurred in 2011 after an accident at a Japanese nuclear power plant

    And this is not at all the same as "corrected".

    What kind of boltology? What does the territory have to do with it?
    Here, relevance in the global economy plays a greater role.)


    What kind of boltology you have - I don't know. You said that it is precisely the abandonment of hydrocarbons in favor of renewable energy sources that leads to higher energy costs, therefore, the dominance of hydrocarbons should make energy cheap. I showed you by the example of the Solomon Islands that this is not so.

    And it is precisely that the territory has nothing to do with it - it only affects the total amount of generated energy, and not the share of renewable energy sources in it.

    The concept of "material point", I hope you know?

    But this is boltology.
  17. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 14: 31
    +2
    And adjusted for further use in 2010.
    Again - contradict yourself. )

    Can't you tell the difference between "corrected" and "started"? Oh, troubleaaaa ... you said that

    The abandonment of nuclear energy in Germany occurred in 2011 after an accident at a Japanese nuclear power plant

    And this is not at all the same as "corrected".

    Your stupidity, I see, again there is no limit.)

    Wanted to give up in 2000m
    Corrected - for refusal from "refusal" - that is - for continuation
    use of nuclear energy.
    In 2011, after the accident at Fukushima, in hysterics, they again rushed to abandon nuclear energy.

    Let's wait for the end of the crisis, and with the arrival of a new, more adequate ruler, we will see a new "correction". For some reason, I don't even doubt it.
  18. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 15: 18
    -1
    Wanted to give up in 2000m

    They did not "want to give up in 2000", but passed the law on the gradual decommissioning of nuclear power plants. And this conclusion has been from the very beginning of the 2000s. In 2010, it was corrected only in terms of the complete abandonment of the nuclear power plant, and not completely abandoned the program.

    In 2011, after the accident at Fukushima, in hysterics, they again rushed to abandon nuclear energy.

    There was no "hysteria". Hysteria (without quotation marks) in this case is observed only in you, and is expressed in feverish attempts to manipulate numbers, substitute theses.

    A material point in physics is a body that has a mass, but whose size, in comparison with the distances to other bodies, in the considered problem negligible.

    Finally, it dawns on you that size is not the issue. Progress.
  19. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 14: 34
    +2
    The concept of "material point", I hope you know?

    But this is boltology.

    A material point in physics is called a body that has a mass, but whose dimensions, in comparison with the distances to other bodies, can be neglected in the problem under consideration.

    Doesn't it even reach your spore-inflamed brain?
  • Oyo Sarkazmi Offline Oyo Sarkazmi
    Oyo Sarkazmi (Oyo Sarkazmi) 30 October 2020 11: 08
    +3
    Quote: Cyril
    Well ... in Germany, the share of renewable energy has been steadily growing since

    The share of INSTALLED RES capacity in Germany has reached 80%. And the share of PRODUCED energy was 15%. But with thermal generation, on the contrary. Coal-fired plants account for only 15% of the installed capacity, and generate 70% of all energy. But the ambush is that these 70% are without metallurgy and cement industry. Which consume little electricity, but coal and gas - a lot. Taking these factors into account, the share of coal-hydrocarbon energy is 95% of the consumption of Germany. And RES serves as a tax on the population of the country.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 11: 12
      -2
      The share of INSTALLED RES capacity in Germany has reached 80%. And the share of PRODUCED energy was 15%.

      Lies. It is indicated in black on white and in Russian that the share of RENEWED energy generated by RES is 46% of all generated energy.

      I throw the link again - https://renen.ru/res-in-2019-for-the-first-time-generated-more-electricity-in-germany-than-fossil-fuel-power-plants/
    2. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 11: 43
      +2
      Lies. It is indicated in black on white and in Russian that the share of RENEWED energy generated by RES is 46% of all generated energy.

      Yes, now, during the crisis, this energy is enough.
  • Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 02: 09
    -2
    in 2019, 67 million personal cars with internal combustion engines were produced in the world (and they are not in a hurry to reduce) and as many as 1,2 million "electric trains".

    And in 2018, global electric vehicle sales were 996 557 pieces.

    That is, from year to year, there is an increase in sales of electric vehicles around the world.

    Hybrids are bullshit. Self-deception. No energy savings are obtained due to the increase in the total weight of the vehicle. This has already begun to be understood.

    Well, of course, the sofa expert said so :)

    Fuel cells (hydrogen) - that's what this article is about. There are also enough difficulties. Green hydrogen is stupidity a la Greta.
    So much energy and harm to the same ecology is thrown into the production of green "energy sources" that there is simply no justification for their existence, a priori.

    Yes yes yes, yes yes yes :)

    Take a closer look at what Kapitsa said, and of course - in the fundamental laws of nature (especially the law of conservation of energy).

    https://renen.ru/akademik-kapitsa-i-pustota/ - вот вы и вникайте, что на самом деле сказал Капица 45 лет назад :)
    1. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 02: 33
      +3
      And in 2018, global sales of electric vehicles were 996 units.

      That is, from year to year, there is an increase in sales of electric vehicles around the world.

      Yeah .. increase .. as much as 200 thousand.)
      against 67 million - that's power!
      Calculate how long it takes with such an increase to replace this 67 million per year, with the same drop.)

      Well, of course, the sofa expert said so :)

      Well, that is, there is nothing special to object?)

      And I'll tell you: this year I personally tested two different hybrids. I wanted to change both my diesel cars.
      As a result, both hybrids (Mitsubishi Outlander Plug-in Hybrid and Mercedes E 300 BlueTEC HYBRID) did not suit me: Japanese - conceptually: Weight 2,5 tons (due to the battery in the trunk) - the engine has its own 15 liters (savings!)) , and the batteries, when charged at night from the outlet, last at most 50 km. Then - gasoline (15L) - FUFLO!
      And Mears is very expensive. Price kills all future savings. FUFLO in fact.
      As a result, I drive on my diesel old ladies.

      That something like this.
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 03: 49
        -1
        Yeah .. increase .. as much as 200 thousand.)
        against 67 million - that's power!

        And yet, there is growth, although you claim that there is none. In addition, 200 thousand (the difference between the number of electric vehicles sold in 2028 and 2029) should be compared not with the total number of ICE cars sold, but with the same difference. And watch what difference grows and what diminishes.

        Calculate how long it takes with such an increase to replace this 67 million per year, with the same drop.)

        When the first models of mobile phones were launched on the market, they were also used by a few. And they cost prohibitively much. Moreover, this situation persisted for 10 years. And then there was a sharp explosive growth in production, a decrease in prices, and already in the 2000s, almost everyone had mobile phones.

        As electric vehicles and other green cars improve and become cheaper, their number will grow more and more intensively. So it is not necessary to count on when electric cars will replace cars with internal combustion engines with the current level of growth.

        Well, that is, there is nothing special to object?)

        To object to your speculative constructions? Of course, nothing.

        And I'll tell you: this year I personally tested two different hybrids.

        How do I know how you tested it?)
        1. Oyo Sarkazmi Offline Oyo Sarkazmi
          Oyo Sarkazmi (Oyo Sarkazmi) 30 October 2020 11: 25
          +2
          Quote: Cyril
          As electric vehicles and other green cars improve and become cheaper, their number will grow more and more intensively.

          When you have one electric car all over the street, it's great. Plugged in, and happy. When you are in the City, and you have fifteen hundred neighbors with electric cars, everyone comes home, plugs them in, and the lights in the block go out. For charging 100 kWh in 8 hours - this machine consumes 15 kW of power (taking into account the efficiency). One and a half thousand neighbors is 22500 kW = 22,5 MW. We are looking at the output electric power of the nuclear floating power plant Akademik Lomonosov - 70 MW.
          In general, each quarter of the city has its own nuclear reactor.
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 11: 43
            -2
            That's the trouble ... and in Oslo, where 30% of all cars are electric cars, for some reason they haven't heard about the problems of mass charging. Moreover, a law was passed on the complete rejection of cars with internal combustion engines by 2025. These are stupid Scandinavians!
          2. Oyo Sarkazmi Offline Oyo Sarkazmi
            Oyo Sarkazmi (Oyo Sarkazmi) 30 October 2020 13: 12
            +1
            Quote: Cyril
            Oslo, where 30% of all cars

            This is Tesla in the electric car segment. In total, out of 123 thousand sold electro - 5618 E-throne, 2501 Kona, 2428 - Leaf. 10-15%. And with Norwegian distances, electro is profitable. 10-20 km per day.
          3. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 15: 40
            -1
            This is Tesla in the electric car segment.

            Lying. Firstly, 30% is the share of ALL EVs in the total number of cars sold in Norway in 2018.

            The total share of electric vehicles and hybrids in Norway in 2019 was 60%. - https://www.autostat.ru/analytics/42480/

            And with Norwegian distances, electro is profitable.

            So the vast majority of European countries are just the size of Norway.
            So they themselves admitted that at least in the same Norway the same electric vehicles are profitable. Already progress. After all, we are talking about the energy and ecology of Europe.
          4. Oyo Sarkazmi Offline Oyo Sarkazmi
            Oyo Sarkazmi (Oyo Sarkazmi) 30 October 2020 18: 06
            +1
            Electric cars are beneficial to the population. Excise tax is small, duties are zero. But this is with a small amount. With a large power structure of the state requires investments, as in the creation of Gazprom. And the money will have to be taken from the taxpayer's pocket.
            For example, after upgrading a village power grid, my house can draw 80 amps of current. There used to be 15. So it required the construction of 3 km of 10 kV high-voltage line, and 250 new KTPs were installed only in our nook (about 9 houses). Previously, there were 1000 houses for the whole village, 6 houses! And not a single electric car yet. If they appear, the 100/10 kV transformer at the substation will have to be replaced by 4-6 pieces / pieces. And to bring 110 kV to each street.
  • Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 11: 47
    +3
    How do I know how you tested it?)

    Yes, like everyone else. I took each for 3 days and went.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 15: 43
      -2
      You can ride in different ways.

      It's like with computers. You can take an office computer and try to play AAA games on it. And after he got stuck on the first game, say - FUFLO, not a computer.

      Therefore, your specific personal experience of using these cars cannot be any argument - it is just your specific personal experience, which does not pretend to be objective.
    2. Dear sofa expert. 30 October 2020 17: 03
      +2
      Therefore, your specific personal experience of using these cars cannot be an argument.

      I am a practitioner, you are apparently a theorist.
      Theory without practice is dead.)
      Yes. I told you about my personal experience. Believe it or not, it's up to you. Try it yourself.
      A person should be able to learn from their mistakes.)
  • Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 October 2020 09: 17
    0
    Quote: Cyril
    For some time I have nothing to argue with Mr. Marzhetsky.

    Nothing wrong. I can handle it. I have no task someone will like.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 09: 34
      -2
      So in this article I totally agree with you.

      I don’t like and don’t like you - I am indifferent to you. I can say that in spite of my disagreement with many of your articles and views, I sympathize with your manner of presenting your views in a balanced manner and without sliding into frenzied propaganda, as some of your colleagues on the site do.
  • k_g_angelov Offline k_g_angelov
    k_g_angelov 29 October 2020 16: 08
    +8
    http://www.valeriyzhikharev.org/blog/капица-о-бесперспективности-альтернативной-энергетики

    Kapitsa on the futility of alternative energy
    On October 8, 1975, at a scientific session dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician Petr Leonidovich Kapitsa, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics three years later, made a conceptual report in which, based on basic physical principles, essentially buried all kinds "Alternative energy", with the exception of controlled thermonuclear fusion.

    The considerations of Academician Kapitsa, they boil down to the following: no matter what source of energy is considered, it can be characterized by two parameters: energy density - that is, its amount per unit volume - and the speed of its transmission (propagation). The product of these quantities is the maximum power that can be obtained from a unit surface using this type of energy.

    Let's say solar energy. Its density is negligible. But it spreads with tremendous speed - the speed of light. As a result, the flow of solar energy coming to the Earth and giving life to everything is not small at all - more than a kilowatt per square meter. Alas, this flow is sufficient for life on the planet, but as the main source of energy for humanity is extremely ineffective. As P. Kapitsa noted, at sea level, taking into account losses in the atmosphere, a person can actually use a flux of 100-200 watts per square meter. Even today, the efficiency of devices that convert solar energy into electricity is 15%. To cover only the household needs of one modern household, a converter with an area of ​​at least 40-50 square meters is needed. And in order to replace fossil fuel sources with solar energy, it is necessary to build a continuous strip of solar batteries 50-60 kilometers wide along the entire land part of the equator.

    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 29 October 2020 16: 48
      -1
      To cite as evidence the reflections made in 1975 - well, such a thing. With all due respect to Kapitsa.
      1. passing by Offline passing by
        passing by (passing by) 29 October 2020 17: 16
        +3
        Learn to start recycling waste wind turbines and solar panels. at the moment they are simply buried. nuclear energy is waste-free.
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 29 October 2020 17: 22
          -4
          nuclear energy is waste-free.

          laughing Somehow read about nuclear waste and how they are disposed of :)
          1. boriz Offline boriz
            boriz (boriz) 29 October 2020 17: 47
            +3
            Sometime read about ZYATS (closed nuclear cycle). In this, by the way, Russia is ahead of the rest.
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 29 October 2020 23: 17
              0
              A closed nuclear cycle does not imply an absolute absence of waste, it is still there, albeit in smaller quantities than with an open one.

              Secondly, the introduction of such technologies (WNC) requires very large financial investments. Very large, even with high technology development. And from the point of view of economic efficiency, it is not yet clear whether they will be justified or not.
              1. boriz Offline boriz
                boriz (boriz) 29 October 2020 23: 21
                +2
                We have already done all the preliminary work. Industrial nuclear power plants are in operation.
                The principle is implemented in the ZNC. that we return to nature no more radioactivity than we took from it. Well, millions of tons of uranium 238 are involved. Enough for 3 years. No need to mine.
                1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 29 October 2020 23: 33
                  0
                  The principle is implemented in the ZNC. that we return to nature no more radioactivity than we took from it.

                  This is an outright lie. In a closed nuclear cycle, there is a stage of spent fuel reprocessing at a radiochemical plant, during which STATNO releases liquid and gaseous radionuclides.
                  1. boriz Offline boriz
                    boriz (boriz) 29 October 2020 23: 42
                    +2
                    A link, if possible. And turn on the filter for the bazaar if you want to continue to communicate with you like a human being.
                    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 00: 32
                      -1
                      A link, if possible.

                      Of course - here: http://profbeckman.narod.ru/RH0.files/20_2.pdf

                      "The advantages of a closed nuclear fuel cycle include the return of expensive fissile materials - uranium and plutonium to the power industry, which will provide the nuclear power industry with fuel for a millennium with any increase in demand. spent fuel assemblies (SFAs) without their processing.
                      The main disadvantages of a closed NFC are presence of environmentally hazardous radiochemical production and the possibility of uncontrolled proliferation of plutonium-239 and other fissile components of nuclear weapons.
                      The scheme of the open version of the NFC is much shorter and simpler than it is in the closed version. There is no main source of environmental pollution with radionuclides - a radiochemical plant, i.e., the most radiation hazardous production is absent. Radioactive substances are constantly in a solid state in a sealed package, they are not "smeared" over huge areas in the form of solutions, gases during "regular" and abnormal emissions, etc. All problems associated with the construction and future decommissioning of a radiochemical plant disappear: financial and material costs for the construction and operation of the plant, including salaries, electricity, heat, water supply, for a huge amount of protective equipment and technology, chemical reagents, aggressive, poisonous, flammable and explosive substances (acids, alkalis, organic liquids), etc. There is no need to pump tritium underground, problems with the disposal of iodine, liquid and gaseous waste, emissions are eliminated. "
                  2. boriz Offline boriz
                    boriz (boriz) 30 October 2020 00: 13
                    +2
                    Technologies for reprocessing, isolation and disposal of spent nuclear fuel have long been developed in the world, but Russia is unique in that we have formulated the concept of radiation equivalent disposal, Tikhomirov reminds. This concept assumes that the transition of nuclear power to a closed nuclear fuel cycle will allow the return to nature of waste, in terms of radiotoxicity (danger to people), identical to uranium, which was mined and used for the production of atomic energy. “Thus, Russia has developed a concept of practically waste-free energy production based on nuclear technologies. The thesis that Russia is a dump of nuclear waste is a myth.

                    - Georgy Tikhomirov, Deputy Director of the Institute of Nuclear Physics and Technology, NRNU MEPhI.

                    https://profile.ru/economy/bogatstvo-55354/
                    https://www.atomic-energy.ru/interviews/2020/09/02/106529
                    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 00: 47
                      -2
                      "A concept has been formulated" is not yet "put into practice".

                      Further, the concept of "radiation equivalent disposal" has its critics - for example:

                      http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4774

                      I don't know which of these two people is right. The fact is that the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel produces emissions of radionuclides and additional chemical pollution of the environment.

                      And I do not argue with the fact that a closed closed cycle is more environmentally friendly than an open one (although, as we can see, there are doubts about this). I only argue with the assertion that a closed nuclear cycle does not generate radioactive waste at all, as my opponent claimed at the very beginning.
                      1. boriz Offline boriz
                        boriz (boriz) 30 October 2020 12: 18
                        +2
                        I, it seems, have never written anywhere that there will be no waste at all.
                        For me, Tikhomirov's opinion on the return of radioactivity to nature is no more authoritative than what was taken from her.
                        But the problems of ZNC are local in nature and have a real prospect of solution.

                        ... the possibility of uncontrolled proliferation of plutonium-239 and other fissile components of nuclear weapons.

                        This is: firstly, an organizational issue, and secondly, it is simply not serious. Let's not drive cars, people die in road accidents from this, I'm not talking about planes.
                        Hydrogen energy has no less problems, they are simply hushed up.
                        This is the non-controllability of green electricity, a short cycle of equipment operation and problems with its utilization, disposal of batteries, a high danger of high-power batteries, the complete creation of a separate infrastructure for hydrogen (which is unrealistic in itself), burning hydrogen will create environmental problems much more than burning natural gas. And the combustion of hydrogen will require a rise in the cost of equipment at times, if not by orders of magnitude.
                      2. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 15: 52
                        -1
                        And I did not say that you wrote to me about "waste-free" nuclear production. It was written by a user under the nickname "mimoprohodil". Here are his words:

                        Learn to start recycling waste wind turbines and solar panels. at the moment they are simply buried. nuclear energy is waste-free.

                        To this I answered about the disposal of radioactive waste. And even then you told me about the ZYATS.

                        But the problems of ZNC are local in nature and have a real prospect of solution.

                        You cannot completely solve the problem of emissions from radiochemical plants, where spent fuel is reprocessed. You can reduce these emissions, but you will not get rid of them completely.

                        Further, regarding the uncontrolled proliferation of plutonium - it was just in the quoted passage. I have highlighted the key points for my argument in bold.

                        Hydrogen energy has no less problems, they are simply hushed up.

                        First, the "silence" argument is worthless - it's just your speculation.

                        Secondly, green energy does not only consist of hydrogen.

                        Third, are you an energy expert to objectively assess the costs of using hydrogen fuel?
                      3. boriz Offline boriz
                        boriz (boriz) 30 October 2020 15: 56
                        0
                        In recent years, he was very interested in energy, and his general technical horizons allow him to figure out which is which.
                      4. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 16: 01
                        -1
                        and the general technical outlook quite allows you to understand what is what.

                        And I have no idea what your "technical horizons" are and how objective you are in your assessments.
  • boriz Offline boriz
    boriz (boriz) 29 October 2020 17: 51
    +4
    And this is not speculation. This is a calculation.
    And Newton's laws don't squeeze anywhere? Or Ohm's Law? Old stuff, right?
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 29 October 2020 23: 18
      -3
      But the technologies for converting and storing the energy of the sun, wind and tides have gone far ahead in 45 years.
      1. boriz Offline boriz
        boriz (boriz) 29 October 2020 23: 26
        +2
        Calculations would be where to see competent. Taking into account the disposal of equipment. And the required space. And the solution to the issue of noise from wind turbines, including infrasound. And the dispatching of green electricity, in principle, is not dispatched.
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 00: 59
          -2
          You can read about noise and infrasound from wind turbines here - https://renen.ru/mify-o-vetroenergetike-shum-i-infrazvuk/

          and here - https://igorpodgorny.livejournal.com/314993.html

          and here - https://nplus1.ru/news/2020/04/21/turbine-bad-sleep

          These articles have links to official research that can be consulted.

          In short, there is no scientific evidence to support the following:

          1) The audible noise of wind turbines affects people more strongly than other noises of natural or man-made origin (for example, a nearby construction site, waterfall or railway station)

          2) Wind turbines generate more infrasound than other sources of natural or anthropogenic origin.

          3) Infrasound has a negative effect on the body.
          1. boriz Offline boriz
            boriz (boriz) 30 October 2020 12: 38
            +2
            https://www.if24.ru/fizik-podtverdil-opasnost-vetryakov-dlya-chervej-i-lyudej/

            You can write any order now. For me, the harm of infrasound is an axiom. I graduated from MVTU when you, most likely, were not yet in the world. There was a subject - labor protection. Including the influence of the acoustic effects of fans. Infrasound in frequency is close to the rhythms of the brain and, with sufficient amplitude, can simply kill a person. And he won't even hear.
            In the USSR, they treated such things responsibly (before "perestroika"). So I believe what I know. I read about it back in the 70s. Both in textbooks and in magazines, such as "Science and Life", "Technology for Youth", "Knowledge is Power". The magazines were very useful and reputable. Not an ounce of commercial or political interest. And if now they say that infrasound is harmless, I treat this as deliberate disinformation.
            Well, animals don't live near windmills. Get out of their holes. Probably regarded as an approaching earthquake.
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 12: 48
              -1
              You can write any order now.

              laughing laughing I understand, I understand ...

              After the argument "everyone is bought and lies", I see no reason to argue with you. Useless.
              1. boriz Offline boriz
                boriz (boriz) 30 October 2020 12: 49
                +1
                There and after this quote something is written.
                1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 15: 56
                  -2
                  And then nothing worthwhile is written there. You simply boast that you graduated from the Moscow Higher Technical School, about the "responsible attitude of the USSR to labor protection", etc., etc., and about the fact that you believe someone or not.

                  Sorry, but this has no probative value.

                  Evidence can only be data from scientific studies confirming the negative and even more deadly effect of infrasound on humans. You did not provide such data.
                  1. boriz Offline boriz
                    boriz (boriz) 30 October 2020 16: 05
                    +1
                    This is common knowledge.
                    https://www.mrmz.ru/article/v23/print/4.htm
                    https://ohranatruda.of.by/chto-takoe-infrazvuk-v-chem-vyrazhaetsya-ego-vrednoe-vozdejstvie-na-cheloveka.html
  • 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 29 October 2020 18: 01
    +3
    To cite as evidence the reflections made in 1975 - well, such a thing. With all due respect to Kapitsa.

    And what has radically changed since 1975? The sun shines brighter the beginning?
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 29 October 2020 23: 19
      -4
      Advances in solar, wind and tidal energy conversion and storage technology have advanced.
      1. isofat Offline isofat
        isofat (isofat) 29 October 2020 23: 32
        +2
        Cyril, are you ... or are you pretending?
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 29 October 2020 23: 35
          -1
          are you ... or are you pretending?

          Neither one nor the other.
  • k_g_angelov Offline k_g_angelov
    k_g_angelov 30 October 2020 00: 14
    +4
    Kirill,
    This is what we are discussing with you or trying to reason.
    Kapitsa read the REPORT AT THE SCIENTIFIC SESSION.

    P.L. Kapitsa ENERGY AND PHYSICS Report at the scientific session dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, October 8, 1975. See: Bulletin of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1976. No. 1. S. 34-43.

    Well, you must admit there is a difference between DISCUSSION and SCIENTIFIC REPORT.
    You have no arguments.
    Of course, arguing with Kapitsa with arguments is not an easy matter.
    Kapitsa judges in "physical", not ideological categories.
    Do you really think that what it meant in 1975
    "The density of energy - that is, its quantity in a unit of volume - and the speed of its transmission (propagation)."
    out of date now?
    That
    "The product of these quantities is the maximum power that can be obtained from a unit of surface using this type of energy."
    also out of date?
    Well, if you have such an approach, do not limit yourself to 1975 and Kapitsa, move on.
    Say a "good" word about Newton - 16 ...
    Remember Archimedes - how many thousand years ago
    Archimedes' theorem today
    a2 + b2 = c2
    correct or am I wrong?
    PS.
    I am from Bulgaria.
    I understand that my Russian is lame.
    I apologize.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 01: 02
      -1
      And I do not dispute the scientific authority of Kapitsa or the correctness of his calculations.

      I just emphasize that the report was made 45 years ago, when the level of development of energy conversion and storage technologies was significantly lower than now. Kapitsa relied on those technologies in his calculations
      1. k_g_angelov Offline k_g_angelov
        k_g_angelov 30 October 2020 05: 02
        +2
        Cyril, Cyril, Cyril,
        You have regretted me ...
        Terem Archimedes, well ... well ...
        A2 + B2 = C2 aha ..
        Shame on the sofa expert.
        Sorry forum users ...
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 07: 54
          -1
          Cyril, Cyril, Cyril,
          You have regretted me ...
          Terem Archimedes, well ... well ...
          A2 + B2 = C2 aha ..
          Shame on the sofa expert.
          Sorry forum users ...

          If earlier you could be understood, albeit with the amendment that Russian is not your native language, now you have written some kind of incoherent set of phrases.
        2. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 30 October 2020 12: 58
          +1
          You needlessly ask for forgiveness, you have nothing to apologize for request And your Russian is not bad enough, it happens that the Russians themselves write worse, and even those thoughts are expressed ... laughing
        3. k_g_angelov Offline k_g_angelov
          k_g_angelov 30 October 2020 13: 48
          +2
          Didn't notice that
          a2 + b2 = c2
          is it the theorem of Pythagoras (Pythagoras?), not Archimedes?
    2. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 01: 11
      -2
      And here, by the way, you can read a detailed criticism of this very report of Kapitsa. The points.

      https://renen.ru/akademik-kapitsa-i-pustota/
    3. k_g_angelov Offline k_g_angelov
      k_g_angelov 30 October 2020 02: 51
      +4
      Krill,
      Found
      I read it.
      Did not impress.
      This is far from criticism. The author does not go into physics from the word at all.
      And what did he find as an argument against the academician's thesis?
      Reducing the cost of producing a cell that turns light into food. energy.
      All.
      I would like to note that it can be seen from the diagram that only expenditures on electronics have decreased 250 times.
      Do you think that logistics costs have been reduced in this way?
      Wrong.
      Well, let us hypothetically assume that the costs have decreased.
      How such a price cut will help you build

      along the entire land part of the equator, a continuous strip of solar batteries 50-60 kilometers wide.

      Do you seriously think that this is possible?
      Physically, economically, politically?
      The answer is clear.
      No, never.
      As the academician claimed.
      And what about local applications.
      Let's say the house.
      Here's what they told me at the fairs where they advertised their production:
      Q: What warranty do your batteries have?
      Answer: Preservation of battery capacity not less than 80% for 10 years.
      So Kapitsa was better known - in physics, and in economics, and in production, and in logistics.
      The discussion is over.
      All the best.
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 05: 06
        -1
        How such a price cut will help you build

        along the entire land part of the equator a continuous strip of solar panels 50-60 kilometers wide

        Do you not understand that Kapitsa said this based on 45-year-old technology?

        Reducing the cost of producing a cell that turns light into food. energy.

        And also increasing the energy efficiency of solar panels themselves, wind turbines, tidal energy systems, as well as storage and storage systems for electricity.

        Once again, the difference in technology 45 years ago and today is big.
      2. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 30 October 2020 05: 08
        -1
        Here's what they told me at the fairs where they advertised their production:
        Q: What warranty do your batteries have?
        Answer: Preservation of battery capacity not less than 80% for 10 years.

        And what didn't you like about maintaining 80% battery capacity for 10 years?
  • Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 29 October 2020 16: 53
    -1
    And the Chinese stick a knife in the back

    https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3407787
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 29 October 2020 16: 55
      -1
      In China, in general, there is a problem with the environment in large cities; it is critical for them to reduce emissions.
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 29 October 2020 17: 33
    -2
    In fact, in spite of the harsh talker intoxicated, the rejection of hydrocarbons will really go.
    Since they really lend themselves to the rate of warming.

    And just as they missed the shale revolution and are still whining, so can the hydrogen revolution.
    And they bark at distant Greta to no avail
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 29 October 2020 18: 05
      +2
      And just as they missed the shale revolution and are still whining, so can the hydrogen revolution.

      It would probably be correct to call the shale revolution an attempt at a coup. This is usually called a failed attempt.
      1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
        Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 29 October 2020 19: 06
        0
        Call it anything.

        And with "unsuccessful attempts" just in our north, more and more deposits are promised to be developed, according to the media.
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 29 October 2020 19: 39
          +1
          Hydraulic fracturing is not new for a long time. This "fashion" came to us long ago, but the scale is much more modest and no one claims to revolution.
  • Many_ways_point Offline Many_ways_point
    Many_ways_point 29 October 2020 17: 35
    -5
    How the government intends to tackle the problem further is a big question.

    No way. This government, except to lie and steal, is no longer capable of anything. They will sit as long as they can and will be dumped to the west when they are ready. And the quilted jackets will remain in a poverty-stricken and ruined country, torn apart by local princes and neighbors.
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 29 October 2020 18: 09
      +3
      No way. This government, except to lie and steal, is no longer capable of anything. They will sit as long as they can and will be dumped to the west when they are ready. And the quilted jackets will remain in a poverty-stricken and ruined country, torn apart by local princes and neighbors.

      Read the comments, there an international Russian-American crew is being formed on the starship, you still have a chance to get on it. yes And we are already here ourselves somehow ... with the princelings in a country torn apart ... maybe we will establish life winked
  • Oyo Sarkazmi Offline Oyo Sarkazmi
    Oyo Sarkazmi (Oyo Sarkazmi) 29 October 2020 17: 46
    +7
    about two-thirds of the federal budget of the Russian Federation is formed from the revenues of the oil and gas sector

    The author, well, sho you so pierce? Domestic sales tax forms two thirds of the budget. Energy exports provide 16-18% to the budget with TAXES. Because private and semi-private companies export hydrocarbons.
    Decarbonization and a tax on emissions will give an unprecedented rise in prices for energy-intensive products in Europe: cement, steel, aluminum. And what will the Europeans replace it with? Snot?
    RES without steel and cement is just stupidity. Do not lay out the same wind turbine towers made of stone on lime.
  • 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 29 October 2020 17: 48
    +4
    As you know, about two-thirds of the federal budget of the Russian Federation is formed from the income of the oil and gas sector.

    Who knows and how? sad

    The Ministry of Finance claims that the actual federal budget revenues for 2019 amounted to 20 million rubles, including oil and gas revenues - 7 million rubles, non-oil and gas revenues - 12 million rubles. (table on 21 pages). repeat

    https://minfin.gov.ru/ru/perfomance/budget/federal
    _budget / budgeti / 2020 /? id_65 = 129889-informatsionnoe
    2020 year:

    Oil and gas revenues of the federal budget are the main indicator of the hydrocarbon dependence of the Russian economy. According to the Accounts Chamber, their share in the first half of this year made less than a third of all treasury receipts.

    https://fingazeta.ru/ekonomika/rossiyskaya_ekonomika/465634

    The country is firmly on the pipe, and endless talks about diversifying the economy remain just talk. Soon we will be forcibly removed from the notorious "oil and gas needle", and the big question is what Russia will then be left with.

    Is the author firmly on tranquilizers? sad Maybe it's time to "get off the needle" and under the dropper?

    You have two ways out of this situation: to sue the Ministry of Finance and the Financial Gazette for publishing false data, or to apologize to the readers for lying and delete the article. Well, or is there a third option, as usual to swallow, wipe off and continue your subversive activities to the delight of Igor Pavlovich and the like laughing ... Feycomet all like water off a duck's back winked
    1. passing by Offline passing by
      passing by (passing by) 30 October 2020 07: 07
      +2
      he has more options ..
      1. delete all your comments with arguments.
      2. get nasty in response.
      3. send to the ban for flooding.
      4. call putinoid. laughing
      1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 October 2020 09: 10
        -1
        Quote: passing by
        1. delete all your comments with arguments.
        2. get nasty in response.
        3. send to the ban for flooding.
        4. call putinoid.

        Good options wink It's high time, but admins and moderators delete and ban, not authors
    2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 October 2020 09: 15
      -1
      Quote: 123
      Oil and gas revenues of the federal budget are the main indicator of the hydrocarbon dependence of the Russian economy. According to the Accounting Chamber, their share in the first half of this year was less than a third of all receipts to the treasury.
      https://fingazeta.ru/ekonomika/rossiyskaya_ekonomika/465634

      The country is firmly on the pipe, and endless talks about diversifying the economy remain just talk. Soon we will be forcibly removed from the notorious "oil and gas needle", and the big question is what Russia will then be left with.
      Is the author firmly on tranquilizers? Maybe it's time to "get off the needle" and under the dropper?

      You have two ways out of this situation: to sue the Ministry of Finance and the Financial Gazette for publishing false data, or to apologize to the readers for lying and delete the article. Well, or there is a third option, as usual to swallow, wipe off and continue his subversive activities to the delight of Igor Pavlovich and the like. Feycomet all like water off a duck's back

      The fact that the country has lost oil and gas revenues is the result of losing the oil war with Saudi Arabia, and not a merit of economic diversification. Do not substitute concepts. Fakecomet and demagogue are you.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 30 October 2020 14: 32
        -1
        The fact that the country has lost oil and gas revenues is the result of losing the oil war with Saudi Arabia, and not a merit of economic diversification. Do not substitute concepts. Fakecomet and demagogue are you.

        Loss of oil and gas revenues by 1/3 of the federal budget? belay Are you seriously? laughing It's funny to me even to discuss it.
        By the way, where are the triumphant passage of the winners in white pajamas on white camels across Red Square (in the sense, maybe you have some numbers)?
        Can you try to write about buried cities? Then your fantasies will be perceived adequately, with understanding. winked
    3. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 2 November 2020 09: 06
      -1
      Quote: 123
      Well, or is there a third option, as usual to swallow, wipe off and continue your subversive activities to the delight of Igor Pavlovich and the like

      Swallow? Wipe off? Yes, I just disdain to answer your comments without an urgent need, if you do not understand.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 2 November 2020 19: 59
        0
        Swallow? Wipe off? Yes, I just disdain to answer your comments without an urgent need, if you do not understand.

        Do you disdain fake-tagging? repeat
  • boriz Offline boriz
    boriz (boriz) 29 October 2020 19: 04
    +3
    The author constantly thoughtlessly quotes all sorts of inventions of the Western media, and then forgets that he himself wrote. And he writes something new, not understanding what.
    Here is 29.05.2020/XNUMX/XNUMX. the author writes:

    We are talking about the use of the onshore extensions of the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 for the needs of hydrogen energy: the OPAL and Eugal gas pipelines, respectively. According to German experts, it will be enough to lay an additional 100 kilometers of pipe, which will cost only $ 600 million. By 2025, one of the gas pipelines can be converted to hydrogen.

    Well, what can I say. Well done Germans, allowed Gazprom, at the expense of Russian taxpayers, to build pipelines for themselves, which will be gradually converted to hydrogen, and the leadership of the state corporation does not even mind. Also of its kind, "well done." Well, in the meantime, we will finish building up Nord Stream-2, which has become irrelevant in this situation, because this is a “matter of honor" in order to guarantee new sanctions for it.

    Even then, in the commentary, I drew his attention to the fact that gas pipelines cannot be used for hydrogen.
    But Sergey likes to represent Gazprom as a bunch of idiots.
    Only half a year has passed, and in the current post there was speculation about some kind of stress corrosion.
    Sergey, what kind of stress corrosion? Was the pipeline scared of something? And rusty from fright?
    And I wrote at the same time that hydrogen has a higher chemical activity than natural gas or methane.
    Hydrides are formed in the metal, which make the pipe more fragile.
    Why did Gazprom not mind? But because it meant the admixture of hydrogen into natural gas. No more than 10% - 20%. Moreover, the percentage depends on the age of the pipes. The older the pipes, the less hydrogen they can handle.
    But the author stubbornly promotes the Western cartoon about hydrogen energy. Although, even the need to completely change the pipe infrastructure puts an end to this adventure. In the near future, Europe (and not only) will not have time for wonderful transformations. It will be just right to put your teeth on the shelf. As unnecessary.
    Moreover, the author bypasses the very essence of hydrogen energy.
    Sergey, how will hydrogen be used? Can you be more specific? There are a lot of problems just at the level of use. And these problems put an additional end to this fake. Also besides the good quote about Kapitsa given above.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 October 2020 09: 13
      -1
      Quote: boriz
      Even then, in the commentary, I drew his attention to the fact that gas pipelines cannot be used for hydrogen.
      But Sergey likes to represent Gazprom as a bunch of idiots.
      Only half a year has passed, and in the current post there was speculation about some kind of stress corrosion.

      They present themselves as such. request
      1. boriz Offline boriz
        boriz (boriz) 30 October 2020 12: 39
        -1
        Object to the point.
        1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 2 November 2020 09: 04
          -1
          There was essentially an article. And don't teach me to lead a discussion.
    2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 October 2020 09: 29
      0
      Quote: boriz
      Sergey, how will hydrogen be used? Can you be more specific? There are a lot of problems just at the level of use. And these problems put an additional end to this fake. Also besides the good quote about Kapitsa given above.

      Boris, Google will help you, more specifically - this will be a separate article already.
      1. boriz Offline boriz
        boriz (boriz) 30 October 2020 12: 40
        -1
        I look forward to it.
  • amateur Online amateur
    amateur (Victor) 30 October 2020 06: 08
    -1
    Quote: Igor Pavlovich
    +++ For the most part, Mr. Marzhetskiy writes competent analytical articles.

    If some authors, unlike Greta Thunberg, went to school, and not to pickets in defense of the environment, they would be able to learn arithmetic and maybe learn the meaning of the term efficiency (efficiency). Then they would be able to calculate how many kilojoules of "green energy" must be spent in order to get 1 joule of hydrogen energy from the end consumer. Well, and accordingly its "cosmic" price.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 October 2020 09: 11
      0
      Quote: layman
      they would be able to calculate how many kilojoules of "green energy" must be spent to get 1 joule of hydrogen energy from the end consumer. Well, and accordingly its "cosmic" price.

      They compensate the costs of the space price by raising duties for competitors. people do it no worse than you
      1. amateur Online amateur
        amateur (Victor) 30 October 2020 09: 20
        +2
        people do it no worse than you

        This is what all sorts of journalist-demagogues are doing. You can wind up at least "a thousand percent". But the final cost of products made with the help of such energy carriers will also be cosmic. The product must not only be produced, it must also be sold. Therefore, the real industry does not particularly bother with green technologies.
        1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 October 2020 09: 30
          -1
          here, mister dilettante, tell this to the Europeans, the Chinese and the Japanese.
          1. boriz Offline boriz
            boriz (boriz) 30 October 2020 12: 43
            0
            Vapid, at the level of "self".
            1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
              Marzhecki (Sergei) 2 November 2020 09: 02
              -1
              The article was substantial. And your comments are demagoguery on the topic.
  • Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 31 October 2020 16: 54
    +1
    There is a silver lining, there are many settlements that are not supplied with gas in the country. And to pull pipes, or to put gas holders, it is where that is more convenient.