"Saving the world" with a double bottom: how the "green era" in energy will turn out

Joseph Biden, who was sworn in as the 46th President of the United States yesterday, fulfilled one of his main campaign promises. He has already signed a decree returning the country to the Paris Climate Agreement. Judging by this, the new head of the White House really intends to adhere to his declared "environmental course", decisively directing the United States to the same path that the heads of state of the European Union declared - "carbon neutrality", the use of exclusively "clean" renewable energy sources and that's it. stuff like that.

A reason for joy for the future of our common home - planet Earth? In no case. Humanity is facing very serious problems, and now we will try to figure out which ones and why.

"Saving the world" with a double bottom

In fact, we are facing the beginning of a new global confrontation, the essence of which is the desire of the “civilized” and “developed” countries to once again build a personal Eden for themselves, while mercilessly exploiting all the others and turning them into “second-class states”. In fact, if the process, which is gaining more and more strength, is not stopped, the era of neo-colonialism, “packed” in very beautiful, “correct” and seemingly attractive slogans, will start.

However, let's sort it out in order. So, a lot of pundits, interstate scientific and public organizations, as well as other representatives of the most respectable public, not to listen to which, it seems, is completely impossible, in recent years lament about the approaching humanity as a result of "global warming" the most real "climatic Armageddon". The waters where shallower, where, on the contrary, will overflow the banks, as the ice will melt. Almost half of the earthly firmament will turn into barren deserts or hide under the waves. Tens, if not hundreds of millions of people will die of hunger, thirst and disease ... An extremely pessimistic picture, I agree. And all because of the fact that humanity, obsessed with suicidal tendencies, continues to emit harmful CO2 into the atmosphere of the planet (although some argue that methane is even more harmful), destroy the ozone layer and do such things that are unacceptable and deadly for the environment.

At the same time, few people pay attention to the fact that absolutely the same terrifying forecasts and frightening warnings have been sounding for at least the last fifty years. Well, since the 80s of the last century - that's right. Even then, ecologists were shouting that if humanity does not "come to its senses" in the near future, then literally just about, in the very near future, a natural disaster awaits it. So what?

In fact, from that time to the present world consumption of oil has grown by about 40%, coal - by half, and natural gas by almost one and a half times. The world did not collapse. Yes, it is periodically shaken by tsunamis, hurricanes, fires and other natural disasters, but were they not there before? Scientists' assertions that the number of cataclysms is growing may well be disputed due to a not too long (on the scale of human history) observation period.

On the other hand, according to many authoritative researchers, it was the sharp increase in the amount of consumed hydrocarbons that allowed millions of people around the world to significantly improve the quality of their lives, at least - to get out of the most hopeless poverty. The most striking examples in this case are China and India, in which the growth of industrial production (and, consequently, the consumption of energy resources) in which has definitely benefited their residents. In any case, in the material sense. Proceeding from this, there are very serious reasons to believe that the current "green" plans of the "developed" Western countries are based primarily on an unreported desire to save the Earth from an "inevitable catastrophe" that still does not come.

The main motive here is a firm intention to stop the impetuous economic the growth of those states, which they so recently, by historical standards, allowed themselves to look down on. No, the desire to get rid of harmful industries and other things that really do not improve the environment on their own territory is also present. But the "white gentlemen" intend to carry out all this exclusively at someone else's expense. To some extent, even Westerners will have to pay for life in the "green paradise". However, their inconvenience and losses cannot be compared with the price that will have to be paid for it by all "dirty natives" with their "dirty" industry and transport.

Ecology versus economics

About what colossal costs the planned "greening" of the European Union will result in, has already been written many times (including me). We are talking about amounts ranging from hundreds of billions to half a trillion euros that will need to be invested in the economy of the Old World until 2050, called the "carbon zero" point.

For completeness, I will give figures for the United States - according to the declarations of the new president there, he intends to add 2 trillion dollars to "greening" the American economy! And this, mind you, only at the initial stage of their own reign. What are the plans for the construction of half a million filling stations for electric vehicles in the United States - and all this is solely at the expense of the state budget, that is, on taxpayers' money. The measures announced by Biden to curtail hydrocarbon production in the country will definitely not benefit the "national economy" of the United States. The method of obtaining them by hydraulic fracturing may be completely banned altogether! Yes, according to available data, the restriction will only apply to further development - already functioning oil and gas wells will be graciously allowed to develop their own. However, the essence of the business of "shale companies" is precisely the drilling of more and more wells - without this, companies specializing in it, and so experiencing now far from the best times, will go bankrupt in a moment. This is the loss of many jobs, bankruptcy, unpaid taxes and bad loans. Is the new owner of the White House and his team going to compensate for all this? You can be calm - it's still going ...

Generally speaking, the question of how much the planned total rejection of hydrocarbons will cost the world in the future is hushed up by the adherents of "green" energy in the most careful way. With their lesser harm to nature (which, by the way, is also quite controversial), renewable energy sources are not only several times lagging behind traditional "hydrocarbon" ones in terms of efficiency - they also require colossal costs for the transportation and storage of the energy they generate.

In the most general terms, so as not to burden the reader with a mass of cumbersome technical details, this problem can be reduced to three main points. Firstly, working with renewable energy sources will require the construction of an incredibly large number of power lines and will increase the cost of their maintenance to a cosmic scale - after all, such sources (wind, solar, and others) are always located far from places where the bulk of the population compactly lives. Secondly, given the current level of technical development, the problem of storing energy obtained from renewable energy sources is practically insoluble. This leaves the countries using them with a choice - to risk returning to the wood-burning stove and splinter as a source of light every day, or to continue to maintain and maintain power plants running on traditional fuels. In addition to the "green" ... Third, even a partial solution of the two above-mentioned problems will in no way allow completely replacing hydrocarbon energy sources - if, of course, humanity wants to maintain its standard of living at the current level. Calculated and proven by scientists many times. The rest is lies and charlatanism.

In truth, the coronavirus pandemic that struck our world last year gave some reason to hope that the "green madness" will recede, at least temporarily lose ground - the global economy has already suffered too heavy damage to even put savage experiments. However, everything turned out exactly the opposite - those in power during the period of the "coronacrisis", convinced of the ability of their fellow citizens to endure its hardships and hardships more or less meekly, concluded: "They will pull the" green revolution! " And they were right ... Apparently, an unprecedented campaign of environmental “brainwashing” has already paid off, at least in Europe. According to the survey data released by the European Investment Bank (EIB) not so long ago, 74% of its respondents said that they are ready to completely or partially abandon air travel "for the sake of saving the environment", moreover, 66% of survey participants proudly noted that they began to consume less meat, and another 13% intend to "do so in the near future" - "to fight climate change" ...

However, even if the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the "developed" countries voluntarily and with songs will begin to eat beetles, ride on public transport (there will not be enough electric cars for everyone) and be content with "virtual travel" instead of tour trips, globally the problem of the cost of the "green revolution" is not will decide. It will be those countries that will pay for it that do not want to be like "civilized" and will continue to heat their houses, pour steel, produce consumer goods and do everything else using "dirty" energy. At the same time, everything that will be produced on their territory will become even more competitive in comparison with goods obtained in a "clean" way.

It is for this that the adepts and ideologists of the "green revolution" have already provided for a number of measures that make up its essence. Draconian duties on all exports from "unclean" countries, and, first of all, on "traditional" energy carriers, which the West, with its struggle for the environment, will have to consume for a very long time. China, Russia, India and others will be forced to either ruin their economies by transferring them to renewable energy sources, or pay a real tribute for the fact that they will not do this. A similar policy will be held in all areas. For example, Europe will need even more biofuels. However, the crops necessary for its production are not going to be grown there. As well as using nasty pesticides and herbicides. For this, there are, again, “third world countries”. Sowing industrial crops, depleting and literally destroying fertile soil, pouring glyphosate and other abomination into the ground - this is precisely the role they will have in store. In this case, everything will be done according to the principle "the worse, the better." Particularly stubborn people can even "teach a little good manners" - after all, such a noble goal as saving the whole world from an "ecological catastrophe" may well justify several missile and bomb strikes or a small intervention in a country that poses a "threat" to it. It may well come to this.

It is not known whether the decrease in the growth rates of the economies of developing countries, the collapse of their industry and agriculture, the impoverishment of tens and hundreds of millions of people will benefit the planet Earth. However, the adherents of the "green course", who finally took the upper hand in the West with Biden's coming to power in the United States, will certainly derive enormous benefits from all this for themselves. Unless, of course, they are stopped in time ...
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Dmitry S. Offline Dmitry S.
    Dmitry S. (Dmitry Sanin) 21 January 2021 10: 46
    stop in time

    How to stop the unbelievable adherents of godly relations and racism in a perverted form, if they - preach democracy? Democracy in a perverted form?
  2. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 21 January 2021 10: 56
    If we follow the logic of "green energy", then it is urgently and permanently necessary to abolish military exercises, which consume a lot of oil products. And this should start with NATO, as with the main initiators of environmental innovations. otherwise everyone will point a finger - they say, you call on others, and you yourself burn hydrocarbons! So, double standards again - you can, but others can't?
    1. Dmitry S. Offline Dmitry S.
      Dmitry S. (Dmitry Sanin) 21 January 2021 12: 44
      With their teachings, they show how not to do!
  3. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 21 January 2021 13: 43
    Necropic in its style. All will be lost.
    Meanwhile, it has already been proven and calculated% of carbon dioxide from production in the share of total warming. Big, so everyone ran around like that.
    But in countries sitting on the pipe, this is not a patriotic and uncomfortable topic, why some new technologies - download and download ...
  4. LozmanPozman Offline LozmanPozman
    LozmanPozman (Lozman Pozman) 21 January 2021 13: 49
    The main thing is that we do not go anywhere and do not interfere with anyone, our assets are 30% of the world's minerals, and not trillions of balloons made of cut paper of all kinds of muzzle books, tweets and google ...
  5. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 21 January 2021 16: 30
    This is the breakdown of energy consumption by source type. (by reference) a thin yellow stripe is vertro-generation and solar energy.

    It has nothing to do with the real economy, gentlemen are once again trying to rewrite the rules to suit their needs.
  6. Vladest Offline Vladest
    Vladest (Vladimir) 21 January 2021 17: 38
    Greater nonsense had never been heard before. India and China are remembered here. Strange as it may seem, it is China and India that are now leaders in Green Energy. When you have more than a billion people you will seize every opportunity to increase energy production.
    Progress cannot be stopped. The same cannot stop progress in energy. The EU and the US are technologically advanced regions with money. And Green Energy will give a huge boost to the economy for many decades to come. And as a result, jobs.
    Once in England, the Luddites broke machines to stop progress. Obviously, their spirit is still alive.
    Why did this article appear? According to many who are similar to her in Russian, in the Russian Federation, in general, the attitude towards GE is so dismissive. ZE reduces the consumption of gas and oil, and the RF is not profitable. So the propagandists are trying. And if they suddenly begin to refuse from atomic energy, then Atommash will be finished.
    The choice, or to join the race in the Green Energy, for which the Russian Federation has little guts, but it will not work either to slow down its development.
    That is why common sense says at least somehow, but you have to be in trend, and not balk like a stupid donkey.
    1. boriz Offline boriz
      boriz (boriz) 22 January 2021 20: 40
      It is common sense that GE increases the cost of production. And, consequently, it reduces its competitiveness.
      Nobody will involve Russia in the race in the ZE. We have much less of the poor-minded than the EU would like.
      And our Rosatom is out of competition. You just can't imagine the scale of this company.
      1. Vladest Offline Vladest
        Vladest (Vladimir) 23 January 2021 00: 49
        Quote: boriz
        Nobody will drag Russia into the race in the ZE

        ZE is a new direction. And its limits are not known. Products are constantly getting cheaper and their efficiency is growing. I would believe in your version, but everyone cannot be fools. Only the RF turns out to be smart.
        By the way, a plant for the production of wind generators has been built in the Russian Federation and have already begun to build solar power plants. You should know Russia better.
        ZE can be said at the beginning of the path.
        I recommend https://hightech.plus/ for a day or two what is going on in the world of science and technology and you will understand that you were wrong.
        1. boriz Offline boriz
          boriz (boriz) 23 January 2021 01: 09
          I know very well that Russia has solar power plants in Verkhoyansk, the cold pole.
          I know that people from all over the world come to Yakutsk to learn from the experience of the complex use of renewable energy sources. I know more about renewable energy than you think and more than you.
          I just wrote that Russia will not be drawn into the race for renewable energy sources. We use RES and will be used only when necessary. For example, the Egyptians, returning from a conference in Yakutsk, began to attach a gas station to the solar power plant. Since electricity from renewable energy sources, in principle, is not dispatched. This is just one of its shortcomings, and there are a lot of them.
          In Yakutsk and to the north, solar and wind power plants allow saving imported diesel fuel, the delivery of which makes it "gold". By combining the two types of energy, it is possible to save a lot of money and achieve normal dispatching of electricity.
          And your belief or disbelief in my version does not bother me at all. You are not an authority for me from the word "absolutely".
        2. boriz Offline boriz
          boriz (boriz) 23 January 2021 01: 18
          ZE is a new direction.

          This is for people like you it is new. In the USSR, for the first time in the world in the 1950s, the production of wind power plants at the level of "one village" and more powerful was established. Just after the appearance of gas in large quantities, this production became irrelevant.
          In the same way, sets of different capacities were produced for collective farm hydroelectric power plants on small rivers.
      2. Vladest Offline Vladest
        Vladest (Vladimir) 23 January 2021 11: 06
        Quote: boriz
        Nobody will drag Russia into the race in the ZE

        Today, on January 23rd, RBC broadcast a replay from the 18th about hydrogen energy and, in particular, what to do in Russia to become one of the leading participants in this.
        Promising Business: How to make money on hydrogen energy.
        1. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
          Bulanov (Vladimir) 26 January 2021 13: 16
          And you can earn even more on thermonuclear. I remember the Hindenburg used hydrogen ...
          1. Vladest Offline Vladest
            Vladest (Vladimir) 26 January 2021 13: 20
            Quote: Bulanov
            And you can earn even more on thermonuclear. I remember the Hindenburg used hydrogen ...

            Of course we do. You must remember to be a contemporary)))
            Do you remember how many cars are beating a day on the roads?
            1. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
              Bulanov (Vladimir) 26 January 2021 13: 22
              How many steamers sank and how many planes fell?
  7. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 21 January 2021 19: 10
    The Paris Climate Agreement is one of the new niches for capital investment, such as gender equality and morality.
    Donald Trump is a businessman, and as a businessman he assesses this agreement from the standpoint of economic expediency.
    The Paris Agreement not only does not guarantee direct benefits for the United States, but also threatens with losses in the form of fines for exceeding the quotas allocated by the United States for CO2 emissions and pollution with industrial and household waste which the United States produces most in the world in the form of detergents, auto chemicals, various reagents. non-degradable in natural conditions plastic products, packaging, synthetic fabrics and many other products of the chemical industry that cannot produce what cannot be - environmentally friendly goods. You can make paper packaging, but this requires raw materials - you need to chop the forest, and so in everything, a double-edged sword.
    Biden is a politician and is guided by political considerations, to take control of the exchange trading in quotas and the movement of "ecologists", like the same Greenpeace, for example, using which to exert additional pressure on other states also in the area of ​​ecology, inciting the population of different countries to protest against undesirable United States governments.
    Global warming as a result of human activity is far-fetched demagoguery.
    Climate change has occurred dozens of times when humans were not found on Earth.
    Climatic changes depend on many objective and independent of humans factors - the tilt of the axis of rotation, movement of magma, its speed, composition, direction and other conditions that are manifested by changes in the temperature of sea currents, glaciations, volcanic activity, drift of continental plates floating on the magma surface, magnetic poles , their inversion, and other visible manifestations.
    1. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
      Bulanov (Vladimir) 26 January 2021 13: 19
      Exactly! I would not be surprised if in Paris they soon say that whose volcano began to smoke, let the state pay a fine to the environmental fund!
  8. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 21 January 2021 23: 38
    Who gets more profit from hydrocarbons: producers or consumers? Roughly speaking, OPEC countries or GXNUMX countries?
  9. Natan bruk Offline Natan bruk
    Natan bruk (Nathan Brook) 22 January 2021 05: 45
    Necropny is a master multi-user. Now he is a great specialist in the field of energy. That is, he informs on the Internet the general line of the party and the government. By the way, how did he forget about the unfortunate earthworms dying from windmills.
    1. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
      Bulanov (Vladimir) 26 January 2021 13: 20
      More birds will get hit from windmills. Any ornithologist will tell you this.
  10. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 22 January 2021 10: 12
    Scientists' assertions that the number of cataclysms is growing may well be disputed due to a not too long (on the scale of human history) observation period.

    Scientists, dear (no) author, have already taken into account the factor of the duration of the observation period in their calculations.

    And yes, the presence of hurricanes, droughts and massive fires in the past does not mean that everything must be done to increase them in the future.

    Well, and in general, of course, another propaganda article that turns everything upside down and seeks to "see" secret conspiracies everywhere.
  11. Ulysses Offline Ulysses
    Ulysses (Alexey) 22 January 2021 21: 07
    If the "collective West" has decided to commit "green hara-kiri" for itself, I see no reason to interfere with it.
    Moreover, to explain something.
    We'll fish on the river for now.
    1. Vladest Offline Vladest
      Vladest (Vladimir) 23 January 2021 00: 53
      Quote: Ulysses
      If the "collective West" decided to commit a "green hara-kiri" for itself, I see no reason to interfere with it

      Megaprojects provide an impetus for R&D and economic development. Or go to the Cave. Surely 200 years ago there were those who exactly the same as you said about steam engines. Progress cannot be stopped.
      1. Ulysses Offline Ulysses
        Ulysses (Alexey) 23 January 2021 18: 11
        Progress cannot be stopped.

        And if this is not progress, but its dead-end branch ??

    2. Vladest Offline Vladest
      Vladest (Vladimir) 26 January 2021 13: 35
      Quote: Ulysses
      If the "collective West" has decided to commit "green hara-kiri" for itself, I see no reason to interfere with it.

      Zelena Energy leads to a technological breakthrough. This will not be hara-kiri, but an even greater technological separation not only of the "collective West" but of the entire World from the Russian Federation. And so it trudges where from behind.
      Indian woman: We have installed solar panels in our village and now my daughter has a light bulb so that she can study her lessons even in the dark. "People still live in such conditions ...
      1. Ulysses Offline Ulysses
        Ulysses (Alexey) 26 January 2021 21: 56
        Zelena Energy leads to a technological breakthrough. This will not be hara-kiri, but an even greater technological separation not only of the "collective West" but of the entire World from the Russian Federation. And so it trudges where from behind.

        There will be nothing.
        At best, the transfer of production to other countries.
        In the United States, already 80% of the so-called GDP is the service sector.
        Lawyers, dentists, lobbyists, IT people ...

        PS One good solar flare, will reset all this GDP to barter relations during the Middle Ages.
  12. Shadow041 Offline Shadow041
    Shadow041 24 January 2021 11: 34
    This is not an unambiguous question. Green energy is expensive, but the construction of a nuclear power plant is not cheap, accidents on them are even more expensive, and the storage of radioactive waste, which more than one smart guy has not learned to completely recycle is a troublesome, expensive and unsafe thing.
    1. Vladest Offline Vladest
      Vladest (Vladimir) 26 January 2021 13: 41
      Quote: Shadow041
      This is not an unambiguous question. Green energy is expensive

      Knowing what are the prices for green equipment in the United States, for example, then trying it on to Russian salaries, you understand what propaganda against GE is going on in Russia.
      Will we buy Tesla for 70 green? And in the States there is a queue for them.