"Green Deal": Biden began to stop US oil and gas projects


President Joe Biden famously kicked off his presidency by turning a valve on the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the United States from day one. If Washington did not regret its closest and loyal allies in Ottawa, then what to expect from the American Democratic Party of Russia?


The Keystone Pipeline network connects the refinery with the oil-bearing provinces of Canada and the United States, and also has access to the ports of the Gulf of Mexico. Its fourth phase involved the construction of an oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada to Nebraska, to a refinery in Steel City. The length of the pipe was to be 1,9 thousand kilometers with a daily pumping capacity of 800 thousand barrels. This project would seriously simplify the delivery of raw materials to Ottawa, as well as reduce the cost for American refineries. The surplus of Canadian oil could be exported from the United States. It is estimated that the construction of such a large-scale oil pipeline could create an additional 28 thousand new jobs.

Despite the obvious economic benefit, Democratic President Barack Obama rejected the application in 2012 on environmental grounds. The "Imperial" Donald Trump, on the other hand, revived the project in 2017. At the same time, construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline in the northern United States began under him. However, in the summer of 2020, when President Trump was already cracking his seat, the Dakota Access project was stopped due to protests from Native Americans. As soon as Democrat Biden officially entered the White House, he closed the Keystone XL pipeline. But why is Washington today shooting itself in the foot and complicating relations with its friendly neighbor?

In order to understand his motives, it is necessary to consider the general context. The main competitors of the United States, China and the European Union, as well as such developed countries as South Korea and Japan, have set an ambitious goal of achieving zero carbon dioxide emissions in production by 2050. Beijing, however, talks about the turn of 2060, but this does not change the essence of the matter. Fundamentally, the very structure of the world economy will change irreversibly. Leading powers today are actively investing huge amounts of money to ensure that their products meet the latest environmental standards. Obviously, the cost of production will seriously increase in this case, and in order to remain competitive in the world market, the largest players will introduce so-called "carbon taxes" for those who do not comply with them.

Under the Democratic Party, the United States is undoubtedly trying to play ahead of the curve in order to set these environmental standards themselves, which should then become mandatory for everyone else. In the next 10 years, Washington plans to invest in Technologythat will bring fossil fuel consumption to zero, a whopping $ 5 trillion. It is clear that large-scale oil pipelines, despite their medium-term profitability, do not fit well into this concept of a “brave new world”.

By the way, our country with its oil and gas pipelines will not fit in too well. The Europeans have already directly warned Moscow that the consumption of hydrocarbon raw materials will constantly decline. This suggests an idea to build more wind turbines and solar panels in an accelerated manner in order to increase the share of "green energy" in Russia, which can be used in the production of "green hydrogen" and thus maintain our share in the EU market. It is clear that this is a huge investment that only the state, represented by corporations, can do. Logically, then the federal budget should also receive the final profit, right?

And that's not a fact. At the Gaidar Forum, which took place just a few days ago, Anatoly Chubais, the main ideologist of the "dashing" privatization of the 90s and the "respectable" privatization of the XNUMXs, complained about the low efficiency of the state authorities:

In my understanding, the authorities have shown helplessness, weakness and made a gross mistake. As a result, nothing was done. As a result, the EU introduces a cross-border carbon tax, and Russian businesses will pay. Will pay. Only they will pay not their own government, but someone else's. The government's mistake, when what could and should have been commercialized, the government could not commercialize.

I would like to note that Anatoly Borisovich, who is now in the status of an "international negotiator", has been heading first one state corporation, then another, for all the past years, and therefore is in some way involved in such a deplorable result. And his recipe is still the same, proven: "commercialize." If anyone does not understand, we are talking about the next privatization of state property into "terribly effective" private hands. This is our response to the global energy initiatives of the US, EU and China.
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 22 January 2021 12: 47
    -5
    Sergei, you noted the correct thought in your article - the United States is not so much trying to impose green energy standards on the rest of the world in order to "ruin developing countries and the main suppliers of hydrocarbons" and "establish ecological totalitarianism" (as Necropny tries to prove in his article), but rather trying to catch up with the global trend towards "clean energy". Because America is now far behind Europe, Japan, South Korea and Singapore in the implementation of clean energy and production, and if it does not increase activity in this area, it risks not being in time.
    1. Just a cat Online Just a cat
      Just a cat (Bayun) 22 January 2021 13: 27
      +2
      This means they will have time to close all metallurgy due to unprofitability laughing
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 22 January 2021 15: 44
        +2
        This means they will have time to close all metallurgy due to unprofitability

        I hope this is not the end laughing
      2. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 22 January 2021 16: 44
        -4
        Dreaming is not harmful
    2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 January 2021 14: 44
      0
      Quote: Cyril
      Sergey, you noted the correct thought in your article - the United States is not so much trying to impose green energy standards on the rest of the world in order to "ruin developing countries and the main suppliers of hydrocarbons" and "establish ecological totalitarianism" (as Necropny is trying to prove in his article)

      Everyone has their own view of the processes.
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 22 January 2021 16: 45
        -5
        This is certainly true.
    3. Vladest Offline Vladest
      Vladest (Vladimir) 23 January 2021 12: 15
      -4
      Quote: Cyril
      ruin developing countries

      India is one of the leaders in Green Energy. Have you ranked it among the developed countries?

      Quote: Cyril
      Because America is now lagging far behind Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore in clean energy adoption and manufacturing,

      The leader of all China is probably. But in reality, someone is slightly ahead, someone is slightly behind. But the trend has already been set. Of course, it is better to confirm your conclusions with numbers. It takes a long time to look for them. But in the States, for example, in the South, new houses with solar panels are already required.
      A new stage in the development of energy is also being read - dispersed energy, when each house will have a mini electric. station. Elon Musk has installed 100 Powerwall systems
      Green Energy Business Growth more than 10% per year
    4. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 23 January 2021 21: 22
      +1
      a globally formed trend towards "clean energy"

      Where and when did this trend take shape and when did it become global?
      The "city-state" Singapore is of course powerful, Japan and South Korea probably too, but still not enough for globalization. China is building coal-fired power plants in the hundreds, and the Saudis have followed suit. The share of electricity generated by windmills and solar power plants is on the verge of statistical error.
      https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics?country=WEOEUR&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=TPESbySource
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 23 January 2021 23: 55
        -2
        China is building coal-fired power plants in the hundreds, and the Saudis have followed suit.

        https://oilcapital.ru/news/markets/06-02-2019/373-mlrd-investiruet-kitay-v-vozobnovlyaemuyu-energetiku

        Brazil is now the world leader in the use of green energy, where renewable sources account for about 45% of final energy consumption, in second place - the European Union with a share in 17%... China lags behind Brazil 5 times and has a share of only 8,9%, but is the fastest growing market in the world for the commissioning of new "green" capacities and will remain so until at least 2023, the International Energy Agency predicts.

        In the next 5 years, according to the IEA forecasts, the volume of wind energy production will almost double - from 21,9 to 39,8 million tons of oil equivalent per year. The capacity of solar stations will triple - up to 33 million tons of oil equivalent.

        In China, the introduction of green energy is a government program

        https://rg.ru/2020/10/05/kitaj-perejdet-na-zelenuiu-energetiku.html

        Almost immediately after the Chinese leader's speech, the Institute of Energy, Environment and Economics of Tsinghua University unveiled a plan to achieve this goal, Bloomberg reported. The modernization is based, according to the plan, almost complete abandonment of coal (a decline of 96 percent by 2060 compared to 2025), gas (minus 75 percent) and oil (minus 65 percent) and a transition to nuclear and renewable energy. At the same time, China expects to gradually switch to other energy sources.

        https://iz.ru/1072108/dmitrii-migunov/vsegda-budet-solntce-kak-kitai-otkazhetsia-ot-nefti-i-gaza

        So far, naturally, they will also build power plants on fuel, because the economy is developing at a frantic pace, for which the introduction of green energy simply does not keep pace. No one says that right now they will stop building thermal power plants and switch to solar panels and wind turbines.

        The share of electricity generated by windmills and solar power plants is on the verge of statistical error.

        Firstly, the last date in the schedule is 2018, since then 3 years have passed.

        Secondly, the chart analyzes the energy of the WHOLE world. Naturally, the countries of the second or third world cannot afford the introduction of high-tech sources of "green energy". Therefore, you need to look at the countries. In Germany, for example, the share of renewable energy in the 1st quarter of 2020 exceeded 50% of the total energy generated in the country.

        Here's another graph. https://yearbook.enerdata.ru/renewables/renewable-in-electricity-production-share.html

        The diagram shows that the share of renewable energy sources in the world is already 27%. Not sickly such a "statistical error".
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 24 January 2021 01: 11
          +2
          In China, the situation looks like this:

          In 2020, electricity consumption by the whole society will be 7511 billion kWh, which is 3,1% more than in the previous year.

          According to newly constructed sources, like this:

          In 2020, the new installed capacity of energy sources in the country will amount to 190,87 million kilowatts, including 13,23 million kilowatts of hydropower, 71,67 million kilowatts of wind power and 48,2 million kilowatts of solar energy.

          http://www.nea.gov.cn/2021-01/20/c_139682386.htm

          The country needs electricity and it seeks to get it from all available sources. Considering the total amount of energy consumed, "green energy" is a rather decorative priority. If power plants are being built on coal, then the desire to abandon the use of coal is just fine words, don't you think?

          Firstly, the last date in the schedule is 2018, since then 3 years have passed.

          Do you think the situation has changed a lot?

          Secondly, the chart analyzes the energy of the WHOLE world. Naturally, the countries of the second or third world cannot afford the introduction of high-tech sources of "green energy"

          in other words, the trend is not for everyone, but only for those who can afford it for financial reasons. Subsequently, the rich countries will impose a tax on "carbonation" which will place an unbearable burden on the third world countries. so they will crush the competition, that's all. everything else is a beautiful fairy tale for the naive.

          Therefore, you need to look at the countries. In Germany, for example, the share of renewable energy in the 1st quarter of 2020 exceeded 50% of the total energy generated in the country.

          RES - as I understand it, are they renewable energy sources?
          These include, for example, hydropower, in Norway, if I am not mistaken, about 98% and this is nothing new, this is a traditional source. what trend are we talking about?
          Renewable sources also include wood burning and so on, which somehow does not quite fit into the trend. Germany is in no hurry to abandon nuclear power. of course, they are closing the reactors on their territory, but they are not planning to close the Swedish ones belonging to German companies. And they quite get electricity from there.

          The diagram shows that the share of renewable energy sources in the world is already 27%. Not sickly such a "statistical error".

          If we take away from this the share of hydropower, about 15% of the world's generation, and then all sorts of "dirty" industries that pollute the air during combustion, then the share of "clean!" Electricity is rather closer to the statistical error.
          "Clean" energy and renewable energy sources are not exactly the same thing.
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 24 January 2021 01: 54
            -2
            The country needs electricity and it seeks to get it from all available sources. Considering the total amount of energy consumed, "green energy" is a rather decorative priority.

            I quote your own quote:

            In 2020, the new installed capacity of energy sources in the country will be 190,87 million kilowatts, including 13,23 million kilowatts of hydroelectricity, 71,67 million kilowatts of wind power и 48,2 million kilowatts of solar energy.


            Add 71 and 28 - we get (rounded off) 100 million kilowatts for wind and sun. And now we count. how many 100 million kilowatts is from 190 million kilowatts. Hint: more than 50% of newly built sources are wind and sun.

            Considering the total amount of energy consumed, "green energy" is a rather decorative priority. If power plants are being built on coal, then the desire to abandon the use of coal is just fine words, don't you think?

            No, I don’t. Once again - China is a hugely developed industrial country in terms of population with huge energy needs, which, moreover, are growing at a tremendous pace. Today satisfy these needs only due to wind and sun impossible, so yes, new coal / oil / gas thermal power plants are also being commissioned. Windmills and solar stations are a relatively new technology that still needs to be developed and implemented, which naturally takes time.

            The Chinese government never said that it would give up coal and oil right now and replace all renewable energy sources. It adopted a program on gradual a decrease in the share of coal, gas and oil in the energy sector, with the expectation that by 2060 their share will decrease to an insignificant minimum.

            China's desire to abandon coal and hydrocarbons in the energy sector in the future is clearly illustrated by the steadily decreasing share of these energy sources. Compare how many wind turbines and solar power plants they commissioned 10 years ago, and how many they are commissioning now.

            Do you think the situation has changed a lot?

            Strong enough. In Germany, for example, renewable energy in 2018 amounted to about 40%, in 2020 - already more than 50. In total, over 3 years, an increase of 10%. Quite impressive figures.

            in other words, the trend is not for everyone, but only for those who can afford it for financial reasons.

            Why so?

            Let's look at the graph I sent earlier:

            The share of renewable energy sources in the national energy sector of Venezuela is 73%, Colombia - 72%, Nigeria - 20%.

            In Colombia, 70% of all renewable energy comes from hydropower, solar and wind accounted for little in 2019, but the government plans to increase their share to 9% by 2022 - in just 3 years.

            As you can see, you don't need to be a super-rich country to use and develop RES.

            Subsequently, the rich countries will impose a tax on "carbonation" which will place an unbearable burden on the third world countries. so they will crush the competition, that's all. everything else is a beautiful fairy tale for the naive.

            This is speculation.

            RES - as I understand it, are they renewable energy sources?
            These include, for example, hydropower, in Norway, if I am not mistaken, about 98% and this is nothing new, this is a traditional source. what trend are we talking about?

            So what's wrong with hydropower and why shouldn't we consider it as a relatively green energy source? It can and should be developed too.

            By the way, in the same Russia, despite the abundance of rivers, hydropower accounts for only 20% of electricity generation. there is.

            Renewable sources also include wood burning and so on, which somehow does not quite fit into the trend.

            Nobody uses wood in industrial power engineering for a long time. It is mainly used for heating private houses. Biofuels from plants also go mainly to fuel cars and vehicles.

            Germany is in no hurry to abandon nuclear power. of course, they are closing the reactors on their territory, but they are not planning to close the Swedish ones belonging to German companies. And they quite get electricity from there.

            The situation is the same as with China. The speed of introduction of "green" technologies does not keep up with demand, therefore, both nuclear and fuel energy are still being used.

            Nevertheless, as I mentioned in the link, the share of renewable energy sources in Germany in 2020 exceeded 50%

            The share of only wind and solar energy (excluding hydro) in Germany already in 2019 accounted for 28%.
            1. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 24 January 2021 02: 30
              0
              Add 71 and 28 - we get (rounded off) 100 million kilowatts for wind and sun. And now we count. how many 100 million kilowatts is from 190 million kilowatts. Hint: more than 50% of newly built sources are wind and sun.

              Quite right, now look at what accounts for the remaining 50% and compare with the total amount of generated energy - 100 million and 7511 billion kWh. Yes, this is a drop in the ocean.

              The Chinese government never said that it would give up coal and oil right now and replace all renewable energy sources.

              And how much will this "insignificant minimum" be? Calculate what the share of "green" energy will be if it is introduced at such a pace. These are just fine words, at least for now.

              Strong enough. In Germany, for example, renewable energy in 2018 amounted to about 40%, in 2020 - already more than 50. In total, over 3 years, an increase of 10%. Quite impressive figures.

              Yes, + 10% generation, but how much is consumed? They still buy electricity and it's not green at all.

              Why so?
              Let's look at the graph I sent earlier:
              The share of renewable energy sources in the national energy sector of Venezuela is 73%, Colombia - 72%, Nigeria - 20%.
              In Colombia, 70% of all renewable energy comes from hydropower, solar and wind accounted for little in 2019, but the government plans to increase their share to 9% by 2022 - in just 3 years.
              As you can see, you don't need to be a super-rich country to use and develop RES.

              Why do I need your schedule? I will tell you, without looking into reference books, "The share of renewable energy sources in the national energy sector of Venezuela is 73%" is the only hydroelectric power station. One for the whole country. And it has nothing to do with fashion trends. It was built long before it was called fashionable and there are practically no alternatives to it. The same can be said for Colombia and Nigeria. These are not fancy wind turbines or solar panels.

              So what's wrong with hydropower and why shouldn't we consider it as a relatively green energy source? It can and should be developed too.

              Am I against it? It is possible to take this into account, but to say that this is due to the "trend" is fundamentally wrong.

              By the way, in the same Russia, despite the abundance of rivers, hydropower accounts for only 20% of electricity generation. there is.

              There are reserves for the growth of generation and not only hydropower. Everything has a business case. A floating nuclear power plant to replace Bilibino was built because it is profitable. There are rivers there too, but you know they freeze, and building a dam without access roads is not a cheap pleasure. It is not economically feasible to convert everything there to "clean" energy. The construction of dams also has a negative impact on the environment. For example, Mongolia will have gas-fired generation, but they will not build a dam and the flow of water into Baikal will not change.

              This is speculation.

              This is the conclusion based on the analysis. What can you argue with? I don’t believe it? Because they are good bourgeois and think not about profit but about nature? Do not make me laugh laughing

              Nobody uses wood in industrial power engineering for a long time. It is mainly used for heating private houses.

              Are you sure? Are they produced as souvenirs? This is just one example.
              http://kibor.ru/biopower

              The situation is the same as with China. The speed of introduction of "green" technologies does not keep up with demand, therefore, both nuclear and fuel energy are still being used.

              She will continue to be unable to keep up, and this "while" is hated for many years and will remain beautiful words.

              Nevertheless, as I mentioned in the link, the share of renewable energy sources in Germany in 2020 exceeded 50%

              How much can you talk about the same thing? Yes, it exceeded, but they still buy from others and produce not green energy at all abroad. Why don't they be principled about giving it up?

              The share of only wind and solar energy (excluding hydro) in Germany accounted for 2019% already in 28.

              28% generation? And in consumption? This is just a beautiful figure, and the bourgeois still use nuclear power plants in Sweden.
              1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                Cyril (Kirill) 24 January 2021 03: 13
                -2
                Quite right, now look at what accounts for the remaining 50% and compare with the total amount of generated energy - 100 million and 7511 billion kWh. Yes, this is a drop in the ocean.

                We look. The share of wind and sun in the Chinese energy sector in 2019 (2 years ago) is 8,7%. Not such a drop in the ocean anymore.

                https://plus-one.ru/news/2021/01/21/kitay-v-2020-godu-udvoil-stroitelstvo-solnechnyh-i-vetryanyh-elektrostanciy

                China has more than doubled the construction of wind and solar power plants in 2020. Reported by Reuters.

                According to the National Energy Administration (NEA), China added 71,67 GW of wind power over the past year, nearly three times the 2019 level. The surge in renewables growth came after Beijing announced it would end subsidies for new onshore wind projects in 2021.

                Here's proof that solar and wind power input in China is increasing.

                And how much will this "insignificant minimum" be?

                Above, I have already quoted the plans of the Chinese government, read there.

                More than 50% of electricity, used in Germany in the first half of 2020, obtained from renewable sources. The record is partly due to the overall drop in energy consumption amid the pandemic.

                The same can be said for Colombia and Nigeria. These are not fancy wind turbines or solar panels.

                The Colombian government plans to increase the share of wind and sun to 2022% by 3 (over 9 years).

                The plans, of course, can change, but they are not calculated from scratch.

                Am I against it? It is possible to take this into account, but to say that this is due to the "trend" is fundamentally wrong.

                Why is it wrong? When the world's largest economies say (and, moreover, do) that by the middle of the century the vast majority will be produced from renewable energy sources, this is still a trend.

                This is the conclusion based on the analysis.

                The fact that developed countries will "spread rot" to undeveloped ones because of higher energy taxes is not a conclusion based on analysis, it is just speculation.

                On the basis of the analysis, it would be if you cited as an example of evidence that with an increase in the share of green energy in developed countries, undeveloped ones heal. Then there would be an analysis. In the meantime - speculation.

                It is not economically feasible to convert everything there to "clean" energy.

                And no one is talking about a complete rejection of nuclear energy and even fuel. They talk about their sharp reduction.

                Are you sure? Are they produced as souvenirs? This is just one example.
                http://kibor.ru/biopower

                Well, some individual enterprises may use such installations as backup energy sources. Or, say, in remote areas where there is no central power supply or it is poorly developed.

                She will continue to be unable to keep up, and this "while" is hated for many years and will remain beautiful words.

                Above, I have already cited a link that in 2020 China has commissioned 3 times more solar stations than in 2029. And this figure is growing from year to year.

                already in 2019, the share of wind and sun in China was 8,7%, you can calculate for yourself how much it will be in 2021.

                How much can you talk about the same thing? Yes, it exceeded, but they still buy from others and produce not green energy at all abroad. Why don't they be principled about giving it up?

                As much as you need until it comes to you.

                28% generation? And in consumption? This is just a beautiful figure, and the bourgeois still use nuclear power plants in Sweden.

                It is precisely in consumption.
                1. 123 Offline 123
                  123 (123) 24 January 2021 04: 11
                  0
                  We look. The share of wind and sun in the Chinese energy sector in 2019 (2 years ago) is 8,7%. Not such a drop in the ocean anymore.

                  wiser to see the original article and not its retelling on Zen. There, besides the one indicated by you, it is written

                  The growth took place after Beijing Announces End of Subsidies for New Onshore Wind Power ProjectsStarting from 2021 year.

                  Quite a strange decision if they are trying to develop it.

                  According to data, in 2020 China continues construction of new thermal facilities, amounting to 56,37 GW - highest level since 2015... NEA did not break this indicator down into gas and coal power projects.

                  Research showed that China completed 11 GW of new coal-fired power plants in the first half of 2020 and had an additional 53 GW in its planned portfolio of projects, representing 90% of the world total.

                  So that's it. There is an interesting graph under the link. Wind power is growing at a faster rate than other sources, but considering the volumes, this is still a drop in the bucket.

                  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-climatechange/china-doubles-new-renewable-capacity-in-2020-still-builds-thermal-plants-idUSKBN29Q0JT

                  We look. The share of wind and sun in the Chinese energy sector in 2019 (2 years ago) is 8,7%. Not such a drop in the ocean anymore.

                  Looking where? I did not find anything similar on the link. 8,7% of the 2020 gigawatts produced in 7 is 411 gigawatts.
                  According to your link, it is written that in 2020, 281,5 GW were produced by wind turbines and 253,4 GW - by solar power plants. Total 531,9 GW. This is less than 8,7%

                  Here's proof that solar and wind power input in China is increasing.

                  In China, the production of electricity from all sources is increasing, given the end of subsidies for wind generation, it remains to be seen how it will develop further. You optimistically hope for the best, reality often does not justify expectations.

                  Above, I have already cited a link that in 2020 China has commissioned 3 times more solar stations than in 2029. And this figure is growing from year to year.

                  The year 2029 has not yet arrived. Should I be mocking about your competence? winked

                  already in 2019, the share of wind and sun in China was 8,7%, you can calculate for yourself how much it will be in 2021.

                  The year 2021 has not yet arrived either, and in 2020 it is less than 8,7%.

                  As much as you need until it comes to you.
                  28% generation? And in consumption? This is just a beautiful figure, and the bourgeois still use nuclear power plants in Sweden.
                  It is precisely in consumption.

                  I have some doubts on this issue. I got into the primary sources. Total electricity produced - 386 810, including Biogenic fuel and other renewable energy sources - 12 478, Hydropower - 16 950. This is less than the nuclear power plant - 75 071. How you can count 28% for me is still a mystery. If you can solve it, write hi
                  https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Energie/Erzeugung/Tabellen/kw-insgesamt.html
                  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 24 January 2021 04: 40
                    -2
                    wiser to see the original article and not its retelling on Zen. There, besides the one indicated by you, it is written

                    And I did not look at Zen. I looked at the metrics in the graph I provided earlier. There you can see for each country.

                    Quite a strange decision if they are trying to develop it.

                    There may be various reasons for this - including the fact that the pace of introduction of wind energy has reached such a level that it no longer needs subsidies and will support its development itself. Or that in China they have relied more on the sun and not on the wind.

                    So that's it. There is an interesting graph under the link. Wind power is growing at a faster rate than other sources, but considering the volumes, this is still a drop in the bucket.

                    So, in addition to wind generation, there is also solar energy.

                    Looking where? I did not find anything similar on the link. 8,7% of the 2020 gigawatts produced in 7 is 411 gigawatts.

                    We look here: https://yearbook.enerdata.ru/renewables/wind-solar-share-electricity-production.html

                    This is data for 2019 year.

                    In China, the production of electricity from all sources is increasing, given the end of subsidies for wind generation, it remains to be seen how it will develop further. You optimistically hope for the best, reality often does not justify expectations.

                    I do not hope for the best, I rely on the data already available and on the opinion of the Chinese government.

                    The year 2029 has not yet arrived. Should I be mocking about your competence? winked

                    I just have a typo, you have an incorrectly selected article. Which you did not even bother to read before inserting into the comment.

                    These are somewhat different things, don't you think?

                    The year 2021 has not yet arrived either, and in 2020 it is less than 8,7%.

                    Because 8,7% is data for 2019, not 2020.

                    I have some doubts on this issue. Climbed into primary sources. Electricity was produced in total - 386 810, including biogenic fuel and other renewable energy sources - 12 478, hydropower - 16 950. This is less than the nuclear power plant - 75 071. How 28% can be counted there is still a mystery to me. If you can solve it, write

                    It's that simple. Follow the link you gave. the data are for 2019.

                    And the excess of the 50 percent threshold for renewable energy in Germany was recorded already in 2020.

                    For the first time, renewables have produced more electricity in Germany than conventional energy. In the 1st quarter of 2020, renewable energy sources (RES) provided over half of all electricity generated in the country: 51,2%. Reported on May 28 Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis).

                    It emphasized that in the first three months of this year, the coronavirus pandemic has not yet had time to "noticeably affect" the German power industry, a 6,6% decrease in total generation "is within normal fluctuations."

                    According to preliminary data, the generation of electricity through wind, biogas, the sun and other renewable energy sources increased by 2019% compared to the first quarter of 14,9, thereby continuing the rapid growth of recent years. At the same time, wind power showed the greatest growth. In just a year, it increased production by 21,4%. Destatis experts attribute this to the fact that the first three months of this year in Germany there were especially many windy days. After all, the installation of new wind generators has recently stalled.

                    As a result, the wind for the first time became the main energy carrier in Germany; it accounted for more than a third of all electricity generation: 34,9%. The share of biogas amounted to 5,5%, in photovoltaics (solar energy) it increased from 4% to 4,8%.

                    At the same time, there was a landslide reduction in the share of coal in the German electric power industry. In total, over the year this share decreased by one third and, according to the results of the first quarter, amounted to 22,3%.
                    1. 123 Offline 123
                      123 (123) 24 January 2021 16: 43
                      +2
                      There may be various reasons for this - including the fact that the pace of introduction of wind energy has reached such a level that it no longer needs subsidies and will support its development itself. Or that in China they have relied more on the sun and not on the wind.

                      You are joking? laughing Wind generation is more expensive, like solar panels; they will not survive without subsidies. In a nutshell, the situation looks something like this (the video came out very on time, eliminated the need to search for data good ).



                      I just have a typo, you have an incorrectly selected article. Which you did not even bother to read before inserting into the comment.
                      These are somewhat different things, don't you think?

                      I inserted the wrong link, you wrote the wrong date. In my opinion, the difference is not great. you, too, did not bother to reread what was written. I don't see any point in discussing this topic further, it just clogs up the chat.
                      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 24 January 2021 17: 02
                        -3
                        I inserted the wrong link, you wrote the wrong date. In my opinion, the difference is not great

                        In your opinion, it can be anything. In reality, there is also a significant difference.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Vladest Offline Vladest
    Vladest (Vladimir) 23 January 2021 12: 05
    -4
    Great article. Honestly about Green Energy and the place of the Russian Federation in the World. Respect to the author.
  3. Sergey_6 Offline Sergey_6
    Sergey_6 (Sergey Bayankov) 26 January 2021 12: 44
    +1
    Russia is the main source of silicon for solar cells. In any case, you will have to negotiate with us.