Green Energy increasingly looks like a global conspiracy


The past winter and the massive blackout in Texas and a number of other US states have cast doubt on the prospects for green energy. However, despite this, representatives of the Western elite continue to broadcast on the high tribunes about the need for an early transition to renewable energy sources (RES). What are the so-called "globalists" really trying to achieve?


Alternative, or "green" energy is understood as obtaining electricity from renewable sources. At the same time, carbon dioxide is not emitted into the atmosphere, which contributes to an increase in the greenhouse effect and global warming. Basically, it is customary to refer to RES as solar and wind power plants, as well as wave, tidal, geothermal and others. Taking into account the fact that the reserves of hydrocarbon fuel on the planet are exhaustible, the idea of ​​looking for some alternatives looks quite sensible. The leaders in this area are the countries of Europe, China, the USA and other advanced powers. However, the devil, as usual, is in the details.

At first, “Green” energy is always more expensive than traditional energy. The costs of its production and transmission are significantly higher, therefore, the state is forced to subsidize those companies that deal with renewable energy sources from the budget on an ongoing basis. That is, about economic there is no reason to objectively speak about the expediency of switching to alternative energy. Rather, it is a tribute to fashion and trend following.

Secondly, bet exclusively on "green" Technology can come out sideways. This was clearly demonstrated in February 2021 in Texas. The share of renewable energy sources in its energy balance was not 100% or even 50%, but only 20%. However, the anomalous frosts that came to the American south from the Arctic led to a blackout. The blades of the wind turbines froze and stopped spinning, and the solar panels were covered with snow. And everything immediately stopped working and fell apart. Ordinary people sat at home in the cold without light or water. The cost of a kilowatt jumped to some astronomical figures. Imagine what would happen if the whole country was tied to windmills and solar power plants?

The conclusion can be made as follows: "green" energy is an interesting direction in itself, we will not spit on it indiscriminately, but it is not a panacea in itself. It is possible to have a certain share of renewable energy sources in the country's energy balance, but it needs balancing capacities of traditional energy. Additionally, gas or nuclear generation is needed, which will promptly compensate for the falling volumes from "green" when it is not working in calm or severe frost wind generators and solar panels covered with snow or sand. It would seem that these are quite obvious things, confirmed by the extremely negative fresh experience of Texas and other American southern states. But no.

Let's take a look at the “Great Reset” roadmap for coping with the pandemic, proposed at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The WEF is rightfully considered a platform from which the owners of thousands of the largest corporations and companies from all over the world convey their goals and objectives. This is a kind of generally recognized "globalist get-together". This time, for a greater PR effect, the organizers invited the representative of the British monarchy, Prince Charles, to voice the program, who stated the following theses:

The transition to an oil-free economy at the global level. The need to change the structure of the balance of investments. It is necessary to increase the share of “green investments” and create jobs in the field of “green energy”, cyclical economy and bioeconomy, develop ecotourism and “green” public infrastructures.

It is easy to see that these proposals are fully consistent with the "Green New Deal" of the US Democratic Party, as well as the European program for the "decarbonization" of the EU economy by 2050. What are the “globalists” really trying to achieve? Reducing COXNUMX emissions to prevent global warming?

This is a very controversial and controversial topic. On the one hand, a certain negative anthropogenic factor is objectively present. On the other hand, all of humanity collectively emits about 10% of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere. Much more carbon dioxide is emitted, for example, by the World Ocean. At the same time, of all greenhouse gases, CO2 accounts for only 5% to 26%, according to different calculation methods. Therefore, it cannot be said that the problem of climate change is only about carbon dioxide, and only "decarbonization" can solve it.

Rather, it's different. CO2 is purposefully exposed as a kind of "windmill", to combat which the "globalists" have organized a new crusade. Under this case, you can solve several problems at once. First of all, active lobbying will help manufacturers of renewable energy equipment and technologies. Thus, the market for solar panels is already 80% concentrated in the hands of only 10 companies, and it is predicted that soon 90% will be under them. Further, consolidation will inevitably take place through mergers and acquisitions, and only 3-4 producers will remain, which will come under the control of several transnational corporations. The same can be said about the wind turbine market, which is dominated by 4 Western companies. Nothing personal just business.

But that is not all. "Globalists" impose new "green" standards in the economy on the whole world. Everyone who wants to sell their products in the European and American markets will either have to pay an increased "carbon" tax, or introduce renewable energy sources in their own countries. This means the need to purchase equipment and technologies from several Western TNCs, as well as the burden of continuous subsidies to "green" energy companies from the state budget. As a result, the rich will become even richer, and the poor countries will only get poorer.
Ad
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 17 March 2021 13: 01
    -1
    The past winter and the massive blackout in Texas and a number of other US states have cast doubt on the prospects for green energy.

    Blackout in Texas only showed that the ones used there, in southern state, windmills and solar power plants are not adapted to the cold. Actually, they should not have been adapted, because the cold there is a rare exception. The only conclusion to be drawn here is to finalize the design of wind turbines and solar power plants so that they do not fail next time due to frost and snow. This is a solvable problem.

    First, green energy is always more expensive than traditional energy. The costs of its production and transmission are significantly higher, therefore, the state is forced to subsidize those companies that deal with renewable energy sources from the budget on an ongoing basis. That is, objectively speaking, there is no need to talk about the economic feasibility of switching to alternative energy.

    Taking into account the costs of combating greenhouse gas emissions and the consequences of their influence on the atmosphere, the "efficiency" of traditional energy is no better.

    This is a very controversial and controversial topic. On the one hand, a certain negative anthropogenic factor is objectively present. On the other hand, all of humanity collectively emits about 10% of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere. Much more carbon dioxide is emitted, for example, by the World Ocean. At the same time, of all greenhouse gases, CO2 accounts for only 5% to 26%, according to different calculation methods. Therefore, it cannot be said that the problem of climate change is only about carbon dioxide, and only "decarbonization" can solve it.

    The mistake of "climatoskeptics" lies in a simplified understanding of what the climate is and how it is formed. The world climate is a self-regulating system that has been "rebuilt" over millions of years. Yes, the world's oceans and other natural sources collectively emit more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than humanity in their activities. But these "natural emissions" are compensated by the same natural mechanisms of absorption and utilization - for example, forests. As a result, the system is in a relatively stable but fragile equilibrium.

    Humanity is upsetting this balance. Even this 10% of anthropogenic emissions can cause severe imbalances. Natural utilization mechanisms can no longer cope, as a result of which the greenhouse effect occurs.

    It's like a soap bubble or an inflated balloon. In them, the internal air pressure is compensated by the elasticity of the soap or rubber film. But it is enough just to lightly touch or poke slightly with a sharp needle, so that they burst. The impact is small, but sufficient to disturb the delicate balance.

    Rather, it's different. CO2 is purposefully exposed as a kind of "windmill", to combat which the "globalists" have organized a new crusade.

    No, Sergei, not like that. In climatology, CO2 is a "reference" greenhouse gas through which the greenhouse effect of other greenhouse gases is calculated. This is called the "carbon equivalent". Therefore, when we talk about "decarbonization", they mean the fight against other greenhouse emissions, the volume of which is simply calculated through this very carbon equivalent.

    But that is not all. "Globalists" impose new "green" standards in the economy on the whole world. Everyone who wants to sell their products in the European and American markets will either have to pay an increased "carbon" tax, or introduce renewable energy sources in their own countries. This means the need to purchase equipment and technologies from several Western TNCs,

    We open the ranking of the 10 largest solar panel manufacturers in 2020 - https://solarpanel.today/proizvoditeli-solnechnih-paneley/

    Of the 10 companies, 4 are Chinese, 2 are Japanese, 1 is Norwegian, 1 is American, 1 is Canadian, 1 is Korean, 1 is German-Korean. It is not clear what kind of domination of "Western TNCs" are we talking about.

    Perhaps such dominance is observed among wind turbine manufacturers? We look at the rating for 2017 - https://renen.ru/biggest-wind-energy-equipment-manufacturers-2016/

    In the first place is the Danish company, in the second - the American, in the third - the Chinese, in the fourth - the Spanish, in the fifth - the German, in the sixth - the German, in the seventh - the Chinese, in the eighth - the German, in the ninth - the Chinese, in the tenth - Chinese.

    In total, 10 of the 4 largest wind turbine manufacturers are Chinese again. Moreover, one of them is in the top three.

    On the whole, the article looks like an attempt to justify Russia's lagging behind in the field of green energy. Hence the conspiracy attempts to weave up some kind of "conspiracy of the Western elites." Is China also a "western elite"? And Japan? And Korea?
    1. Evgeny Popov Offline Evgeny Popov
      Evgeny Popov (Evgeny Popov) 19 May 2021 14: 12
      0
      Japan with Korea litter USA. They will do what they say.
      China is a world factory, what is needed is what they produce.
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2021 16: 52
        -1
        Japan with Korea litter USA.

        Sure. That is why the Japanese and Koreans at one time almost destroyed the American auto industry, crushed American manufacturers of consumer electronics in the American market :)
    2. Evgeny Popov Offline Evgeny Popov
      Evgeny Popov (Evgeny Popov) 19 May 2021 14: 17
      0
      Your whole logic is crumbling from the recent US turn towards nuclear power.
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2021 16: 50
        -1
        Nuclear energy does not affect the global climate. It has its drawbacks, but in this case it is harmless.
  2. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 17 March 2021 13: 25
    +1
    And if there are not so many people willing to sell their products in the European and American markets? After all, this is only 10% of the world's population.
    And why is the Russian Federation not increasing the production of wind turbines? It can easily. It is better to invest both new jobs and money here than in the USA and their wind turbines!
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 18 March 2021 16: 03
      -1
      And if there are not so many people willing to sell their products in the European and American markets? After all, this is only 10% of the world's population.

      Only these 10% are the most solvent.

      What's the point in trading with those who have no money?
  3. Vladest Offline Vladest
    Vladest (Vladimir) 17 March 2021 15: 34
    0
    And even Russia bites into this conspiracy. And already the Germans promised the Russian Federation a lot of money that it began to supply hydrogen to the EU instead of methane.
    When the ZE captures the entire globe then it will surely be a "conspiracy". The most interesting thing in this conspiracy is that both the United States and China are united in it.
    Only lovers of fairy tales can believe that everything happens immediately and well. The development of GE is underway. Its efficiency is growing, the methods of its production and application are being improved. Price falls and reliability grows.
    The first cars were hardly more reliable and cheaper than HORSES. Had the author of this article lived in those days, he would have written an article "On the worldwide conspiracy of the internal combustion engine." !!!
  4. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 17 March 2021 18: 49
    +3
    Quote: Cyril
    Hence the conspiracy attempts to weave up some kind of "conspiracy of the Western elites." Is China also a "western elite"? And Japan? And Korea?

    What are transnational corporations? Does it matter to them in which country the company is registered and located? Is TNK capable of acquiring any company that it likes?
    The message, I hope, is clear.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 18 March 2021 14: 02
      -1
      It's funny that it was you who called TNCs "western", and now you say, and now you say that belonging does not matter.

      Although even in conventionally Western TNCs, a significant share of shares belongs to the same Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and even, oh my God, Russians.
      1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 28 March 2021 09: 05
        0
        These TNCs are of Western origin. They own enterprises in all countries of the world.
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 28 March 2021 13: 57
          -1
          I have already given above ratings, in which, in addition to Western TNCs, there were Chinese, Japanese and Korean.
  5. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 17 March 2021 19: 07
    -1
    haha.
    As Putin said, you need to rejoice. Since their economy becomes "expensive and ineffective", then ours, according to normal, should become "efficient and cheap." If not, then - noodles.

    And, especially, Russian ones, really confirm CO2 in warming, and do not think about the super-incomes of hydrocarbon oligarchs ...
  6. steelmaker Online steelmaker
    steelmaker 17 March 2021 20: 23
    -2
    Green energy is high technology. The article does not even suggest why these technologies are so poorly developed in Russia. Fedorov:

    Russia, as a colony, is prohibited from having a national business.

    Here is the answer.

    In recent years, according to official data (Appendix 9), from 23 to 24 thousand various forms of organizations with the participation of foreign capital have been functioning on the territory of Russia. These enterprises employ about

    3,5 million people, their annual turnover is about 43 trillion. rub

    https://studme.org/340885/ekonomika/predpriyatiya_inostrannym_kapitalom_territorii_rossii

    State Duma deputy Yevgeny Fedorov said in an interview with the Pravda.Ru TV channel that “All private business in Russia, except for small and medium-sized businesses, must register in a foreign jurisdiction and be controlled by the United States. You will not name a single major Russian businessman who would be a Russian businessman de jure.

    https://www.dairynews.ru/news/komu-prinadlezhit-krupnyy-chastnyy-biznes-rossii.html
    Russia is simply not allowed to develop these technologies. Nobody needs competitors.

    Anyone wishing to sell their products on the European and American markets will either have to pay an increased "carbon" tax, or introduce renewable energy sources at home.
  7. Kofesan Offline Kofesan
    Kofesan (Valery) 24 March 2021 23: 06
    0
    But that is not all. "Globalists" impose new "green" standards in the economy on the whole world. Everyone who wants to sell their products in the European and American markets will either have to pay an increased "carbon" tax, or introduce renewable energy sources in their own countries. This means the need to purchase equipment and technologies from several Western TNCs,

    What about market prices for green energy? Yes, they (prices) are going down. But they are much higher than traditional sources. Plus, due to targeted pressure and indirect taxation on oil and gas, in favor of "green energy", prices for minerals are simply pressing. And to be more precise, they knock them down. And they fall. Down of course. Thus, indirect subsidizing and pushing for "green standards" leads to losses for the countries of raw material exporters and an increase in demand for the products of the countries of "globalists", including for unnecessary wind turbines and other renewable energy sources ...