Avoiding fossil fuels will lead to world hunger

November 12, 2021 33

The global energy crisis and the global trend towards abandoning fossil energy sources in favor of renewable ones can lead to a lack of fertilizers and, as a result, to world hunger. So experts of the resource Natural News believe.

For more than a century, food production on a global scale has been possible thanks to the Haber process, which converts nitrogen (the main constituent of air) and natural gas into ammonia. In turn, ammonia, when combined with carbon dioxide, turns into a valuable fertilizer urea. In addition, nitric acid is obtained from ammonia and oxygen, and ammonium nitrate is obtained from nitric acid and ammonia.

Thus, the entire process of fertilizer production is started with the help of natural gas, from the use of which the "green" globalists so want to refuse. However, wind and sunlight will not produce fertilizers - they can only come from fossil fuels.

That is, to start a global famine, it is enough to abandon the use of natural gas and other hydrocarbons - there will be no fertilizers and, therefore, food supplies will be sharply limited. The commitment of many states to abandon fossil energy resources in favor of wind turbines and solar panels will lead to energy shortages and a shortage of fertilizers and food in all regions of the world.

It is noteworthy that due to the shortage and rise in gas prices, provoked by the "green" agenda, the production of fertilizers in Australia, Great Britain, the United States and many other countries has already stopped. If this trend continues, as Natural News believes, food riots will become an inevitable reality as early as 2022.

Leaflet/wikipedia.org

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

33 comments

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Cyril

-9

12 November 2021 18: 44

For more than a century, food production on a global scale has been possible thanks to the Haber process, which converts nitrogen (the main constituent of air) and natural gas into ammonia. In turn, ammonia, when combined with carbon dioxide, turns into a valuable fertilizer urea. In addition, nitric acid is obtained from ammonia and oxygen, and ammonium nitrate is obtained from nitric acid and ammonia.

Thus, the entire process of fertilizer production is started with the help of natural gas, from the use of which the "green" globalists so want to refuse.

Strange conclusion. Someone said that in those production processes where natural gas is irreplaceable or still irreplaceable, they will refuse it? They reject natural gas precisely as a fuel in the energy sector, and not as a raw material or a precursor of raw materials.

In addition, the ammonia production cycle does not use natural gas itself, but hydrogen obtained from methane by steam reforming. In this process, not greenhouse carbon dioxide is formed, but carbon monoxide, the contribution of which to the greenhouse effect is small.
1. 123
  
  +4
  
  12 November 2021 20: 46
  
  Strange conclusion. Someone said that in those production processes where natural gas is irreplaceable or still irreplaceable, they will refuse it? They reject natural gas precisely as a fuel in the energy sector, and not as a raw material or a precursor of raw materials.
  
  Are fertilizer plants closing by coincidence? Do Dutch greenhouses start heating with hydrogen? The supply on the world food market will decrease, while prices will rise, and this is practically a fait accompli.
  1. Cyril
    
    -6
    
    12 November 2021 20: 57
    
    Are fertilizer plants closing by coincidence?
    
    Fertilizer plants are shutting down due to a shortage of raw materials (gas), and not because of the transition to green energy.
    1. 123
      
      +3
      
      12 November 2021 21: 10
      
      Fertilizer plants are shutting down due to a shortage of raw materials (gas), and not because of the transition to green energy.
      
      What caused the gas shortage?
      1. Cyril
        
        -5
        
        12 November 2021 22: 17
        
        Lots of reasons. Basically - the features of the previous winter and the unplanned high consumption of recovering from the covid European economies, the redistribution of demand for liquefied gas in the world market in favor of Asia.
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        12 November 2021 23: 17
        
        Lots of reasons.
        
        And that this heap has nothing to do with green energy?
        
        Basically - the features of the previous winter and the unplanned high consumption of recovering from the covid European economies, the redistribution of demand for liquefied gas in the world market in favor of Asia.
        
        Features of the previous winter? Was it warm and the gas evaporated? Or cold and cold?
        Unplanned high consumption? Europe did not plan to raise it? Not hoping for a recovery from covid or hoping to replace renewable energy sources?
        Redistribution of supplies to Asia? But he was "redistributed" there for a reason. There, too, there was a deficit, which led to a rise in prices. In Asia, too, was the wrong winter and did not plan any improvements?
        It is rather strange to explain the deficit in different regions of the planet at the same time that the gas was redistributed to one of them. The outflow of gas from Europe to Asia only exacerbated the problem; it will not be possible to write off everything entirely on the Chinese.
        At least some of the reasons are common to both Europe and Asia. And one of them is a decrease in investment in hydrocarbon production, there are no capital investments, production is not growing, and growing needs cannot be met. But this is a recovery growth to the dock level. The oil and gas industry was unable to restore the old volumes, there is no talk of development.
        And investments are declining because they go to green energy. This is now not fashionable and not welcome, and sometimes they are forced to increase the share of renewable energy through the courts.
        It is impossible to simultaneously and painlessly increase the share of renewable energy sources and reduce the share of hydrocarbons. According to the links, there is a little about the essence of the problem.
        
        https://www.iea.org/reports/the-oil-and-gas-industry-in-energy-transitions
        
        https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/can-oil-and-gas-investment-go-hand-in-hand-with-energy-transition/
        
        https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/appec-lack-investment-more-demand-drive-oil-price-volatility-industry-execs-2021-09-28/
Jacques sekavar

+3

12 November 2021 19: 15

All this green energy hype has to do with economic warfare and neo-colonial politics.
It is more expensive and therefore inaccessible to the absolute majority of state institutions in the world, which puts them in complete political and economic dependence on transnational monopolies, which suck resources out of them in exchange for consumer goods.
There will be no global hunger, because today many types of artificial additives and feed for livestock production are being produced, from which the distance to human feed is less than one step.
Another question for whom they will be produced, who will eat them - clearly not those 72 million people whose wealth exceeds the income of the rest of the world and, as Natural News believes, hunger riots will become an inevitable reality.
1. Cyril
  
  -5
  
  12 November 2021 19: 57
  
  It is more expensive and therefore inaccessible to the absolute majority of state institutions in the world.
  
  Strangely, statistics suggest otherwise:
  
  In Chile, the share of RES is 40%
  In Venezuela and Colombia - over 60 percent each
  In Brazil - 84%
  In Mexico - 20%
  In Romania - 44%
  
  The listed countries do not seem to belong to the locomotives of the world economy. Something in your logic doesn't fit.
  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. Cyril
      
      -4
      
      12 November 2021 20: 14
      
      You, naturally.
  2. 123
    
    +1
    
    12 November 2021 21: 02
    
    Strangely, statistics suggest otherwise:
    
    In Chile, the share of RES is 40%
    In Venezuela and Colombia - over 60 percent each
    In Brazil - 84%
    In Mexico - 20%
    In Romania - 44%
    
    The listed countries do not seem to belong to the locomotives of the world economy. Something in your logic doesn't fit.
    
    Do you want to blunt? In Venezuela, one HPP, Guri, provides 65% of the country's electricity needs.
    "Locomotives" are not promoting hydropower, green stuff for the sun and the wind. And this is completely different money.
    If anything, it looks like the share of solar and wind generation in Brazil, so that it would be easier to search, I drew an arrow for you, otherwise you will not find a brown speck.
    
    This is Romania
    
    The rest is about the same picture.
    1. Cyril
      
      -8
      
      12 November 2021 21: 12
      
      Dumb, please?
      
      I am no, you are yes.
      
      Where is it said that the "green energy" concept promoted by "locomotives" is tied solely to wind power generation and solar panels? Please show me a document or statement that proves it.
      1. 123
        
        0
        
        12 November 2021 21: 48
        
        Where is it said that the "green energy" concept promoted by "locomotives" is tied solely to wind power generation and solar panels? Please show me a document or statement that proves it.
        
        Please show me where it says that
        
        the concept of "green energy" is tied exclusively to wind power and solar panels
        
        I have written
        
        green stuff for the sun and the wind
        
        These are slightly different things, they do not give up hydropower, but they are promoting solar and wind generation. It is believed that
        
        Hydroelectric reservoirs are a source of biogenic greenhouse gases and in some cases can reach the same emission levels as thermal power plants.
        
        The question they say requires additional study, the silt settling at the bottom of the reservoirs is not good. Small hydropower is viewed relatively condescendingly, while the attitude towards large hydroelectric power plants is somewhat different.
        It will be boring to look through how things are with this in California, they even consider it separately, only small hydroelectric power plants are referred to VEI, large ones are equated to hydrocarbons.
        
        https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        13 November 2021 00: 34
        
        These are slightly different things, they do not give up hydropower, but they are promoting solar and wind generation.
        
        Europeans are promoting them at home, because in Europe these are the main types of renewable energy sources. Large rivers, of which there are not so many in Europe, have long been built up by hydroelectric power plants.
        
        The question they say requires additional study, the silt settling at the bottom of the reservoirs is not good. Small hydropower is viewed relatively condescendingly, while the attitude towards large hydroelectric power plants is somewhat different.
        
        Everything is so, only with a slight clarification - basically the claims relate to old (built in the 30-50s) hydroelectric power plants with large reservoirs. Indeed, they have the described disadvantages (although the greenhouse effect from reservoirs is still lower than from thermal power plants). However, hydroelectric power plants are different - for example, the total flooded area of cascade stations is much less than that of one large hydroelectric power station of comparable capacity. There are also other designs to minimize the environmental damage caused by hydroelectric power plants.
        
        Well, plus yes - you can replace one large hydroelectric power station with many small ones that do not require flooding of large spaces and related problems.
        
        The point is that the harm from hydroelectric power plants can still be minimized and reduced, if not to zero, then to an acceptable minimum, while thermal power plants have practically exhausted their "modernization potential".
        
        123
        
        +1
        
        13 November 2021 04: 55
        
        Europeans promote them at home, because in Europe these are the main types of renewable energy sources. Large rivers, of which there are not so many in Europe, have long been built up by hydroelectric power stations.
        
        Why not be honest about it? They say that if it doesn't suit us, then we don't welcome. Why do they come up with fairy tales about reservoirs spoiling "carbon fiber"?
        And yes, California is a bit out of the way of Europe.
        
        Everything is so, only with a slight clarification - basically the claims relate to old (built in the 30-50s) hydroelectric power plants with large reservoirs. Indeed, they have the described disadvantages (although the greenhouse effect from reservoirs is still lower than from thermal power plants).
        
        Will new hydroelectric power plants have small reservoirs? Where will they get water? Can I use a water truck? Or work only in spring during the flood? Reservoir WATER-STORE. Can they put straight-through? Well, their these dams.
        
        However, hydroelectric power plants are different - for example, the total flooded area of cascade stations is much less than that of one large hydroelectric power station of comparable capacity. There are also other designs to minimize the environmental damage caused by hydroelectric power plants.
        
        It depends on the terrain, this solution is far from being suitable everywhere.
        
        Well, plus yes - you can replace one large hydroelectric power station with many small ones that do not require flooding of large spaces and related problems.
        
        Really?
        
        The point is that the harm from hydroelectric power plants can still be minimized and reduced, if not to zero, then to an acceptable minimum, while thermal power plants have practically exhausted their "modernization potential".
        
        O!!! So is the goal of zeroing your carbon footprint? If the silted bottom of the reservoirs is such a threat, maybe it is worth giving out shovels to green activists? So they can make a personal contribution to this noble cause. Man-made canals and ponds may begin to be buried. Or does sludge only behave in such a disgusting manner if there are turbines downstream? When do they plan to start cleaning the bottom of natural reservoirs?
        Probably should start with Finland. This is a terrible breeding ground for carbon fiber
        
        When traveling in Finland in summer, you will notice that the nature of these places is dominated by two colors: green and blue. Green forests are colored with countless blue blotches of rivers and lakes (although in some regions of the country, on the contrary, the blue of the lakes prevails over the green of the forests). It is this amazing natural balance that has earned Finland the name “land of a thousand lakes”. In fact, this name belittles the number of lakes in Finland: there are 188 of them in the country. Finland abounds in these oases of the purest blue, stretching from the capital region of Helsinki to the village of Inari in northern Lapland.
        
        Do they urgently need to be drained and buried? Or figs with them, the person is not to blame for this and the conscience is clear. And the selection ... but figs with them? The task is to clear your conscience?
        
        The point is that the harm from hydroelectric power plants can still be minimized and reduced, if not to zero, then to an acceptable minimum, while thermal power plants have practically exhausted their "modernization potential".
        
        The Germans disagree with this. They say we will still use coal, the new station cannot be cleaner This is not like ugly reservoirs.
        https://www.uniper.energy/de/datteln-4
        
        What about biofuels? Doesn't it leave a carbon footprint? After all, they are in no hurry to minimize it. When will they start fighting him?
        The meaning of this orgy is only one, they want to reduce dependence on energy supplies and make their own production competitive, imposing their own conditions on the rest.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        13 November 2021 20: 54
        
        Why not be honest about it? They say that if it doesn't suit us, then we don't welcome.
        
        So they do not impose on anyone exactly solar panels and windmills. Where it is more profitable to use, for example, geothermal energy, it is used. Where tidal stations are more profitable, they are used.
        
        Why do they come up with fairy tales about reservoirs that spoil "carbon fiber"?
        
        Strange, but RusHydro says it's not a fairy tale https://vestnik-rushydro.ru/articles/9-sentyabr-2020/nauka-i-tekhnologii/proverit-balans/
        
        Probably sold to the "green lobby".
        
        Will new hydroelectric power plants have small reservoirs? Where will they get water? Can I use a water truck? Or work only in spring during the flood? Reservoir WATER-STORE. Can they put straight-through? Well, their these dams.
        
        Well, there is no dam in the new hydroelectric power station in Kabardino-Balkaria.
        
        https://www.bfm.ru/news/342805
        
        In Northern Europe and Japan, small hydropower projects are being implemented to supply small settlements that also do not have dams.
        
        In addition, there are structures and large hydroelectric power plants without dams - for example, this was built by the Chinese in Ecuador. The only thing, specifically in this project, the Chinese did not take into account the seismic activity of the region and the structure of the station was damaged by the very first earthquake.
        
        Russia also has a project to build small hydroelectric power plants of a derivation type without dams in remote regions of Siberia and the Urals. The dense network of rivers allows this.
        
        That is, with the help of damless hydroelectric power plants with near-zero greenhouse emissions, it is possible to provide electricity, if not large industrial facilities and megalopolises, then at least settlements that are now powered by diesel power plants or thermal power plants.
        
        It depends on the terrain, this solution is far from being suitable everywhere.
        
        If you look at the list of cascade hydroelectric power plants in Vick, then there are objects on various types of relief - in the highlands, in the low mountains, on the highlands, plains, etc.
        
        Really?
        
        At least in some cases.
        
        Why do I need your "witty" cartoons? Do you have any specific objections?
        
        O!!! So is the goal of zeroing your carbon footprint?
        
        This is one of the main tasks, yes.
        
        When do they plan to start cleaning the bottom of natural reservoirs?
        Probably should start with Finland. This is a terrible hotbed of carbon belay
        
        That's right, natural bodies of water emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Their difference from artificial ones is that, having existed for tens, hundreds of thousands, millions of years, they are already part of a balanced ecosystem. The secretions from them are absorbed and processed, for example, by vegetation and as a result of other natural processes.
        
        This ecosystem was rebuilt over a long time, even by geological standards. And here, in just 100-50 years, a person builds artificial reservoirs that emit an additional volume of greenhouse gases that are not included, so to speak, in the natural "balance sheet". Moreover, this additional volume of greenhouse gases from artificial reservoirs does not have to be the same or greater compared to the emissions of natural reservoirs - it is enough just to upset the balance, and then the unbalanced system will destroy itself.
        
        To make it clearer, an analogy with the human body. A person has a constant body temperature of 36,6 degrees. It is the result of a balance between internal heat production from metabolism, external heat production, and heat transfer from the body. The body compensates for a slight increase in temperature by regulating the heat transfer mechanism.
        
        But already a steady increase in temperature by 1,5-2 degrees (for example, in case of illness or being in the open sun) puts us in bed, an increase of 3-4 degrees leads to fever and clouding of consciousness, and only 5-6 degrees above normal - certain death. But this is only 1/7 of the natural body temperature.
        
        Or figs with them, the person is not to blame for this and the conscience is clear. And the selection ... but figs with them? The task is to clear your conscience?
        
        The task is to preserve environmental conditions acceptable for human life. The problem with the greenhouse effect and global warming is not that they will kill all life at all - no, life as a whole will adapt to higher temperatures. Just while she does it, many of its currently existing forms, including Homo sapiens, will die out. Evolution, you see, is slow and violent. When a hot desert appears on the site of the current fertile steppes of the Black Earth Region due to global warming, it will become very, very difficult to live in it. This will give rise to mass emigration to colder regions, resulting in clashes between "indigenous" and "newcomers", which is fraught with what you yourself know.
        
        The Germans disagree with this. They say we will still use coal, the new station is never cleaner good This is not like disgusting reservoirs
        
        Where is it written that this TPP is cleaner than a HPP of comparable capacity?
        
        What about biofuels? Doesn't it leave a carbon footprint? After all, they are in no hurry to minimize it. When will they start fighting with it?
        
        Biofuels emit greenhouse gases, yes, but:
        
        1. First, it is a very (at least for now) a niche energy source with very little effect on the greenhouse effect. And they are not going to significantly increase its share in the energy balance.
        
        2. Secondly, biofuels are mainly produced from human waste. This waste will decompose anyway and release "carbon" (methane and carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere, but in the form of biofuel, this "carbon" will at least be beneficial.
        
        The meaning of this orgy is only one, they want to reduce dependence on energy supplies and make their own production competitive, imposing their own conditions on the rest.
        
        The main meaning of this "bacchanalia" is to preserve living conditions acceptable for human life on the largest possible territory of the Earth. Now these territories are shrinking. And the population, on the contrary, is growing.
        
        But if you prefer genocide of millions for the sake of survival of the rest in the conditions of diminishing habitable conditions - ok, your position is clear.
        
        123
        
        -1
        
        13 November 2021 22: 10
        
        So they do not impose on anyone exactly solar panels and windmills. Where it is more profitable to use, for example, geothermal energy, it is used. Where tidal stations are more profitable, they are used.
        
        Do not make me laugh And there are many such places where you can use geothermal? It is the sun and the wind that impose
        
        Strange, but RusHydro says it's not a fairy tale
        Probably sold out to the "green lobby
        
        RusHydro calls for abandoning reservoirs? They just conduct research, you need to argue your position with something.
        
        Well, there is no dam in the new hydroelectric power station in Kabardino-Balkaria.
        In Northern Europe and Japan, small hydropower projects are being implemented to supply small settlements that also do not have dams.
        
        Selected regions, mountainous relief. This also applies to Ecuador. For the rest, it doesn't work. Or do you propose to manually change the landscape? Pour mountains on the Volga, a small volcano near Moscow? And they won't make the weather. The volume is not large, the bulk of consumers are not in remote areas of Siberia and not on small rivers.
        
        Why do I need your "witty" cartoons? Do you have any specific objections?
        
        And what is there to object? Do you seriously want to replace, say, Sayano-Shushenskaya HPP with a bunch of small ones?
        
        That's right, natural bodies of water emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Their difference from artificial ones is that, having existed for tens, hundreds of thousands, millions of years, they are already part of a balanced ecosystem. The secretions from them are absorbed and processed, for example, by vegetation and as a result of other natural processes.
        This ecosystem was rebuilt over a long time, even by geological standards. And here, in just 100-50 years, a person builds artificial reservoirs that emit an additional volume of greenhouse gases that are not included, so to speak, in the natural "balance sheet". Moreover, this additional volume of greenhouse gases from artificial reservoirs does not have to be the same or greater compared to the emissions of natural reservoirs - it is enough just to upset the balance, and then the unbalanced system will destroy itself.
        But already a steady increase in temperature by 1,5-2 degrees (for example, in case of illness or being in the open sun) puts us in bed, an increase of 3-4 degrees leads to fever and clouding of consciousness, and only 5-6 degrees above normal - certain death. But this is only 1/7 of the natural body temperature.
        
        If you have the task of lowering the temperature, the most effective measures are chosen; in a sick person, it is knocked down with drugs. here the approach is rather strange, the area and volume of artificial reservoirs are relatively small, as well as the influence. If you want to return everything to its original appearance, start with Egypt, for sure they will be happy to return to life in the conditions of the annual flooding of the Nile.
        
        The task is to preserve environmental conditions acceptable for human life.
        This will give rise to mass emigration to colder regions, resulting in clashes between "indigenous" and "newcomers", which is fraught with what you yourself understand.
        
        Aliens and so for a long time go to Europe and the United States, without any greenhouse effect. Moreover, the latter themselves contribute to this.
        
        Where is it written that this TPP is cleaner than a HPP of comparable capacity?
        
        Where is it written that the "modernization potential" of TPPs is practically exhausted?
        
        Biofuels emit greenhouse gases, yes, but:
        1. First, it is a very (at least for now) a niche energy source with very little effect on the greenhouse effect. And they are not going to significantly increase its share in the energy balance.
        2. Secondly, biofuels are mainly produced from human waste. This waste will decompose anyway and release "carbon" (methane and carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere, but in the form of biofuel, this "carbon" will at least be beneficial.
        
        1) The Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Hungary, Germany ... there are a lot of countries that are increasing their share of biofuels. I showed you Romania and Brazil yesterday, where biofuels are highlighted in yellow, it is difficult to call it a "niche source", geothermal energy is more likely to fall into this category.
        Flip through the atlas, see for yourself.
        http://energyatlas.iea.org/#!/tellmap/-1118783123/3
        2) Biofuels are mainly made from rapeseed and other plants. They are grown, tractors are not made by fairies in the forest, they are not driving on pollen. This is metallurgy, hydrocarbon fuel. Doesn't count the carbon footprint?
        
        The main meaning of this "bacchanalia" is to preserve living conditions acceptable for human life on the largest possible territory of the Earth. Now these territories are shrinking. And the population, on the contrary, is growing.
        
        Well, let those who have problems work on this, we have enough territory, there is no unrestrained population growth.
        
        But if you prefer genocide of millions for the sake of survival of the rest in the conditions of diminishing habitable conditions - ok, your position is clear.
        
        Do you like genocide? The USA, Europe and the Genocide are inseparable from each other, they are genocide in its purest concentrated form. How they fought with the reduction in the number of Indians is not a secret, as well as what the current environmentally concerned did in the colonies. And I don't even want to remember what these civilizers did in our country 70 years ago.
        These snickering citizens accustomed to comfort are accustomed to living for the light of others, pulling resources from all over the planet. Let them step on the throat of their own consumption. Light-faced overseas citizens consume 5 times more gasoline on their faces than in Russia or Germany. Consumption is the sacred cow of the American economy. But they still want to eat in three throats, and others should save. And you will defend their interests to the last. Your position is clear. I gave her an assessment more than once.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        14 November 2021 03: 55
        
        Don't be laughing. And there are many such places where you can use geothermal? smile It is the sun and the wind that impose
        
        Quite a lot, actually. In Russia alone, this is all of Kamchatka and the Kuriles, the Stavropol Territory, the Krasnodar Territory, the Caucasus.
        
        Their already sanctified or mastered there are sources of geothermal energy in the USA, Japan, Iceland, Mexico, the Philippines, Italy, and Indonesia.
        
        And no one, for example, is forcing Iceland to abandon geothermal energy in favor of solar panels.
        
        RusHydro calls for abandoning reservoirs? They just conduct research, you need to argue your position with something.
        
        You said that carbon emissions from reservoirs are a "fairy tale". I have given you proof that this is not so. They have done well with a "fairy tale" - so admit that you are wrong and all that you, as a little one, start to play with?
        
        Selected regions, mountainous relief. This also applies to Ecuador. For the rest, it doesn't work. Or do you propose to manually change the landscape? Pour mountains on the Volga, a small volcano near Moscow? And they won't make the weather. The volume is not large, the bulk of consumers are not in remote areas of Siberia and not on small rivers.
        
        Firstly, for the same derivation hydroelectric power plants, it is not necessary to have direct high mountains. And on the same Volga there is the Volga Upland, the height of which is quite sufficient. Yes and
        
        Secondly, mountains occupy 36% of the land - this is a fairly large percentage. For lowland areas, you can use either other types of hydroelectric power plants (the same cascade), or use other alternative energy sources - wind, tides, sun. Nobody says to use only hydroelectric power plants, or only wind turbines, or only solar panels.
        
        And what is there to object? Do you seriously want to replace, say, Sayano-Shushenskaya HPP with a bunch of small ones?
        
        You can at least not build new ones like that.
        
        If you have the task of lowering the temperature, the most effective measures are chosen; in a sick person, it is knocked down with drugs.
        
        The most effective way to bring down the temperature of a sick person is to eliminate the primary disease that caused this highest temperature :) If you, say, with sepsis, simply stuff a person with antipyretic drugs, he will die.
        
        So, one of the main reasons for the "rise in temperature near the Earth" is the anthropogenic factor. This is exactly what needs to be "treated".
        
        here the approach is rather strange, the area and volume of artificial reservoirs are relatively small, as well as the impact.
        
        Nevertheless, there are enough of them in order to emit into the atmosphere up to 4,6 million tons of "carbon" in the same Russia. This is really a little in comparison with the emissions of thermal power plants and vehicles, but it still contributes to the greenhouse effect. And if there is an opportunity to get rid of at least this figure or reduce it - then why not?
        
        If you want to return everything to its original appearance, start with Egypt, for sure they will be happy to return to life in the conditions of the annual flooding of the Nile.
        
        I am not proposing to shut down all the major hydroelectric power plants in the world at once, do not attribute your conjectures to me.
        
        Aliens have been going to Europe and the USA for so long, without any greenhouse effect. Moreover, the latter themselves contribute to this.
        
        https://trends.rbc.ru/trends/green/60b0a6d59a794726b0de9e6d
        
        Get to know the phenomenon of climate migrants. It is not yet widespread, but is expected in the next 50 years if climate trends continue.
        
        The Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Hungary, Germany ... there are a lot of countries that are increasing their share of biofuels. I showed you Romania and Brazil yesterday, where biofuels are highlighted in yellow, it is difficult to call it a "niche source", it is rather geothermal energy that falls into this category.
        Flip through the atlas, see for yourself.
        http://energyatlas.iea.org/#!/tellmap/-1118783123/3
        
        No one denies that many countries are increasing their biofuel production. The whole question is how much of it is in the energy balance, how much they increase its share, and what kind of biofuel.
        
        Yes, I was wrong to say that waste is the main source of biofuels. But the fact of the matter is that if now biofuel is mainly made from specially grown rapeseed or corn, then in the future the main part of biofuel can be made from various kinds of waste. The technologies for this have already appeared.
        
        In other words, the balance in biofuels can be shifted in favor of greener sources, while oil and natural gas cannot.
        
        Where is it written that the "modernization potential" of TPPs is practically exhausted?
        
        Well, fair point. Here you need to search a little longer, now there is not much time yet. But I'll try to find evidence.
        
        Do you like genocide?
        
        To you? Obviously.
        
        The USA, Europe and the Genocide are inseparable from each other, they are genocide in its purest concentrated form. How they fought with the reduction in the number of Indians is not a secret, as well as what the current environmentally concerned did in the colonies.
        
        123, quit with stupid propaganda. Leave it to Isophat.
        
        Absolutely ALL colonial powers (and not only them), including the Russian Empire, resorted to genocide. During the colonization of the Caucasus, the Russian authorities drove the locals out to less favorable areas for life in the same way, giving their lands and pastures to Russian colonists. They deliberately destroyed pastures and livestock, artificially creating hunger and using it as a means of coercion. Similarly, they used the "divide and rule" policy. Similarly, they carried out punitive raids themselves or with the help of subordinate tribes. American colonists infecting Indians with smallpox? So the Russians did it during the colonization of Siberia:
        
        Between the battles, the Russians and the Chukchi were in a state of cold war: any chance encounter could turn into a violent skirmish. In addition, the rivals did not shy away from cunning sabotage. So, in 1734, the Russians released a captured Chukchi in clothes that were infected with smallpox: as a result, an epidemic raged on the enemy's territory for two years.
        
        https://arzamas.academy/materials/1823
        
        But what about the deportation of peoples during the years of Soviet power? Is this also damned Europe and the United States to blame? In Pol Pot Cambodia, 1/3 of the population was also slaughtered by the Americans? And in China during the Cultural Revolution - also the United States?
        
        These snickering citizens accustomed to comfort are accustomed to living for the light of others, pulling resources from all over the planet. Let them step on the throat of their own consumption. Light-faced overseas citizens consume 5 times more gasoline on their faces than in Russia or Germany. Consumption is the sacred cow of the American economy. But they still want to eat in three throats, and others should save.
        
        More, more pathos! Go ahead!
        
        And then run to watch the statistics of the consumer market by country - https://credinform.ru/ru-RU/Publications/Article/00a72547c0a9
        
        What do we see? In the first place, indeed, is the United States with $ 14 billion in spending. But already on the second place - China with 9 billion, on the third - India with 6 billion. Russia at 6 with 2 billion. At first glance, China and India have many more people than the United States. But let's see in more detail:
        
        For the first time in history, China has surpassed the United States in the number of inhabitants, belonging to the 10 percent of the richest people in the world. Such data are presented in the annual survey of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse on global welfare. Its results were published on Monday, October 21st.
        
        So, in China, 99,9 million people were included in the 10 percent of the richest people on the planet, in the United States, 98,8 million people belong to this category, and in Germany - 25 million, the study says.
        
        That is, the number of millionaires relative to the entire population in China is small, but the absolute number is already greater than in the United States. And in the big cities of the industrialized regions of China, consumption is exactly the same as in the United States.
        
        Moreover, consumption in China is constantly and strongly growing, while consumption in the United States remains at the same level.
        
        The same is in Russia. Yes, in the country as a whole, consumption is much lower than in the United States. But there is some Norilsk, and there is Moscow. I don't think it's worth explaining that consumption in Moscow is much higher?
        
        In other words, people are the same everywhere. And the more money they have, the more they consume. Regardless of whether he is Chinese, American or Russian. Americans were simply the first to enter the era of consumption, that's the whole answer.
        
        So take off your pretty pink glasses
        
        123
        
        -2
        
        14 November 2021 06: 49
        
        Quite a lot, actually. In Russia alone, this is all of Kamchatka and the Kuriles, the Stavropol Territory, the Krasnodar Territory, the Caucasus.
        
        Population of Kamchatka Territory - 311 667 people
        The population of the Kuril Islands is 21 people.
        Stavropol and Krasnodar are the Caucasus, there are no other mountains there ... Do you have a vague idea of geography?
        There are not so many suitable places for construction, where they could have been built a long time ago. It is not possible to meet the growing needs of the population, and even more so for industry, with small hydroelectric power plants in Russia and in the world. Geothermal power plants are more exotic.
        This is roughly how electricity production looks like by type of generation. Geothermal down there in the other sources section. Somewhere on the verge of statistical error.
        
        Particularly impressive is the volume on the Eurostat website. Look carefully, that straight line near zero is not the edge of the table, it is the volume of geothermal generation
        
        Do you still insist that this is a lot and with this it is possible to develop the energy of the planet?
        ps Until we decide on this issue, further discussion does not make sense. Your lies should be rolled out just like that, calmly and point by point. You are in vain hoping that if you have thrown a lot of bukof, then no one will notice anything.
        Everything else you threw there in vain. You can't hide behind the volume of text
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        14 November 2021 13: 22
        
        Population of Kamchatka Territory - 311 667 people
        The population of the Kuril Islands is 21 people.
        
        Since when has the potential of an energy source been estimated by the population?
        
        Stavropol and Krasnodar are the Caucasus, there are no other mountains there. Do you have a vague idea of geography?
        
        Blame for the inaccuracy. By "Caucasus" in this case, I meant the Caucasian republics of the Russian Federation - in particular, Dagestan. But thanks for correcting.
        
        There are not so many suitable places for construction, where they could have been built a long time ago.
        
        Where is it said?
        
        It is not possible to meet the growing needs of the population, and even more so for industry, with small hydroelectric power plants in Russia and in the world.
        
        And someone says that only at the expense of them? Do we have only hydropower from renewable energy sources?
        
        Geothermal power plants are more exotic.
        This is roughly how electricity production looks like by type of generation. Geothermal down there in the other sources section. Somewhere on the verge of statistical error.
        
        Only half a century passed between the world's first geothermal station (1967) and modern geothermal energy. Almost a century and a half passed between the first thermal power plant (1882) and modern thermal power engineering. Once upon a time, the share of oil and gas in the total energy balance was a few percent. And for sure at that time there was some 123, which also broadcast: "oil is exotic!" And even earlier, another 123 was broadcasting - "coal is exotic, we continue to burn firewood until the end of time!"
        
        Do you still insist that this is a lot and with this it is possible to develop the energy of the planet?
        
        Does it never reach you that the current level of use and the potential for use are two different things?
        
        Your lies should be rolled out just like that, calmly and point by point.
        
        You can't do it calmly, you start to blunt :)
        
        Everything else you threw there in vain.
        
        Well, of course, in vain :) As soon as it turned out that the Russian Empire behaved with the colonized territories of the Caucasus and Siberia in the same way as the American settlers, it immediately became "in vain" :)
AND

+7

12 November 2021 20: 14

Quote: Cyril
It is more expensive and therefore inaccessible to the absolute majority of state institutions in the world.

Strangely, statistics suggest otherwise:

In Chile, the share of RES is 40%
In Venezuela and Colombia - over 60 percent each
In Brazil - 84%
In Mexico - 20%
In Romania - 44%

The listed countries do not seem to belong to the locomotives of the world economy. Something in your logic doesn't fit.

So who is the plug in every barrel?
1. Cyril
  
  -8
  
  12 November 2021 20: 30
  
  you, of course :)
Old Skeptic

+2

12 November 2021 22: 01

Quote: Cyril
Fertilizer plants are shutting down due to a shortage of raw materials (gas), and not because of the transition to green energy.

Don't you really understand? Or are you pretending?
I explain:
reduction of natural gas consumption, makes its production and transportation unprofitable. And who will supply gas to chemical plants.
1. Cyril
  
  -4
  
  13 November 2021 00: 38
  
  reduction of natural gas consumption, makes its production and transportation unprofitable.
  
  Before gas production becomes unprofitable, you need to reduce its consumption very, very much. Much stronger than it is envisaged by the transition to "green energy". As for the supply of gas to the chemical plant, if the mountain does not go to Magomed, then Mohammed goes to the mountain. In other words, it is possible to localize chemical enterprises that use gas as a raw material around the deposits of this very gas.
  1. 123
    
    +1
    
    13 November 2021 05: 02
    
    Before gas production becomes unprofitable, you need to reduce its consumption very, very much. Much stronger than it is envisaged by the transition to "green energy". As for the supply of gas to the chemical plant, if the mountain does not go to Magomed, then Mohammed goes to the mountain. In other words, it is possible to localize chemical enterprises that use gas as a raw material around the deposits of this very gas.
    
    Are you seriously? Do you want to relocate production to Yamal or Qatar? And the raw materials there, the finished products back by steam locomotives and steamers to carry? On site, you can use deer and camels to reduce the carbon footprint Pipeline transport is cheaper, it is easier to deliver gas to the enterprise.
    It seems that they will propose to do so, and to impose taxes on enterprises. They say you are so nasty, so we will tear 3 skins from you.
    1. Cyril
      
      -1
      
      13 November 2021 21: 14
      
      Do you want to relocate production to Yamal or Qatar?
      
      I’ll tell you even more - I don’t want to, but the authorities of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug.
      
      http://www.regionspb.net/news/vlasti-yamala-namerenyi-postroit-v-zapolyare-zavod-po-proizvodstvu-mineralnyix-udobrenij.html
      
      In Qatar, by the way, there are also factories for the production of fertilizers and other "chemicals"
      
      https://tcj.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2010_5_40-43_ekonomica-katara.pdf
      
      And the raw materials there, the finished products back by steam locomotives and steamers to carry?
      
      Why transport "back"? Shouldn't the products be sold in closely spaced markets? For example, factories located in Siberia or the Far East can supply finished products to Southeast Asia. Factories located near European deposits can supply finished products to Europe.
      
      Pipeline transport is cheaper, it is easier to deliver gas to the enterprise.
      
      But it is highly specialized, in contrast to road and railway roads, ships. On the same railroad, you can receive raw materials and send finished products, but this will not work with pipes.
  2. Old Skeptic
    
    -1
    
    13 November 2021 21: 17
    
    That is: you propose to close the fertilizer factories in Geyrop and leave thousands or even tens of thousands of Gayropeans unemployed.
    I certainly do not mind, but these are the Gay Europeans, they will start crying about the monopolization of the fertilizer market by Russia, and that now they cannot eat because of the insidious Russia.
    
    And I do, yes, I agree with you.
    I never liked these guys.
    And if there is an opportunity, put them "in the position of the launching rocket" (figuratively speaking, we are not them), raise both hands.
    1. Cyril
      
      -1
      
      13 November 2021 21: 28
      
      That is: you propose to close the fertilizer factories in Geyrop and leave thousands or even tens of thousands of Gayropeans unemployed.
      
      Don't write nonsense. Europe itself has its own large oil and gas fields to supply its chemical plants with raw materials. The "gayropeans" will not be left without work.
      1. Old Skeptic
        
        -1
        
        13 November 2021 21: 35
        
        Oh Wei! And why are they crying tada?
        Sho the tankers sailed to a distant land.
        They have everything.
        As in Greece.
        So are they also moosers?
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        13 November 2021 21: 42
        
        Europeans are "crying" solely because their own operating fields are preventing them from filling their gas storage facilities ahead of winter.
        
        You see, you can't just take a pipe and stick it into a field and start pumping gas. Field development is a rather long process. And they need gas now.
        
        In other words, they have real problems in the short term, but not in the long term. They are partly to blame for this, preferring to buy Russian gas instead of developing their own. Well, nothing, learn from mistakes.
        
        Old Skeptic
        
        -1
        
        14 November 2021 17: 40
        
        What is the truth? And where are they drilling new holes?
        Specifically without water.
BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine

+3

12 November 2021 23: 52

Let them go hungry - there are big problems with obesity in Europe and America
Panikovsky

+1

13 November 2021 17: 21

But Russia will not abandon fossil fuels for the sake of the West, therefore, I am sure we are not in danger of starvation.
Oleg Valevsky

-2

13 November 2021 20: 27

Avoiding fossil fuels will lead to hunger

Exactly! .. but only in those countries in which well-being is built on these very fossils.

That is why these dinosaurs are so diligently grasping the asset of the old technological order, which is fading into oblivion. And scare the whole world with hunger