Military Review

The European Commission paradox: green transition and a future without Gazprom

69

Source: energosmi.ru


Some 23 years


On December 15 last year, the European Commission adopted an important document on the imminent transition of most of the industry to decarbonated hydrogen and home-grown biogas. So far, it is only a program requiring approval by all EU countries.

In accordance with the idea, by 2050, European leaders hope to abandon most of the services of Russian Gazprom, having made a form of revolution in their country. The words of the new German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, are indicative:

“We have 250 years of prosperity behind us based on the burning of coal, oil and gas. And there are some 23 years ahead, during which we need to get away from fossil fuels. And we will do it. "

Scholz, 63, makes promises easily - by 2050, he is unlikely to be able to adequately respond to today's calls.

History unfolding against the background of the transition of natural gas to the category of real "golden fuel" - in December 2021, the price for Europeans jumped to $ 2 per thousand cubic meters. It turned out to be cheaper, as the great Dmitry Mendeleev said, “to heat the stove with banknotes”.

By the New Year holidays, the situation leveled off a bit, and the price fell below $ 800 - the supply of American liquefied gas and windy weather in Europe, which increased the generation of electricity, had an impact. However, falling prices will inevitably turn off LNG suppliers, who will deploy LNG carriers back to Asia, and the cost of fuel will rise again.

But this does not in the least bother the members of the European Commission - a bright future lies ahead without Gazprom.

At the moment, Europe consumes at least 380 billion cubic meters of gas per year, of which 95% is natural gas. The remaining minuscule share is allocated to the aforementioned low-carbon biogas and hydrogen.

Despite the existing "green" transition, natural gas occupies a rather significant place in the European energy balance - up to a quarter of the energy consumption market: 39% of heat and 20% of electricity are still generated in the Old World. And, given the current state of affairs, scrapping this situation will be very expensive.

It is easy to get confused in European programs to reduce emissions into the atmosphere - the initiative of December 15 is far from the only one, but most likely the most radical.

Back in the summer of last year, the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, announced the Fit for 55 project, according to which, by 2030, the total European carbon dioxide emissions will decrease by 55%. 1990 was chosen as the starting point for the ambitious plan.

For this purpose, Europe will impose additional duties on imported steel, fertilizers, non-ferrous alloys and even cement from 2023. Typical protectionism that has nothing to do with the rules of the World Trade Organization.

But there is nothing to do - carbon neutrality requires huge costs from industrialists who, in fair competition with foreign manufacturers, will simply bury entire industries.

Up to 2,5 million people employed in the metallurgical, cement and automotive industries may find themselves unemployed.

To be fair, the Europeans are still doing pretty well to reduce their contribution to the world's carbon dioxide emissions on the planet. In 2017, a decrease of 22% was recorded compared to 1990. For comparison: the European economy grew by 55%.

But the energy crisis of the last fall-winter showed that not everything is going smoothly with diversification.

For 10% of the world's emissions


To implement a new carbon neutrality program, Brussels plans to electrify literally everything around by 2050 in order to reduce countries' dependence on gas generation. Obviously, some industrial facilities and households will be forced to partially switch to heating from wind turbines and solar panels.

What will Europeans do in calm and cloudy weather in winter?

For this purpose, underground mega-storage facilities for natural gas (or its low-carbon analogue) will be created, capable of saving the 446 million population of Europe from freezing at peak consumption.

All this is being built under the impression of the current energy crisis - the Europeans simply did not have time to fill the existing storage facilities in time and are now forced to purchase gas at exorbitant prices.

And finally, hydrogen should be the main hero of the energy transition in Europe by 2050.

Mostly this gas, obtained by electrolysis of water, will provide the European Union with a zero carbon dioxide balance - as much was thrown out, the same amount was consumed.

On a global scale, such a decrease is practically irrelevant, since all EU countries provide no more than 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. But this is enough to calm the conscience of the Brussels bosses.

Then the real fantasy begins.

The fact is that hydrogen itself conventionally has several color gradations - "green", "yellow", "blue" and "gray". Europeans are striving to transfer their economy mainly to "green" hydrogen, that is, obtained with the help of electricity from wind and solar power plants.

Its cost can reach, depending on the place of production, $ 10 per kilogram. Naturally, in Europe with its expensive labor force, this parameter will tend to the upper price limit. In addition, the seasonal cyclical nature of the operation of wind turbines and solar panels will seriously complicate the uninterrupted supply of hydrogen to consumers.

The most sane developers of the program for the release from carbon dependence by 2050 still left little room for natural gas - no more than 5-10% of the total consumption. But this will no longer be a product of Gazprom, and it is supposed to be used either at enterprises where it is absolutely impossible to refuse it, or to obtain “blue” hydrogen.

The colored term refers to hydrogen obtained from natural gas with the subsequent disposal of a by-product - carbon dioxide.

About “yellow” hydrogen (obtained using electricity from nuclear power plants) and even more so “gray” (from natural gas without a CO utilization cycle2) in the European Union do not want to hear.

To top the story, Europe plans to abandon long-term contracts for natural gas by 2049, hoping to thereby get rid of the influence of Gazprom, which now controls about one third of the market.

Risks for Russia


In the dreams of Brussels officials, a very idyllic picture is being built - the entire European Union is enveloped in a network of gas pipelines through which an environmentally friendly mixture of biogas and biomethane with an admixture of hydrogen flows. Local producers are connected to the centralized system, from time to time injecting portions of home-grown gas.

But this entails "the need for careful gas quality control", it is not clear only how to do this on such a scale.

And this is far from the only question for the developers of the decarbonization program for Europe.

The fate of industrial giants (for example, the metallurgical concern ThyssenKrupp), the European commissioners, it seems, do not really care. Steel smelting and no less energy-intensive production of cement throughout Europe are proposed to be converted to hydrogen, or to biogas generated from decaying biomasses.

Governments so far only promise protective duties, and interest-free loans - there is no technology yet. Even if industrialists find a convenient way to meet the new requirements, this will dramatically increase the cost of production, and there can be no talk of any export. And many European countries live only on the export of high-tech products with high added value, for example, Germany.

The way out, it would seem, is in the import of steel from countries where it is cheaper, but even here it is an ambush - high customs duties on environmentally "dirty" products.

As a result, in the pursuit of carbon neutrality, the products of a large part of European industries will no longer be of interest to buyers abroad.

A detailed analysis of the situation with the European energy transition gives an unequivocal answer - the whole story was started solely for the sake of its own energy security.

More precisely, the European Union dreams of dictating terms to Russia without fear for gas supplies. Environmental concerns are not even in the background here.

And high gas prices are now very welcome for the European Commission - it allows to powder the brains of its own electorate. Say, look at what electricity bills you are now receiving, and in the future we will get rid of this, you just have to endure for twenty years.

And there is no way to launch Nord Stream 2 and saturate the EU with inexpensive fuel - it's not environmentally friendly. With high natural gas prices, Europeans are trying to justify the tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars that will have to be invested in a happy energy future in 2050.

Simply because the average European does not care deeply about the level of carbon dioxide emissions. For him, like everyone else, it is important that it is cheaper and of better quality. For example, ordinary people buy electric cars, from which the whole West is crazy now, not because they are environmentally friendly, but because part of the cost and taxes is subsidized by the state.

That is why the European Commission by hook or by crook will stop the launch of Nord Stream 2 - this will actually destroy all plans for the green economy.

What's the point in spending billions on plans for 2050 if Russian gas is now traded again at a convenient price?

In the sequence of defending their energy interests, the Europeans must be given their due, but the effectiveness of the measures taken raises great doubts.

Europe has reduced its dependence on hydrocarbons for several decades, shutting down coal and nuclear power plants only to face the exorbitant price of natural gas in 2021.

The new concept of the European Commission not only fails to solve this problem, but also lays the foundation for other, much more destructive changes.
Author:
69 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. rocket757
    rocket757 7 January 2022 06: 30
    +1

    The European Commission paradox: green transition and a future without Gazprom
    ... That's right, you can't forbid living! but to impose on others, such, they can / will try.
  2. riwas
    riwas 7 January 2022 07: 51
    +4
    On December 15 last year, the European Commission adopted an important document on the imminent transition of most of the industry to decarbonated hydrogen and home-grown biogas.

    "Soon the tale will tell itself, but it will not be done soon."
    Hasty Europe itself has created an energy crisis.
  3. valera75
    valera75 7 January 2022 08: 21
    +17
    Where are they going to bury the blades of windmills that do not decompose for hundreds of years, solar panels, batteries with lithium, when there will be hundreds of millions of them? When these batteries, blades and panels create they do not pollute the environment? but it seems to me that the smart ones will build nuclear power plants in their country and consume gas, partially using alternative energy sources.
    1. Sergey.D
      Sergey.D 10 January 2022 09: 11
      -2
      Where are they going to store airplane wings made of composites, or biodegradable composites for aviation?
      1. Nastia makarova
        Nastia makarova 10 January 2022 12: 43
        -2
        compared to the number of wind turbines, no one will even notice the planes
      2. valera75
        valera75 10 January 2022 13: 22
        0
        Compare how many airplanes have been made and will be made of composites in 10 years and how many tens of years they will fly and how many tens of thousands of wind turbines have already been built and how many months, and at best a couple or three years, will they stand and be replaced?
  4. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 7 January 2022 08: 46
    +19
    firstly, biogas is a mixture of CO and H2, so when you burn it, you get CO2 of which the stupefied Greta Datura is so afraid ... while there is something worse than carbon dioxide in biogas, namely NOX SOX, so get yourself sulfuric and nitric acid rains if you come back to the technologies of the 19th century ... but in general Europe has gone crazy, carbon dioxide is perfectly utilized by green plants, you need to fight not CO2, but with the deserts on the planet ... and pay money to Russia and Brazil for their forest
    1. bar
      bar 7 January 2022 09: 46
      +7
      Quote: vladimir1155
      firstly biogas is a mixture of CO and H2

      Firstly, biogas is a mixture of the same methane with a bunch of everything, including hydrogen sulfide generated during the decomposition of biowaste. And it is clear what is formed as a result of its combustion.
      A mixture of CO and H2 is called synthesis gas.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 7 January 2022 16: 41
        -4
        Biogas contains about 1-2 percent of total methane and hydrogen sulfide about the same or more, the main calorific value is CO and H2, the gas is low in calories, the efficiency of boilers is less
        1. bar
          bar 7 January 2022 18: 14
          +3
          You should at least read Wikipedia.
          "The composition of biogas is 50-87% methane, 13-50% CO2, minor impurities of H2 and H2S".
          And from the point of view of elementary biology and organic chemistry - where does the hydrogen come from in the rotting products of organic matter?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 7 January 2022 19: 06
            -1
            Quote: bar
            Where does the hydrogen come from in the products of decay of organic matter?

            Well, then where does methane come from, where this hydrogen is twice as much as in hydrogen?
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. bar
              bar 9 January 2022 17: 02
              0
              Quote: mik-syr
              read a textbook on chemistry, not a wiki PEDIA !!!

              Have you read it yet? And what is written there?
        2. Igor Reddikh
          Igor Reddikh 8 January 2022 22: 53
          +1
          Biogas is not 1-2% methane, but 55-65%. There are systems for enrichment of up to 99,9% methane.
      2. Igor Reddikh
        Igor Reddikh 8 January 2022 22: 52
        0
        The stations are equipped with a biogas purification system from impurities, that is, from sulfur and moisture. Biogas clean
        1. Motorist
          Motorist 9 January 2022 02: 49
          0
          Quote: Igor Reddikh
          The stations are equipped with a biogas purification system from impurities, that is, from sulfur and moisture. Biogas clean

          I wonder how you (Zorg Biogas GmbH) remove sulfur? If with the help of an adsorbent, then what happens to it then - how is it utilized or regenerated?
  5. Andrei Nikolaevich
    Andrei Nikolaevich 7 January 2022 09: 02
    +2
    And I wonder why Mercedes began to rust? It turns out that not everything in the "German kingdom" is safe. Is it impossible to combine green energy with nuclear and gas? ...
    1. SKVichyakow
      SKVichyakow 8 January 2022 07: 53
      +1
      Quote: Andrey Nikolaevich
      And I wonder why Mercedes began to rust? It turns out that not everything in the "German kingdom" is safe. Is it impossible to combine green energy with nuclear and gas? ...

      The Mercy began to rust after all manufacturers realized that product quality would subsequently reduce profits and sales. Now mediocrity is being released.
  6. 203-K
    203-K 7 January 2022 09: 21
    +7
    More precisely, the European Union dreams of dictating terms to Russia without fear for gas supplies. Environmental concerns are not even in the background here.

    Dreamers would like to know that according to real forecasts, the main gas consumers in 2050 will be Southeast Asia, China and India. The main production of industrial products will also be concentrated there. So the European "strategists" can now plan whatever they want, but they have no idea how the cards will be laid down. And even India is already building six terminals for Russian LNG.
  7. nikvic46
    nikvic46 7 January 2022 09: 24
    +3
    All the same, the economic policy is determined in Europe by Germany, while the Germans are a practical people. They will freeze, the belts will be tightened and everything will fall into place. The green ones will urgently change their color. The rating plays an important role in them. And atomic energy will be called a pure atom. Life will put everything in its place.
    1. expert
      expert 8 January 2022 21: 31
      0
      So far, practical Germans, out of the six still working nuclear power plants, have shut down three since January 01. Electricity prices have tripled due to a shortage in generation and gas prices. And the new coalition government doesn't care about it, as they say. Environmental taxes have been introduced on "dirty" goods, whether German or foreign. Prices, for almost everything, jumped up terribly. But this is in the name of "a bright future and the salvation of the planet." And we, narrow-minded, do not understand this ...
  8. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 7 January 2022 09: 26
    +4
    Words, words. Or the green transition will be covered with a copper basin or Scholz will die. You can promise anything. I promised my wife 100 times that I’ll quit smoking and use. With a shabby, you’ll give money and cover the table and buy delicious cigarillos. wassat
  9. bar
    bar 7 January 2022 09: 42
    +7
    One gets the impression that illiterate green aunts have dispersed the literate techies in the corners, and they are even afraid to blather from there. How else to explain all this nonsense, contrary to the laws of physics? What normal person with at least a complete school education can believe all this?
  10. Oleg133
    Oleg133 7 January 2022 09: 53
    +7
    Greenness and terrible carbon is the reason for the restructuring of life. About the same as the terrible disease of jam. Planners do not have the task of reducing emissions and preserving public health.

    In the next 10 years, private cars will be "canceled", 2 square meters for each heated room, a "ban" on meat, etc., and the transition to biopaste
    1. evgen1221
      evgen1221 7 January 2022 11: 31
      +6
      Well, personal auto transport is already largely redundant, plus a lot of problems, because a box of 2-4 meters carries one most of the time. They systematically transfer people to public transport and this is a direct economy to budgets, but in order not to kill their auto industry, in other countries they promote motorization and getting rid of public transport. So all the tendencies and trends in the world revolve only around profit, and the ecology itself did not lie even a kilometer away. In the world, only 5% of batteries and acb are recycled, the rest is press and underground, a ton of lithium must be extracted, it is necessary to evaporate 1300 tons of water. And this is now so far with an electric car, but how will there be more of them? At the same time, today an internal combustion engine according to euro5 throws out so little nasty things that even putting a pipe in a window will kill himself, there will not be enough poison in the exhaust.
    2. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 7 January 2022 14: 45
      +1
      Quote: Oleg133
      Greenness and terrible carbon is the reason for the restructuring of life. About the same as the terrible disease of jam. Planners have no targets to reduce emissions and preserve public health ...

      Here, vooot! good Exactly! Only I think that not "life restructuring", but the redistribution of access to the trough, to big money, somewhere up there, sooo high. Those who want to oust the "gas workers" and other long-standing corporations want to take their place. It is for them that the world elite is trying. For them, Schwab wrote his theory.
      Pysy. American science fiction writer Larry Niven wrote about this in the form of "Pearson's puppeteers" and "defenders". And his Russian colleague Kir Bulychev in the novels "Favorite" and "Shelter", and even in the last century!
    3. Old electrician
      Old electrician 8 January 2022 12: 18
      +1
      This year, Swedish eco-activist Greta Thunberg “returned” to the big stage after a year of school. By this time, according to Western media reports, she earned six billion dollars from carbon dioxide. All this gave strength to the fighters for “everything green”. So much so that environmental requirements have become terribly unenvironmental, turning into concrete figures and facts. And while the climate summit in Glasgow has largely failed, the eco-activists are not giving up. And they demand, demand, demand ...
      And what will result in their demands to live in accordance with the norms of the Paris Agreement on climate, where the emission per person should not exceed 2,9 tons of CO2 per year? So what is allowed?
      Hygiene and nutrition:
      - shower 3 times a week, for 8 minutes;
      - machine wash 2 times a week, 1 hour each;
      - chicken 2 times a week, 100 grams (10,4 kg per year);
      - cheese once a week 1 grams (25 kg per year);
      - coffee is prohibited.
      Sports & Activities:
      - classes on a treadmill in the gym - 3 times a week, 30 minutes each;
      - watching TV or using the Internet - every day, for 2 hours;
      - computer / video games are prohibited.
      Buying clothes:
      - 2 pairs of jeans and 3 shirts annually.
      Travels:
      - 1 air flight annually, in economy class;
      - 5000 km of annual travel by electric transport.
      hence
      Oceania 1984 is immediately remembered. These norms are even worse than the realities of many third world countries! Rhetorical question: are the Europeans themselves ready for this? Or the expectation that the Europeans will pay off, shifting their "carbon tax" to Russia?
  11. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 7 January 2022 10: 42
    +5
    It looks like the West wants not to produce anything and live on fines from the rest of the world for air consumption, forgive the carbon footprint. In some Soviet cartoon it was already. Obviously spied. The cartoon urgently needs to patent this phrase. drinks
    1. mik-syr
      mik-syr 9 January 2022 15: 34
      0
      And we do not live like this now ??? Anyone - an employer, invents how to make money on workers, and not on consumers! .....
  12. evgen1221
    evgen1221 7 January 2022 11: 19
    +1
    It's just that all the dirty waste will be transferred one by one to different countries of South Africa, Africa .. and there, while some of the emissions will fly by the wind to Europe, it will settle by 70% along the way, that's the calculation. And so yes, in Europe it will become greener and greener only due to the fact that it is turning blacker and blacker somewhere else.
  13. KERMET
    KERMET 7 January 2022 11: 41
    +2
    I just want to say, urgently to school physics and chemistry ...
    This can be done only with a dark, uneducated population, by the way, we also have victims of the exam and remote control on the way
    1. tralflot1832
      tralflot1832 7 January 2022 12: 11
      +4
      Duc Gretta skipped school, why study.
  14. sen
    sen 7 January 2022 12: 28
    +3
    The European Commission paradox: green transition and a future without Gazprom

    The presence of an energy crisis indicates that such a transition is ill-considered, detached from life. Such a transition cannot be solved by purely political decisions. It will take a huge amount of metals and rare earths, which will have to be mined to produce a huge number of solar panels and wind turbines. In order to fully transfer the car traffic in the UK alone from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles, it will take twice as much cobalt as it is produced worldwide in a year; almost all world production of neodymium; three quarters of the world's lithium production; at least half of the world's copper production. It will also require a 20-fold increase in electricity generation in Britain. Wind turbine and solar panels require the same rare earth metals as electric vehicles. This alone makes it impossible to transfer even a relatively small UK, let alone the US, to renewable energy sources. Green energy will require huge land areas to accommodate wind and solar power generation facilities. Biden announced plans to transfer the United States to renewable energy sources envisage the installation of "500 million solar panels, 8 million solar roofs, communal solar energy systems and 60 thousand wind turbines" throughout the country, which will cover an area of ​​228 thousand square meters. miles equal to the area of ​​the states of California and Washington combined. The development of green energy is possible only with constant support from the state. On a per unit basis (exajoule), solar panels in the United States received 253 times more subsidies than nuclear power, and wind turbines 158 times more.
  15. pytar
    pytar 7 January 2022 12: 50
    -1
    A decent propaganda article in the traditional "Gazprom" format. negative
    We pump oil, we pump gas, we cut down the forests, we’ll get rid of it, in short "dance Russia, cry Europe ..." fool
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 7 January 2022 13: 49
      0
      Quote: pytar
      Pumping oil, pumping gas
      Exactly so: the fact is that during their entire service life neither wind turbines nor solar panels generate more energy than was spent on their creation. You need to get energy from somewhere to create these toys? If you don't want to pump oil and gas, develop commercially viable thermonuclear fusion (now it also eats more energy than it generates, but there are prospects here). With hydrogen, the same garbage: you can get more energy if the gas used to produce hydrogen is sent directly to power plants. Greta cannot argue with the law of conservation, no matter how much she puffs up her eyes.
      With tariffs, too, everything is simple: we will enter in response the same tariffs and we will purchase in Asia. Moreover, due to parametrization, the quality of European goods has already been reduced to the level of Chinese ones (Mercedes! In 5 years they begin to crumble!).
      1. pytar
        pytar 7 January 2022 16: 44
        -2
        Exactly so: the fact is that during their entire service life neither wind turbines nor solar panels generate more energy than was spent on their creation.

        Wordless hardening. negative And it depends on which geographic zone this or that type of installation is located. Drilling, digging, smoking, of course, is cheaper, there is no dispute. And the next generation "pus they themselves think"! belay
        You need to get energy from somewhere to create these toys?

        Whatever you do, you need energy! RENEWABLE does not violate the existing energy balance by the Planet! NON-RENEWABLE, this is the energy removed billions of years ago, and as a result the climate is optimal for us. If you release this energy back into the atmosphere, there will be various unhealthy consequences, they are already visible.
        Do not want to pump oil with gas - develop commercially viable thermonuclear fusion

        TEYAS is the solution to the energy problem of mankind! good Although TEYAS is not- renewable energy, practically does not harm the environment. But logging, burning firewood, is renewable energy / will grow again /, but logging is harmful to the Environment. So, there are subtleties, nuances. hi On the 1st place is the question of LESS HARMFUL!
        With hydrogen, the same garbage: you can get more energy if the gas used to produce hydrogen is sent directly to power plants.

        You obviously do not understand what the speech is about! All these windmills, solar panels, wind farms, nuclear power plants !!!, produce ELECTRIC energy in such a way that most of it is lost. It would be nice if we can save this energy somewhere! There are different technologies - accumulators, flywheel power-cutters, pneumatic, etc. etc.! They have their drawbacks. But the transformation of nowadays non-creeping electrical energy into hydrogen, just promises great benefits!
        With tariffs, too, everything is simple: we will enter in response the same tariffs and we will purchase in Asia. Moreover, due to parametrization, the quality of European goods has already been reduced to the level of Chinese ones (Mercedes! In 5 years they begin to crumble!).

        1. You take and ask what large-scale "green" program China is going to implement in the next 30 years! There is no other country in the world that has such ambitious goals for environmental protection! I have some doubts about European programs, but for some reason I have no doubts about Chinese!
        2. You do not understand the problem! Transition to renewable IE inevitablewhether we want it or not!
        3. You also don’t understand how international trade works and who is the factor in it. It is not in vain that in the next 30-40 years China will spend hundreds of billions of dollars on ecology and the development of green energy! There are 3 interdependent mega markets! North American, Western Pacific and European Union. They define the rules of the game! And they were all determined to make the planet "green".
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 7 January 2022 18: 34
          +4
          Quote: pytar
          Wordless hardening.
          Well, think for yourself: A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tons, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. All over the world, to melt one ton of steel, about half a ton of coal is required. Add another 25 tons of coal for cement production, and we get 150 tons of coal per wind turbine. And this is only for smelting, it does not include the cost of mining, transportation, etc.
          Quote: pytar
          And the next generation "pus they themselves think"!
          Similarly, wind turbines and solar panels also generate environmental problems (not related to their manufacture, just to operation), they are just different. The fields of solar panels will take huge areas from plants and animals, windmills mix the air and weaken the air currents, thereby changing the climate locally. And this is only what is visible immediately and without taking into account the death of birds from wind turbines.
          Quote: pytar
          Whatever you do, you need energy!
          Exactly
          Quote: pytar
          RENEWABLE does not violate the existing energy balance by the Planet! NOT RENEWABLE, this is energy derived from billions of years ago
          You propose to spend more non-renewable energy to obtain renewable energy. This makes sense for the country (pollution of nature is in China, not in England), but not for the planet as a whole.
          Quote: pytar
          and as a result, the climate is optimal for us
          Previously, the climate was better: Greenland was a green land, not ice, and normal trees grew in the tundra, and the Sahara was green, etc.
          Quote: pytar
          All these windmills, solar panels, wind farms, nuclear power plants !!!, produce ELECTRIC energy in such a way that most of it is lost.
          There is just one more problem. They produce minuscule amounts of energy. With this energy density, hydrogen can be produced from gas, but wouldn't it be better to just send this gas to power plants without creating intermediate losses. If hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water, then seas of energy are needed to obtain a noticeable industrial effect, and not a drop of green energy. Instead of toiling around with hydrogen, it would be better to start building transcontinental power lines, so that when solar power plants or wind turbines do not work in one place, it would be possible to power the farms with energy from other places in the world.
          Quote: pytar
          1. You take and ask what large-scale "green" program China is going to implement in the next 30 years!
          And note, China does not threaten to impose tariffs on everyone. Unlike Europe. They will work with him.
          Quote: pytar
          The transition to renewable IE is inevitable, whether we like it or not!
          Seriously? But if you threaten the European officials that if this program fails, they (or their children, if they themselves do not live) will be shot, will this transition be inevitable as well?
          1. tralflot1832
            tralflot1832 8 January 2022 00: 43
            +1
            Do not pay attention, this is a follower of the rabid dropout Gretta. She has already earned $ 3 billion on such. That's what it means not to go to school and she has the same followers. And they are led by guys with higher economic education and money cutters. solid mind on the face.
      2. Kind Cat_2
        Kind Cat_2 9 January 2022 12: 41
        -1
        "during their entire service life, neither wind turbines, nor solar panels generate more energy than was spent on their creation" this mantra was relevant more than 30 years ago. In 2007, when we were building a photovoltaic plant in Spain, the payback over 25 years of the panels' service life was 7 times. Now prices have dropped.
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 9 January 2022 15: 12
          0
          Quote: Good Cat_2
          In 2007, when we were building a photovoltaic plant in Spain, the payback over 25 years of the panels' service life was 7 times. Now prices have dropped.
          The question is not about the price (with European taxes and subsidies, you can get any options), the question is about the energy balance: will there be more output from the product (in kilowatts, not in euros) than was spent on its production.
    2. tralflot1832
      tralflot1832 8 January 2022 00: 32
      0
      Bulgaria is Europe, how is it good with our gas company? Why were the clauses of the contract on gas with Azerbaijan leaked into the free press? Azerbaijan is very unhappy! foolWe pay for gas regularly, they tell you the price of our gas was raised, you are a European.
  16. Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. 7 January 2022 13: 01
    -5
    Generally speaking, you can understand the West. Just imagine you go out into the street and breathe in exhaust gases, carbon monoxide from thermal power plants, emissions from chemical plants, etc. By the way, we breathe the same. And they try to fight it as far as they can. Avoiding coal when switching to gas reduces emissions from CHP plants by half. It's the same story with cars. How can we help the West and ourselves. Refuse to burn coal. Reduce gas supplies to Europe. Why? In critical situations, as a rule, brains work better (not everyone's true), and maybe someone will come up with an ecological electricity generation
    For yourself, your loved ones need to choose some city for experience, for example, Chelyabinsk or Novosibirsk and test the so-called "Green Energy". Transfer all transport to gas and electricity, close or switch to gas all CHP plants or hydrogen, etc.
    Large gas prices (my personal opinion) are the superinflation of the Euro and the dollar. Instead of newspapers, banknotes are printed, but there is nothing to say about digital money at all. And then that Europe allows you to buy something worthwhile from itself? On theirs the same money.
    Now the euro should be worth a maximum of 15 rubles., The dollar is 5,10 rubles.
    These are my Christmas thoughts, brothers and sisters. Merry Christmas Slavs !!!
    good yes fool hi drinks love drinks belay drinks fellow soldier
  17. Ruslan Safin
    Ruslan Safin 7 January 2022 14: 56
    +1
    Why not green the Sahara Desert by building desalination plants. Over time, green spaces themselves will affect the local climate and the need for water will decrease. In such a large area, plants can compensate for the weight of carbon dioxide produced throughout Europe and more.
    1. Brturin
      Brturin 7 January 2022 21: 58
      +1
      Quote: Ruslan Safin
      Why not green the Sahara desert by building desalination plants. With time

      Over time ... only the salinity of the Mediterranean Sea is 35-40 ppm (35-40 grams of salt per liter of water) - after desalination, brine remains, given the area of ​​the Sahara, it will not be enough, so where to put it .. back to the sea, you can ditch ecosystem ...
  18. Igor Reddikh
    Igor Reddikh 7 January 2022 15: 38
    +2
    8500 biogas plants are already in operation in Germany. According to the German Biogas Association www.biogas.org, they produce 4 billion m3 of biogas per year, which is equivalent to 2 billion m3 of natural gas per year. For comparison, there are only 20 biogas plants in Russia. Germany has already met its previously announced renewable energy targets. Germany may not be the best country historically in terms of rivalry for other territories, at the same time it has some success in the internal organization and German engineers are considered the best, which even Elon Musk recently admitted.

    Russia is a country with a high human development index and could instead build biogas plants of its own design and even export biomethane to Europe. For example, Zorg Biogas GmbH could share biogas technologies with Russia.
    1. Soldatov V.
      Soldatov V. 7 January 2022 17: 36
      -1
      Russia is not so poor in gas reserves as to be engaged in large-scale biogas. Someday gas in cylinders will be sold at a symbolic price, now the price of a liter for the population is 26 rubles (0.20 euros)
      If Germany seized territories and their population turned into slaves, then the German high level of engineering would disappear, the law of history.
    2. Brturin
      Brturin 7 January 2022 22: 10
      +1
      Quote: Igor Reddikh
      Germany has already met its previously announced renewable energy targets.

      Only after the last frosty winter, the gas storage facilities in Germany were at a minimum, and the calmness in the summer somehow ... despite the achievement of the "previously stated goals" ... biogas is not a bad thing and flights as fuel, the question is what is it from if waste, it is very good, but if for this purpose there are special plantings or the same forests are cut somehow ...
    3. House 25 Sq. 380
      House 25 Sq. 380 8 January 2022 14: 19
      +1
      Germany annually produces about 5 billion cubic meters of natural gas and consumes about 90 billion cubic meters of natural gas ...
      It is not difficult to calculate the ratio with 2 billion biogas ...
      Considering that biogas is not a "primary product", but the result of raw materials processing, it is still necessary to clarify how much energy (and what kind) was consumed (and the volume of emissions was produced) to obtain the "primary" raw material for biogas ...
    4. Motorist
      Motorist 8 January 2022 14: 29
      0
      Quote: Igor Reddikh
      8500 biogas plants are already in operation in Germany. According to the German Biogas Association www.biogas.org, they produce 4 billion m3 of biogas per year, which is equivalent to 2 billion m3 of natural gas per year.

      So this amount can be provided for all households in Germany, and it will remain! good So why is gas so expensive? what Tell me, please - what is the cost of your (Zorg Biogas GmbH) gas with the costs of everything, everything, everything? And how much does the owner of a conventional house next to the reactor pay (or whatever it is called)?

      By the way, business in Ukraine is very risky - you'd better wind up. And it will turn out like with a TIU solar power plant:

      https://news.obozrevatel.com/economics/kanadskie-investoryi-demontiruyut-solnechnuyu-elektrostantsiyu-vozle-nikopolya-iz-za-konflikta-s-oligarhom.htm
    5. ViacheslavS
      ViacheslavS 8 January 2022 18: 39
      +1
      Germany is going for the record for burning coal this year
      Germany: Coal tops wind as primary electricity source
      In the first half of 2021, coal shot up as the biggest contributor to Germany's electric grid, while wind power dropped to its lowest level since 2018. Officials say the weather is partly to blame.

      https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105
  19. Oleg133
    Oleg133 7 January 2022 16: 19
    0
    Quote: Igor Reddikh
    Russia is a country with a high human development index and could

    If the index were really high, then people would not wear masks from the terrible jam
  20. Nord11
    Nord11 7 January 2022 21: 30
    +2
    This is all very life-affirming and touching, but I am afraid that all this babble is from the cycle "... and apple trees will bloom on Mars." Until then, until there are batteries of high power, sane dimensions and with a long cycle of work, all this is pink saliva from utopian novels ..
    1. Radomech
      Radomech 9 January 2022 13: 46
      0
      Quote: Oleg133
      then people would not wear masks from a terrible jam

      Masks are never for protection - this is a purely Russian delusion!
      Masks to isolate their wearer: I do not cough at you, and you do not cough at me; that is, in fact, politeness, providing a bit of security.
  21. Brturin
    Brturin 8 January 2022 00: 02
    0
    Green energy, emission reduction
    With the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, humanity has the opportunity to become part of a global experiment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the year and a half that COVID-19 has been raging on the planet, the use of fossil fuels and industrial production has fallen. It would seem that the temperature of the planet should have dropped, but this did not happen. “Yes, indeed, we burned less gas, coal and oil. But when we burn all this "beauty", we get not only a greenhouse gas, but also aerosols. Such small droplets, small particles that rise high into the atmosphere and do a good deed there - they reflect sunlight, and they reflect it now. And now it turned out that we released less greenhouse gases, but released less of these little "mirrors", which help to cool down our planet. And it turned out that during the pandemic, we did not slow down global warming in any way. This is called the Macpherson's paradox, ”explains Durmanov. https://tvzvezda.ru/news/2021129129-uZFmT.html
  22. MSN
    MSN 8 January 2022 10: 27
    0
    And there is no way to launch Nord Stream 2 and saturate the EU with inexpensive fuel - it's not environmentally friendly. With high natural gas prices, Europeans are trying to justify the tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars that will have to be invested in a happy energy future in 2050.

    It is possible to saturate the EU with inexpensive fuel now and it was possible decades earlier and without Nord Stream 2. The capacity of the existing pipelines is sufficient.
    As for tens or hundreds of billions invested in the future of the EU, this is better than a hundred billion invested in Nord Stream 2. Investments in the future and investments in the past are the difference.
    1. House 25 Sq. 380
      House 25 Sq. 380 8 January 2022 14: 14
      +1
      The "green" future is not tens or hundreds of billions, but trillions ...
      Sp-2 is not a hundred billion, it is not necessary to distribute tales here ...
      The supplier - Russia - lacked the capacity of the existing pipelines ....
      Now - enough ...
  23. House 25 Sq. 380
    House 25 Sq. 380 8 January 2022 14: 11
    +2
    The article is a little out of date: the European Commission has recently decided that nuclear energy and gas power plants, including newly built ones, are recognized as an element of the "green energy transition" ...
    The Greens are furious, but like this ...
    Gazprom shares will not roll underfoot, we are "going apart" ...
    1. agond
      agond 8 January 2022 17: 06
      0
      The ideal option for us is to find how we can use our gas within our country with maximum benefit, while the benefit should not be less than just the sale of gas to Europe. transport, for smelting steel, for heating houses, and much more.
    2. expert
      expert 8 January 2022 22: 05
      0
      No, the article is not out of date.
      Here is what the Frankfurter Allgemeine writes:
      "The EU currently classifies nuclear power plant investments as sustainable and climate-friendly. However, nuclear power in Germany is not environmentally friendly."
      The government, with absolutely stupid and illogical stubbornness, denies the purity of nuclear energy.
      1. House 25 Sq. 380
        House 25 Sq. 380 8 January 2022 22: 58
        +1
        The European Commission has made its decision, and the German problems remain only German ...
  24. ViacheslavS
    ViacheslavS 8 January 2022 18: 37
    +2
    Without a significant technological breakthrough, the "green" energy transition will be delayed for a long time, not without reason that nuclear power and gas were included in the list of "green" ones until 2045.
    It is necessary either to increase the efficiency of solar panels by at least 70%, or to find a cheap way to store energy with a high density, "at least" like diesel fuel. And so, for example, the largest solar station in India at the moment is Bhadla Solar Park with an installed capacity of 2.7 GW and an area of ​​160 km2, but the real ICUF is at best 20%, and from these 20% you need to give energy to consumers and simultaneously generate hydrogen. to have electricity at night or on days of low production, and this is energy losses for electrolysis, hydrogen storage, the hydrogen fuel cell itself has losses, the efficiency, if I am not mistaken, is not more than 60-70%, as a result, from such a huge area (160 km2), get quite a bit of electricity.
    Another option is offered in settlements where solar panels can be installed, primarily on roofs, but as for me, such a project will be extremely difficult to implement, with no reliability and most likely even lower ICUI, due to the fact that "active" solar panels cannot be installed on all roofs.
    1. Brturin
      Brturin 8 January 2022 19: 03
      0
      Quote: ViacheslavS
      You need to either increase the efficiency of solar panels by at least 70%, or find a cheap way to store energy with high density

      "a cheap way of storing energy with a high density" is one of the main "brakes", but its solution in case of unstable weather conditions may not solve the problems of solar and wind energy
      Official French data show that the energy efficiency of wind generation is much lower than that of gas, oil and coal. Moreover, it cannot be accumulated. According to some data, wind turbines operate only 25% of the time and often stop for technical reasons. In general, only a quarter of their maximum power is used. https://inosmi.ru/politic/20211108/250856414.html
  25. Cossack 471
    Cossack 471 8 January 2022 20: 20
    +1
    You do not understand anything! Electricity is simply taken from the outlet!
  26. Illanatol
    Illanatol 11 January 2022 08: 55
    0
    Quote: Fachmann
    But this is in the name of "a bright future and the salvation of the planet." And we, narrow-minded, do not understand this ...


    Yeah. We, naive, see in this elements of unfair competition on the part of the Yankees, for whom the rise in prices for European products promises additional dividends.
    The Yankees themselves, well, are very concerned about environmental problems, if for garlic. Extraction of shale oil and gas does not harm nature at all, yeah yes
  27. Illanatol
    Illanatol 11 January 2022 09: 01
    0
    Quote: House 25 Sq. 380
    Considering that biogas is not a "primary product", but the result of raw materials processing, it is still necessary to clarify how much energy (and what kind) was consumed (and the volume of emissions was produced) to obtain the "primary" raw material for biogas ...


    So this energy has already been spent. Production of industrial waste, but what can you do? Indeed, it is precisely because of high consumption (and not at all "freedoms") that the Western way of life remains attractive for many.
    In general, the idea of ​​producing biogas and biodiesel is quite sensible. But don't just overestimate these resources, they will remain as an appendage.
  28. Victor Dubovitsky
    Victor Dubovitsky 11 January 2022 21: 54
    0
    Quote: vladimir1155
    firstly, biogas is a mixture of CO and H2, so when you burn it, you get CO2 of which the stupefied Greta Datura is so afraid ... while there is something worse than carbon dioxide in biogas, namely NOX SOX, so get yourself sulfuric and nitric acid rains if you come back to the technologies of the 19th century ... but in general Europe has gone crazy, carbon dioxide is perfectly utilized by green plants, you need to fight not CO2, but with the deserts on the planet ... and pay money to Russia and Brazil for their forest

    Biogas composition and quality
    50-87% methane, 13-50% CO2, minor impurities of H2 and H2S. After cleaning biogas from CO2, biomethane is obtained. Biomethane is a complete analogue of natural gas, the only difference is in its origin.
    Don't be lazy, study. Even if you are already over 80. Oh, there is no trace of carbon monoxide. The combustion products of methane (of any origin) are carbon dioxide and water.
    The reaction equation for the combustion of methane: CH₄ [gas] + 2O₂ [gas] → CO₂ [gas] + 2H₂O [steam] + 891kJ. Description of the reaction 1 molecule of methane, when interacting with 2 molecules of oxygen, forms 1 molecule of carbon dioxide and 2 molecules of water. During the reaction, heat energy is released, equal to 891 kJ.
  29. stankow
    stankow 12 January 2022 22: 26
    0
    Sick people. Doomed.
  30. Radio
    Radio 13 January 2022 00: 35
    0
    "-What are they doing, Uef?
    - Out of the water - luts ...
    -And these?
    - From luts - water. "Green energy, Violinist!
  31. alex-sherbakov48
    alex-sherbakov48 15 January 2022 16: 57
    +1
    Whatever the child is not amused, if only he does not cry !!! If they don’t freeze from the cold until 2050, then they will definitely get even more expensive hydrogen and will live and make debts !!!
  32. Vladimir A
    Vladimir A 18 January 2022 11: 22
    0
    I think that the industry of Europe will be so destroyed much earlier than 2050.