Stories
The Ideology of Alternative Energy as a Lever of Global Control
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.

Close
Photo: amazonaws.com/PrtSc

The Ideology of Alternative Energy as a Lever of Global Control

4971

AUSTIN, TEXAS – April 10, 2019

The basis of any economy is energy, and it has always been the main cause of war. In the past, slaves were forced to work on plantations, in the 19th century coal was required, and today it’s hydrocarbons (oil and gas).

The US’s energy policy has been different in different times. Today it is defined by the National Security Strategy (NSS), including the section, "Dominance in energy". It sets the task of transforming the US into an “energy-dominant state, ensuring behind it a central position in the global energy system as a leading consumer, producer, and innovator”.

Today, Trump is paying increased attention to the energy direction of his policy. The evolution of this policy and its main directions and mechanisms of implementation, both existing and those that are planned to be introduced, will be discussed in detail in our next material. Today we will only outline its essence and analyze the myths about alternative, “green” energy, and the fanatical belief of its adherents in the total damage of traditional energy, which “inevitably leads us to a premature apocalypse.”

 So. In short, the essence of the US energy policy is to increase energy production in the United States while simultaneously reducing the global supply in order to balance the market. This is how the country will be able to sell shale oil and gas despite the fact that their production is very expensive. At the same time, according to Pompeo, world production should not be reduced to the level of consumption with the help of OPEC + quotas, as has been the case for two years. To do this, it will be enough to close the markets to such producers as Iran, Venezuela, and Syria (giant fields were opened there recently, but they are not developed) and displace the competing countries from the most promising markets (for example, oust Russia from the EU market).

However, the US intends not only to stabilize world hydrocarbon production, but also to control its flows, and to this end, Washington is putting pressure on the European Union and its member countries to abandon the Nord Stream-2 pipeline. We are talking about the inadmissibility of the EU’s dependence on Russian hydrocarbons.

At the same time, in order to meet the needs of the EU, the US is hastily building gas storages to receive shale gas and also seeking to ensure control over the power systems of individual countries. This is done in various ways, from the export of color revolutions and direct bribery to the financing of various "green" parties and the promotion of alternative energy ideas. How and through whom these ideas are promoted is well illustrated by the report “A New World: The Geopolitics of the Energy Transformation” of the Global Commission on the Geopolitics of Energy Transformation. It says that the oil century has remained for ten years and oil prices no longer matter. Many other respected economists and energy experts also express the opinion that the use of hydrocarbons will soon be replaced by “renewable” energy using the sun, wind, and water ... These words are readily picked up by politicians and populists of all stripes. This is said from the rostrums of international forums, universities, and TV screens.

The sun, water, wind, and even plants are pushing oil and gas from the market, experts say. The highest growth rate of renewable energy sources is in China. According to forecasts, in the near future, China will replace 45 percent of its needs with alternative energy, they say. However, there is no traditional discussion. The arguments of the opposite side are not heard. Experts and politicians are only competing among themselves in praising, glorifying and simply advertising everything related to so-called “alternative energy.” At the same time, experts are very confused in terms. First, they talk about clean energy, which includes all types of power generation that do not pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide in the process (by the way, what it means to "pollute" they also do not say clearly). Under this criterion fall nuclear power, hydropower, solar and wind energy, and tidal energy.

However, at the same time, adherents of “green energy” are afraid of atomic energy and exclude it from the category of “clean” energies. Therefore, the term “renewable energy” is often used, i.e. all types of generation that do not use fossil fuels: everything listed above, minus nuclear, and with the addition of fuel energy, using garbage and biofuels.

lospillo.info/PrtSc

Then the concept of “alternative” energy is introduced, which is often mistakenly used as a synonym for the term “renewable energy”. Under alternative energy is meant all recently fashionable types of renewable generation, with the exception of hydropower. This term is used as a “modern, progressive” opposition to the traditional, “outdated” energy.

As a result, a conclusion is made, and it is this conclusion that is contained in the report of the Global Commission on the Geopolitics of Energy Transformation, which includes many respected experts and politicians from the EU countries, Russia and the Middle East, that “energy transformation” (i.e. transition from traditional to alternative energy) will ultimately move the world in the right direction by addressing climate change, combating pollution, and promoting prosperity and sustainable development.

The bad thing is that the ideas of "green and alternative energy" are surrounded by so many myths and exclusively ideological structures that these views can be safely attributed to a new religion. A rational point, let alone economic feasibility, is missing, and when launching the religion of "green" energy, the ideologues understood this very well. In our opinion, in this way, in parallel, a reserve energy system was built (moreover, it was built at the expense of the deceived population) in case of a collapse (financial, military, natural ...) when, for one reason or another, logistics, production, etc. will be disrupted. While they will rake the consequences of the collapse, it will be possible to somehow survive a hard time on the "green" electricity (for key energy consumers will be enough) and start again. There is not enough energy for everyone, but nobody counted on everyone.

 The Ideology of Alternative Energy as a Lever of Global Control

Coal in Europe is running out. The British have recently mined coal from mines from great depths. The mines were shut down. Today, the British produce the remains of bad coal, that is accessible by open pit. Meanwhile, coal mining is already falling in Poland, and in Germany (only of very poor quality, with a record low-calorie content). In other places, there is virtually no coal.

And the “most important argument” is geopolitical: The accelerated development of green energy in Germany is preparation for interruptions in the supply of energy from Russia and the Middle East, and everything is clear and completely transparent. The United States needed a big war in the Middle East and Eastern Europe just the day before yesterday, that’s why Germany hopes at least to sit tight until Russia restores order and until mutual Russian-German trade is slowly recovering.

We, in turn, propose to think about another scenario: what if they consciously and rationally prepare the transition to a certain future created by their own? In this future, it cannot be ruled out, a continuous supply of electricity will not be for everyone, but, say, for 10% of Europeans. But again, this is a diversion from the main topic.

Is alternative energy really good? Let's figure it out.

Take the economy of Germany, which is a leader in the movement towards “clean energy.” Probably no one will be surprised that at the same time Germany is also the European leader in electricity prices for consumers.

Here is what the German economist, Professor Hans-Werner Sinn, who until 2016 was an adviser to the Minister of Economics of Germany, wrote.

“Check out the triple burden on the economy.

First, Germany is building a green energy industry, which seems to be working. Then the normal energy is built/maintained next to it, which turns on when the ‘green energy’ stops working. Then, next to each farmer and plant puts a backup energy system, which turns on when the normal energy does not have time to save the system when the green energy does not work. "

At the same time, the surcharge for compensating feed-in tariffs increased from 0.19 cents per kWh in 2000 to 6.35 c in 2016, which is equivalent to a total amount of subsidies of 24 billion euros.

In 2016, the cost of electricity production from brown coal was about 0.6 cents per kWh and 2 cents from hard coal. Adding 0.8 cents per kWh or 0.7 cents per kWh, respectively, for emissions rights in 2015 (7.5 euros per ton of CO2) gives current costs of 1.4 cents per kWh for brown coal and 2.7 cents per kWh for coal. At the same time, feed-in tariffs for electricity from new wind and solar installations amount to about 9 cents per kWh. Thus, to be profitable from a national point of view, the average cost of wind and solar energy would have to fall by more than two thirds.

In addition, traditional energy is not intended for balancing, it was simply built for another. Accordingly, with the further growth of “green energy”, coal generation will be increasingly destroyed. Especially the cheapest one, working on brown coal, since it is simultaneously the least maneuverable. And gas consumption will grow more and more both due to the greater introduction of gas pickers and due to the forced transfer of conventional gas stations to inefficient operating modes with frequent stops. Already, the coal and gas stations in Germany operate at a loss, but, as a rule, they are not allowed to close because the system would crumble without them.

It is clear that this situation is unstable, especially since “greens” require the closure of nuclear power plants (a full closure is planned by 2022).  With the parallel process of increasing the share of alternative energy, who will balance it and who will provide energy in general on quiet winter days is not entirely clear. Apparently, the long-suffering French nuclear power plants will provide it again.

In particular, this leads to the growing consumption of expensive fossil fuels, that is, gas. And there is not enough gas in Europe, or even in Russia, and even throughout the world there is not very much left. There is in the US, but it is still expensive. But this is only for now. But the consumption of coal, which is relatively high on the planet, is falling. And even it is falling in Germany, where there is relatively a lot left, at least with respect to gas.

Moreover, according to German experts, because of the restriction of "non-negativity", even killing the basic generation, Germany will not be able to balance the peaks of alternative energy, after reaching a share of 50-60%. At the same time, 15-20% of the “produced” green energy will be lost. And the most important thing in this is the fall of "marginal" efficiency.

onedio.com/PrtSc

That is, abroad of 50% of the market, the availability factor of each new station can be safely divided by 2. That, of course, lowers the economic efficiency of alternative energy to an extremely low level.

Accordingly, 50% of the market is generally the theoretical limit of what “green” energy can reach in Germany, even using the remnants of traditional energy as much as they can. In fact, the increase in spending on subsidies will kill the wind and sun energy topic at the border about 30% of the market (today about 22%).

In general, “green” generation has a lot of problems.

And the matter, in fact, is not in the intra-day fluctuations, which can be regulated to some limits, and not even in intra-weekly vibrations. The main problem is in seasonal fluctuations, meaning seasonal differences in the generation of alternative energy and its consumption. In some months there is a lot of such energy, so much that nobody needs it. And nothing can be done about it, the only option is to save the energy, pack, and store it for several months. Not a couple of hours, as the Mask battery is able to do, but several months.

Excess energy is discharged to neighboring regions. For example, California, the state with the largest share of renewable energy in the United States and, characteristically, the highest price for electricity, drops the cost of balancing saw production to neighboring states - Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon.

It is obvious that making double investments in fixed assets, even if they are robotized, so that they work for half a year and stand for another half a year, is absolutely stupid and inefficient. Until there is no possibility to store a multi-month storage volume, seasonal peak production will be lost, and the greater the share of “green” energy, the more will be lost.

The only option in which it becomes possible to use alternative electricity is to use it in conjunction with storage systems. But the storage situation is even worse.

There are very few options today, and all of them are technically complex, highly dependent on many factors, expensive and economically inefficient.

Thus, we see that the real situation looks very sad for alternative energy, because:

- it is economically impossible to justify an increase in the share of wind and sun energy over 50% since the availability factor will begin to fall rapidly;

- any share of sun and wind energy in the energy balance, subject to balancing due to duplication of the generation structure, is not economically feasible;

- there is no practical possibility of increasing the share of wind and sun due to parasitism on the energy networks of neighbors (even in Germany);

- there is no possibility (even in Germany) to build a significant amount of cheap hydropower or other storage systems;

linkonlineworld.com/PrtSc

The above factors indicate that the immediate shift to alternative energy, as called for in the report of the Global Commission on the Geopolitics of Energy Transformation, has no economic or technological but only religious meaning. Hence, all these spells about “green energy,” which have nothing to do with common sense, although they bring fairly high profits to individual corporations, which lobby for all these laws.

“Green” religion, based on an erroneous and/or deliberately distorted understanding of the contribution of man to climate change processes, leads energy sectors and with them their economies to complete destruction. Currently, the EU countries, including Germany, formally for these religious reasons, but actually on the grounds of corruption and political reasons, spend huge amounts of money on the destruction of their own energy, while having no prospects to benefit from this in the form of economic benefits or fuel economy. In fact, even the religious effect of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is also unattainable.

Why is this happening and who benefits from it? Judge for yourself. We live in conditions of the destruction of the existing model of the world economy. Following the collapsing economic model, the political model will collapse. Old alliances will break up and new political and economic alliances will be created. At the same time, energy will remain a key element of the new economy, and those who will gain control over the energy markets will set new rules for the economic game. The energy market is very specific. It has a lot of problems. In particular, there is the problem of old capacities, old power plants, which are ineffective. They were created for the economic system of the past. And they need to be changed to new, more efficient ones. The question is: who will pay for it? Judging by the way the religion of green energy is being promoted, we are being prepared for the fact that the consumer has to pay for modernization.

In addition, as we have already noted, the issue of control over the future energy system is of key importance. And who do you think will control the energy systems of individual countries in the event of the destruction of traditional energy?

Well, one more question. But it no longer lies in the geopolitical, but in the philosophical plane. Pay attention to the general decline in the level of education, to the accelerated destruction of the engineering school that created all the existing systems. Who benefits from having a semi-literate and easily managed population, which is not only unable to create complex engineering systems, but even properly serve them? Currently, all this is too much involved in religious, political, corruption and bureaucratic interests, which allow the country to create any number of stupid projects. These are phenomena in general of the same order, although, of course, the destruction of one’s own power system is much more costly and destructive.

Author: USA Really