Behind the facade of alternative energy

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Alternative energy is failing, it has many disadvantages in contrast to traditional nuclear power plants and hydroelectric power plants. But social parasites are persistently trying to impose it on us, although there are safer sources of energy that we are prohibited from …

Is Alternative Energy Good?

Recently, everything in the world has been associated with energy. But on "VO" this topic with enviable persistence in discussions turns into a fact that the future of cities is in wind turbines and solar panels. For a seed, I gave the basics of the topic, not considering so far neither the numbers, nor the possible, as it seems to me, reasons for such an opinion. It's just that otherwise it will be a hundred-page memorandum, if it is interesting, you can continue. While so - at a gallop and to the very tops.

Last fall, this is what the only wind farm in Russia that had been operating for a long time looked like this. Kaliningrad

There are not so many unshakable axioms in the world. One of them: alternative energy is good. It is easy to see that this issue is never even discussed. Country X has built a wind turbine (WPP) or a solar station (SES) - this is just wonderful. Even from opponents, you can only hear statements, perhaps that it is expensive, but everything is so wonderful: energy, and even for nothing, and "environmentally friendly". The oddities begin further.

First, it is impossible to understand what exactly the apologists of "green energy" are talking about. Recently, the term "renewable energy sources" (RES) has been popular. For example, the other day they adopted another program of their state support: "Forced to export: support for green energy is below expectations." But it also includes mini-hydroelectric power plants, which differ from the usual only in the scale of the flooded area. And even now, any apologist for "green energy" will tell you about the flooded forests at the bottom of the Rybinsk reservoir, as an example of non-environmental friendliness. However, the same can be said about SES, such fungi can grow only in an absolutely lifeless (as opposed to a completely living reservoir with fish) desert:

NRG Energy and pightSource Energy's Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System covers 14 km² in the Mojave Desert, supplying power to 180,000 Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison customers

And who is "green"? These nice little huts will be greener in any sense, although they also occupy a certain area, produce emissions, and also require specific raw materials: roughly speaking, it is necessary to populate fields for fuel. However, they also successfully process various bio-waste (waste from slaughterhouses, for example).

Biogas station "Luchki" in the Prokhorovsky district of the Belgorod region

However, a wood-burning stove is also a source of energy, and from a renewable source. And, by the way, they (in very approximate values, by eye) are often crammed into the generation figures from renewable energy sources around the world.

Okay, so as not to spread like a head along the tree, let's imagine that we are talking only about SES and WPP. And let's see their advantages.

Pluses of SPP and WPP

• Free energy. Nothing comes from anywhere, if you received energy, it means that it has gone from somewhere. Apart from the fact that the equipment did not fall from the sky, it needs to be serviced (they presented snow removal from 14 sq. Km - there are the very 180,000 people who will be required every day), and most importantly, it must be disposed of after its service life.

• "Clean energy". The fact that SES can only stand on dead ground is already, I think, understandable. Lunar landscape. And near the wind farm supports, even earthworms in the soil die from vibration. This is not to mention the fact that these meat grinders for birds make noise so that nothing can be built around them again. Again, recycling is a dirty thing.

• Reducing the load on the networks and their networks, simplification. The argument is especially loved by the Saint Mask sect. Only exactly the opposite: the main technological disadvantage of SPP / WPP is instability. The wind does not always blow, the sun does not shine at all at night. Yes, and during the day it is far from always and with varying intensity. That is, you definitely need to include backup generation in any network, and put the network itself in the category of "smart" ones, transferring generation from one facility to another, and on a regional scale, you will also have to throw off the surplus that inevitably arises somewhere. So, for example, 14 days in March, 9 days in February and 8 days in January 2017, neighboring Arizona received electricity with a surcharge from California. California paid neighbors up to $ 25 per megawatt hour, while consumers themselves typically pay between $ 14 and $ 45 per megawatt hour in a normal situation when there is no oversupply.

• Availability. A wind turbine or a panel can be stuck in even where there is no coal or oil. By the way, the argument, by the way, on the contrary, is not liked by apologists of "green energy", because it reminds that the reason for the development of alternative energy is the lack of traditional energy. She was originally an ersatz. And, by the way, this is the only real plus: there are areas where such energy is more profitable, the rest is much more expensive to haul. But here we must remember that there must be another resource. Either constant winds (coastal), or a favorable solar regime. Those. the northern and even the continental country is suitable. And do not forget, in any case, you need an additional generator, and a stable one that does not depend on the weather and the yield of biofuel, by the way.

• Price for the consumer. This is also a long topic. For example, they subsidize the generation of renewable energy sources, the station supplies electricity at some price, slightly higher. But not much, they buy it, there are quotas, for example, in the USA - you have to buy so much energy from a wind farm / solar power plant, having received a "green certificate" for that. The price at the peak of generation may even be lower than gas generation! Success? And where do the subsidies come from? From the taxes of the same enterprise, i.e. paid for energy twice. And only the first amount went into the report. We have the same thing: "Consumers are tired of green energy."

Where are the pluses?

Above are purely logical calculations. So far, no indisputable advantages have been found. However, in the information field, the term "green energy" itself is undoubtedly positive. And to such an extent that in the recently adopted model for the development of renewable energy sources in the Russian Federation, self-sufficiency of the industry is planned by 2035, but subsidies are already planned - until 2050 … Any thoughts, why?

If it is interesting, I can continue the topic, which, by the way, is inextricably linked with VO: issues of energy security and environmental terrorism, for example, the seizure of the Prirazlomnaya platform. Where, for example, according to the results, our valiant border guards violated, it turns out, the law of the sea for as much as $ 5, 4 million, which the Russian Federation notified the Hague Arbitration about.

So, in the first article, we tried to find in the "green energy" those advantages for which it is so diligently developed all over the world, and, as follows from the discussion of the article, they did not find it very much. But if the stars are lit, does it mean someone needs it? Based on this and take a closer look …

One of the shares of Greenpeace in India. The consequences are at the end of the article. Source: russianpulse.ru

Initially, alternative energy came into circulation only due to energy hunger in certain areas. Well, there is no oil and gas - lie down and die? Again, one must understand that fossil sources are finite, and finite in the foreseeable future. So far, everything is logical - we need to look for new sources. For those who do not have traditional ones. Use the resources that are available. I would especially like to draw your attention to the fact that for the construction of absolutely any power plant, an energy resource is required. If you are on the coast, then you have nothing to worry about:

If you have a desert of North Africa or California outside your window, God himself ordered the use of the sun, because nothing grows there anyway … Almost. And if we are talking about the European part of Russia or about Germany?

And here we get to the most interesting thing - such an argument as "environmental friendliness" is used. Here we are now thoughtfully and will deal with it.

What is ecology …

It is, oddly enough, science. She studies any systems that have any boundaries and there is something living inside them. A submarine on alert is a typical example of an isolated ecosystem, everything is done so that inside there are completely different conditions than outside. A house with walls and a roof - made in order to create an ecosystem, to provide conditions not like outside. Town. The country unites according to some principles, has borders and within them has its own laws and traditions, often directly tied to the ecology of the region. A typical example is sinks with a plug in Britain (well, historically, there is little water there) and the love of Russians for running water, first of all they change faucets in England.

The main message is that ecology concerns everyone. And there is not a single person who is not affected by it. This is the science of everything. And precisely due to the fact that she gets into all spheres of human activity, it is very convenient for her to manipulate. In the simplest way - "I am now talking about specifically concerning you!" And then - to pull out one fact and leave others.

A quick example is migrants. Let's take a supporter of the creation of a mono-national state, stubbornly radical, they say, there are no "come in large numbers", in Belovodye there should be only Belovodie! Conditional name. Slap him a picture:

Wadoma people, Zimbabwe

And then you say that this is not a consequence of nuclear bombings, but the result of the tribe's voluntary self-isolation from its neighbors for several centuries. No "come in large numbers". Do you want this in your Belovodye? And I didn’t lie at all, and it’s quite possible. He just didn’t say a few things, but it could be quite real. A little nibble on the brains - and your radical tomorrow will be a "common man", and a convinced one. He saves himself and his country from genetic abnormalities.

And now about the basic principle of ecology. This is the concept of sustainable development. Those. you need to take from the environment about as much as you return to it. There are only two ways of human development - "back into the caves", a person is embedded in the ecosystem of the planet as an ordinary biological species (maybe even a millionth population on the planet will survive), without changing nature, and the second way is to create a technosphere, roughly, like The ISS is the size of a planet (it's easy to understand that supplies of raw materials are needed there anyway). There are no more options, any development goes either in one direction or in the other direction.

This principle is also applicable to specific objects, that's just - what a horror, it has nothing to do with environmental activities. The task is to preserve the ecosystem, and not individual organisms in it.

Another example is the city of Norilsk. The town-forming enterprise - "Norilsk Nickel", that it is "dirty", everyone has already heard. Conclusions of pseudo-ecologists - close! And the funny thing is, it's not environmentally friendly. The ecosystem “city of Norilsk” is being destroyed, there is no work - the city will die out, and with it everything that has warmed up within the city limits, not only people live in cities. Globally, the absence of nickel destabilizes the technosphere of the Earth (and with it the entire ecosystem of the Earth, the technosphere is a part of it). Again, not environmentally friendly.

Again, an example is the construction of an industrial-scale solar power plant. We take a huge area and remove it completely from the biosphere. Lifeless territories. It's sustainable, but not at all in the sense that the greens say. This allows the ecosystem of a city to exist (being a part of it, by the way, is the way to create a technosphere). However, with nature conservation activities, which the “greens” call ecology, there is a direct conflict. I recommend looking for green spaces here: Top 10 Solar Power Plants in the World.

… and its practical application

There is science. Dealing with extremely serious things. Environmental expertise during the construction of large facilities is needed not in order to understand what fines to take, but in order to understand how long the facility can work and whether there will be more benefits than harm from it. The economy considers the profitability from the project to the closure of the enterprise, the ecology - the profitability of possible options for using the same resource for the entire time. This is not waving a flag with the words "save the whales", the main technique in ecology is mathematical modeling, higher mathematics is a major subject. That is, this science has a basis and justification for the laws of this very ecology. And these laws did not appear yesterday, "Liebig's barrel", for example, is the middle of the 19th century, the doctrine of the noosphere is the beginning of the past … There is something to say and substantiate.

Grateful audience. It concerns everyone directly!

We add the first with the second and get a funny picture, that all these ecological (supposedly) organizations and their protests … This is the same soft power, and the state has nothing to oppose to it. Counterpropaganda is ineffective - see the example of a two-toed aboriginal. You can object to this - at a certain size, the population goes into genetic diversity within itself, and closely related crossbreeding, which led to such a thing, is no longer threatened. But “these are just words, where is the evidence ?! That one showed us at least a picture, it really is, and in that very Zimbabwe! Or will you say that in isolated Belovodye this can never be ?! And the state is obliged to answer that it is scanty, but the probability is still there …

The main problem of green energy

Now let's go back to energy. We stopped at the fact that of the advantages for countries that have traditional energy and there is no particular sun with winds, we only have the manipulation of the word "environmentally friendly". And this, as we can see, strongly smacks of political technologies. But the stars are lit, and this is still someone needs.

In fact, everything lies on the surface - there is an ownerless tool for manipulating opinion, weighty due to the fact that it concerns absolutely everyone, that is, the mobility resource of this force is equal to the population of the planet. And this force can be turned in any direction. And this tool is used in full force, while few people realize this, and cannot resist it.

Energy-deficient Germany, industrial, in need of a stable energy supply, is killing its own nuclear energy because of environmentalists and, with growing energy consumption, develops "green". Just imagine, you have an industry. Which constantly needs a certain number of kilowatt-hours.

The total generation of SPP (orange) and WPP (blue) in Germany for February and August 2012. Official presentation of the German energy company RWE. Source: geoenergetics.ru

If your generation jumps from 3 to 40 gigawatts per day, you have an eternal accident throughout the country. Remember, recently 2 units of one nuclear power plant stopped due to an accident at the substation of 3 gigawatt units? Now imagine that you regularly turn off 20-30 such units, suddenly and regularly! But those who did this - the Green Party - did not even lose their seats in the Bundestag.

Capture of the Prirazlomnaya platform. Penetration into private property, a large industrial facility, the main goal is to stop the activities of this platform. If the control of an operating complex structure is intercepted by people who do not know how to control this construct, what will happen?

Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico, April 2010

And the state is unable to answer. An attack on an industrial facility fraught with a man-made disaster is a terrorist attack. But the state has nothing to oppose them. They will not be understood even within the state - like not bearded martyrs with machine guns, "let's save the whales," harmless hippies like? And they are not fighting against someone, but they want to make the planet cleaner! Uh-huh, there is only one oil-producing platform in the world, there are none in the USA, you have to sail halfway across the world. And Russia releases those who are convicted of piracy under international treaties, the Hague Arbitration Court finds border guards guilty of violating the law of the sea, Russia will pay. And he will pay again, if something is not worked out. Traditional laws and international agreements do not work for them.

This is the main problem of green energy. The cure differs from the poison only in the dose, but with skillful manipulation - showing that green energy can be a cure … For example, for the coastal Crimea and desert California … It is being brought down the energy security of countries like Germany, and in the future - and Russia. And this will be stronger than a tank attack - for the enemy to cut his throat with his own hands.