When do you need to plant trees of alternative energy?
As the saying goes, the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next moment is today. The fact is that alternative energy (wind, sun, etc.) is directly related to this saying.
For a start, it is worth mentioning the "shale" as a good example. Today the situation with the shale is not bad. They won their own place in the sun - they reached the level of the atom (which is 4% of world energy) and continue to win their share with fanfare. However, I would like to plunge into the history of the issue. Did they have difficulties and difficulties? There were. But only today it became clear that having overcome them, the United States made a tangible leap forward:
1. Thanks to shale, the United States has become the number one gas-producing power, overtaking Russia;
2. In the coming years, it is fully able to catch up and overtake Russia and Saudi Arabia in oil production;
3. Sharply reduced energy dependence;
4. Stimulated high technology in oil and gas production and industrial development - mainly chemical due to cheap raw materials plus the rest due to lower electricity prices, etc.
But it is important to understand that shale did not fall on the head like manna from heaven - let the historical shale be thorny. We should start with the fact that at the end of the 1970s, thanks to the famous Hubbert, it became really clear that the reserves of traditional gas are not infinite, just like oil reserves. And instead of staying inactive or living at the expense of imports, the United States began to solve this problem. Although a contemporary of those events, the actions of the USA could criticize, they say, cut, bureaucracy, deception, and inflate a bubble in their usual manner today.
')
In the early 1980s, the US Department of Energy funded a number of R & D programs to explore alternative and often exotic sources of gas. Starting from low-permeability gas collectors and ending with gas hydrates.
As a result, in 1980 a program was introduced to subsidize the extraction of unconventional natural gas resources (Section 29 tax credit). With natural gas prices of $ 2-3 per MBTE, about $ 0.5-1 per MBTE were subsidized. Huge money, if in a good way. Was it unprofitable for the USA? Undoubtedly. Like the state R & D program on the same topic. Taxpayers paid for this, of course. But the program allowed to start the extraction of natural gas from sources that were not previously considered as a resource base. This made it possible to work out the necessary production technologies, to gain vast experience and a wealth of information about the US oil and gas geology. The program achieved its greatest success after its completion in 2002, in the form of the shale oil and gas revolution, which “fired” in 2008.
So it is safe to say that the “cut” and losses of the end of the 20th century paid off a hundredfold in the 21st century. To such an extent that, in addition to the energy and industrial aspect, shale gas also acquired geopolitical gas.
It is appropriate to distract a little and remember the First World War. It was conducted mainly by positional battles and infantry. Therefore, after its completion, France, to protect against Germany, built a very expensive and logical for its time fortification system - the Maginot Line. Thus, the French generals prepared for the “previous” war. The result was predictable - the second world paradigm changed and Germany calmly broke through the Maginot Line in six weeks. Energy, like the French generals, must look forward, not backward.
The situation in modern Europe is identical to the United States 35 years ago. Europe itself felt that hydrocarbons are not endless and are confronted with the geopolitical aspect of energy (like the US with the oil embargo of the Arab countries).
Everything is bad, yes. However, no one is going to sit idly by. Europe is going to solve the problem, not avoid it. Germany is trying most of all as the most advanced country in Europe.
Grants for alternative energy and R & D, paid by taxpayers? Of course, where at the initial stage without it. If you think instantly, then everything looks negative and unprofitable. But, as we remember, new energy industries do not fall from heaven. They need to create a multi-billion dollar investment and R & D, for decades. Therefore, if we evaluate it in the short term, it seems that Europe and Germany are doing everything wrong. And if you think about what will happen to hydrocarbon energy in 30 years? Will the necessary import of hydrocarbons be possible at all? How much will it cost? Who will have to buy? What political concessions will have to go for them? It is obvious that the planned export of natural gas from the USA to Europe is not for pretty eyes - there was political trade.
Today, gas for many people is too expensive as fuel for power plants and around the world trying to use cheaper sources of fuel, not to mention oil, which is used for power generation only in force majeure circumstances when all other sources are not available. Therefore, from hydrocarbon fuels in power generation, only coal remains and it is necessary to look for something new for a future replacement. Let's look at the success of alternative power generation in Europe:
The last 16 years, the alternative energy of Europe has been developing very rapidly, even exponentially. Another three years at a pace and catch up with the atom.
A developed industrial country requires huge investments for the development of new energy: construction of generating capacities is required, additional power lines need to be laid in those areas that are most favorable for the wind (coast) or solar generation (south of the country), because not always the best wind is close to big industrial city. It is necessary to build “smart” and complex automatic systems for balancing and coordinating electricity grids, including between states (which are in a certain amount even now). At some stage of development will need power for the accumulation of energy. All this requires money, but not only money - often new technologies, new research, whole new industries are needed.
According to the graph above, it is clear that the development of alternative energy has been a matter of more than one decade. And if, of course, there are no “short-term” advantages for alternative energy, then with a strategic approach, its role is obvious both in matters of energy independence and in economic matters, and here is the point. The main question in which there is a discussion of alternatives - the cost of power generation and the context are usually two: that it is expensive and that it is expensive today. But it is obvious that for discussion, an alternative should be broken down into components, and the issue should be consideredmomentarily in the long term. The Fraunhofer Institute provides its cost analysis and forecast (within the German market):
1. A wind turbine in a good place (with a capacity factor of 30%, which is not uncommon) is already cheaper than any coal generation today.
2. Coal generation of Germany loses to solar panels of the south of Spain in 2016, the south of Germany in 2021. This implies large stations, not home solar panels.
3. Brown coal (as the cheapest of coal generation) remains competitive a little longer.
4. The later, the less competitive hydrocarbons.
But there is a problem - you cannot flood electricity into a tank, you cannot build a petrochemical industry on it - it is not a raw material for industry, like, for example, natural gas. Here, perhaps, the main problem alternatives. Electricity is only part of the total energy balance. If it is hypothetical to assume that today the alternative will reach 100% in the generation of electricity, it will still amount to only 45% of all the primary energy of Europe:
Therefore, the energy of Europe should be with a bias in electricity. There is progress, but as always in the energy sector, it is slow. Perhaps, in many respects it is from here that the roots of electric cars should grow.
Surprisingly, nuclear power makes us turn to alternatives. Fans of nuclear projects had to meet with the cold news that one of the leading nuclear powers, France, plans to reduce from 75% to 50% the share of nuclear energy in power generation. Maybe momentarily, again, it all looks ridiculous, but strategically everything is clear - the service life of reactors has long passed over half a century and therefore, when building a nuclear power plant and betting on a nuclear strategy, it is necessary to plan the supply of uranium to its nuclear power plants almost a century. And the uranium mines of French companies are located in central Africa - who knows what will be there in 10 years, not to mention 50 years or 22nd century? Simply put, the French atomic project in the matter of energy security changed the awl to soap - reducing dependence on gas and coal, but increasing dependence on African uranium. Apparently, the second France considered the greatest evil.
There are more questions than answers, there are pros, cons, difficulties. But one thing can be said with confidence - in the future, the alternative energy of Europe will begin to pay for itself, both economically and politically.
The shale tree was planted 35 years ago
For a start, it is worth mentioning the "shale" as a good example. Today the situation with the shale is not bad. They won their own place in the sun - they reached the level of the atom (which is 4% of world energy) and continue to win their share with fanfare. However, I would like to plunge into the history of the issue. Did they have difficulties and difficulties? There were. But only today it became clear that having overcome them, the United States made a tangible leap forward:
1. Thanks to shale, the United States has become the number one gas-producing power, overtaking Russia;
2. In the coming years, it is fully able to catch up and overtake Russia and Saudi Arabia in oil production;
3. Sharply reduced energy dependence;
4. Stimulated high technology in oil and gas production and industrial development - mainly chemical due to cheap raw materials plus the rest due to lower electricity prices, etc.
But it is important to understand that shale did not fall on the head like manna from heaven - let the historical shale be thorny. We should start with the fact that at the end of the 1970s, thanks to the famous Hubbert, it became really clear that the reserves of traditional gas are not infinite, just like oil reserves. And instead of staying inactive or living at the expense of imports, the United States began to solve this problem. Although a contemporary of those events, the actions of the USA could criticize, they say, cut, bureaucracy, deception, and inflate a bubble in their usual manner today.
')
In the early 1980s, the US Department of Energy funded a number of R & D programs to explore alternative and often exotic sources of gas. Starting from low-permeability gas collectors and ending with gas hydrates.
As a result, in 1980 a program was introduced to subsidize the extraction of unconventional natural gas resources (Section 29 tax credit). With natural gas prices of $ 2-3 per MBTE, about $ 0.5-1 per MBTE were subsidized. Huge money, if in a good way. Was it unprofitable for the USA? Undoubtedly. Like the state R & D program on the same topic. Taxpayers paid for this, of course. But the program allowed to start the extraction of natural gas from sources that were not previously considered as a resource base. This made it possible to work out the necessary production technologies, to gain vast experience and a wealth of information about the US oil and gas geology. The program achieved its greatest success after its completion in 2002, in the form of the shale oil and gas revolution, which “fired” in 2008.
So it is safe to say that the “cut” and losses of the end of the 20th century paid off a hundredfold in the 21st century. To such an extent that, in addition to the energy and industrial aspect, shale gas also acquired geopolitical gas.
Europe planting young shoots of alternative energy, difficulties at this stage are inevitable
It is appropriate to distract a little and remember the First World War. It was conducted mainly by positional battles and infantry. Therefore, after its completion, France, to protect against Germany, built a very expensive and logical for its time fortification system - the Maginot Line. Thus, the French generals prepared for the “previous” war. The result was predictable - the second world paradigm changed and Germany calmly broke through the Maginot Line in six weeks. Energy, like the French generals, must look forward, not backward.
The situation in modern Europe is identical to the United States 35 years ago. Europe itself felt that hydrocarbons are not endless and are confronted with the geopolitical aspect of energy (like the US with the oil embargo of the Arab countries).
Everything is bad, yes. However, no one is going to sit idly by. Europe is going to solve the problem, not avoid it. Germany is trying most of all as the most advanced country in Europe.
Grants for alternative energy and R & D, paid by taxpayers? Of course, where at the initial stage without it. If you think instantly, then everything looks negative and unprofitable. But, as we remember, new energy industries do not fall from heaven. They need to create a multi-billion dollar investment and R & D, for decades. Therefore, if we evaluate it in the short term, it seems that Europe and Germany are doing everything wrong. And if you think about what will happen to hydrocarbon energy in 30 years? Will the necessary import of hydrocarbons be possible at all? How much will it cost? Who will have to buy? What political concessions will have to go for them? It is obvious that the planned export of natural gas from the USA to Europe is not for pretty eyes - there was political trade.
Today, gas for many people is too expensive as fuel for power plants and around the world trying to use cheaper sources of fuel, not to mention oil, which is used for power generation only in force majeure circumstances when all other sources are not available. Therefore, from hydrocarbon fuels in power generation, only coal remains and it is necessary to look for something new for a future replacement. Let's look at the success of alternative power generation in Europe:
The last 16 years, the alternative energy of Europe has been developing very rapidly, even exponentially. Another three years at a pace and catch up with the atom.
A developed industrial country requires huge investments for the development of new energy: construction of generating capacities is required, additional power lines need to be laid in those areas that are most favorable for the wind (coast) or solar generation (south of the country), because not always the best wind is close to big industrial city. It is necessary to build “smart” and complex automatic systems for balancing and coordinating electricity grids, including between states (which are in a certain amount even now). At some stage of development will need power for the accumulation of energy. All this requires money, but not only money - often new technologies, new research, whole new industries are needed.
Alternative energy sources in the medium term will be the cheapest
According to the graph above, it is clear that the development of alternative energy has been a matter of more than one decade. And if, of course, there are no “short-term” advantages for alternative energy, then with a strategic approach, its role is obvious both in matters of energy independence and in economic matters, and here is the point. The main question in which there is a discussion of alternatives - the cost of power generation and the context are usually two: that it is expensive and that it is expensive today. But it is obvious that for discussion, an alternative should be broken down into components, and the issue should be considered
1. A wind turbine in a good place (with a capacity factor of 30%, which is not uncommon) is already cheaper than any coal generation today.
2. Coal generation of Germany loses to solar panels of the south of Spain in 2016, the south of Germany in 2021. This implies large stations, not home solar panels.
3. Brown coal (as the cheapest of coal generation) remains competitive a little longer.
4. The later, the less competitive hydrocarbons.
The main problem alternative
But there is a problem - you cannot flood electricity into a tank, you cannot build a petrochemical industry on it - it is not a raw material for industry, like, for example, natural gas. Here, perhaps, the main problem alternatives. Electricity is only part of the total energy balance. If it is hypothetical to assume that today the alternative will reach 100% in the generation of electricity, it will still amount to only 45% of all the primary energy of Europe:
Therefore, the energy of Europe should be with a bias in electricity. There is progress, but as always in the energy sector, it is slow. Perhaps, in many respects it is from here that the roots of electric cars should grow.
Unlucky atom of Europe
Surprisingly, nuclear power makes us turn to alternatives. Fans of nuclear projects had to meet with the cold news that one of the leading nuclear powers, France, plans to reduce from 75% to 50% the share of nuclear energy in power generation. Maybe momentarily, again, it all looks ridiculous, but strategically everything is clear - the service life of reactors has long passed over half a century and therefore, when building a nuclear power plant and betting on a nuclear strategy, it is necessary to plan the supply of uranium to its nuclear power plants almost a century. And the uranium mines of French companies are located in central Africa - who knows what will be there in 10 years, not to mention 50 years or 22nd century? Simply put, the French atomic project in the matter of energy security changed the awl to soap - reducing dependence on gas and coal, but increasing dependence on African uranium. Apparently, the second France considered the greatest evil.
There are more questions than answers, there are pros, cons, difficulties. But one thing can be said with confidence - in the future, the alternative energy of Europe will begin to pay for itself, both economically and politically.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/237275/
All Articles