The climate summit is over. Are the goals carbon neutral?

The Climate Summit concluded two days ago.

Climate leaders flew 400 planes into it, burned millions of liters of fossil fuels for the flight and went into the building to talk about reducing fossil fuel use and the coming doomsday.

But, of course, it is foolish to blame them for the burning of millions of liters of fossil energy, because the Internet, unfortunately, has not yet been invented, so the leaders simply do not have alternatives to fossil planes for organizing the summit.

But there is power to speech.

There was a lot of chatter at the top, but where did everyone stop:

The world should refuse heating in winter, even though heating saves people’s lives.

The world should stop using air conditioners in the summer, despite the fact that air conditioners are saving tens of thousands of people in the US alone, not to mention hotter countries.

– The scientist must limit flying cars and driving cars, so that they are inaccessible. Well, everyone except the climate activists.

and abandoning the development of new deposits of coal, gas and oil in favor of financing green companies in trillions of dollars/year.

In short: the extermination of the population, the financing of the green industry, and the reduction of their competitors.

Speaking of interests and financing, the summit revealed that GFANZ, the global carbon neutrality alliance, is committed to investing another $130 trillion in the green industry in the coming years.

This alliance consists only of the world’s largest banks and funds, which visit world markets for profit, are constantly fined, and, of course, are not interested in saving the world from fleeting threats.

But there is the issue of the pursuit of capital – the Alliance is only interested in money, since there is not a single non-financial structure in it. Only banks.

The coalition itself was formed by the United Nations.

That is, it is the most powerful political force that will provide the largest banks with unprecedented, stable and guaranteed profits, because the green industry completely exits the market in favor of political interests and tax financing.

Well, now to the decarbonization itself.

The summit declared that by 2050 the world [ха-ха] Fossil energy must be abandoned.

Against this background, I wanted to make some interesting calculations.

But let’s not fail 100%, but take the estimates of the US Energy Information Administration of the environment, which predicts an increase in energy consumption by 2050 from 20,000 to 45,000 TWh currently, when 50% of it should be. generated from renewable energy.

But the remaining 50% will remain with fossil sources – that is, they themselves admit that fossil energy will not disappear anywhere, and its consumption will even increase.

Which makes carbon targets more than just a meme.

But let’s focus on 50% renewable energy.

According to their estimates, approximately 25,000 TWh of green energy will have to be generated, and wind-powered temporarily, since no other green energy can be mass-produced.

But what is 25,000 TWh of wind? For convenience, this is equivalent to 25.00,000,000 megawatt-hours.

One 2-megawatt-hour wind turbine produces, according to the documents, 17,520 megawatt-hours per year. However, given the average power factor of 20%[турбины быстро стареют и через 10-15 лет он падает с 22-30% до 11-15%]This figure drops to 3,500 MW/turbine/year.

2 MW is a rough average between the most common 1.5 MW turbines and the next 2.5 MW turbines and even the most powerful offshore turbines.

From here, we divide the 25,000 TW that the average turbine’s power production needs, and we get 7,134,703 turbines that must be installed for the “average production” needed to cover 50% of the world’s energy.

Of course, in fact, you need to at least triple this amount to create reserves, buy energy storage batteries that are replaced every 8 years to avoid the current energy crisis situation, allocate a huge amount of land, etc., but imagine that we are the ideal conditions.

But a moment. The turbines have a life of up to 20 years, that is, until 2050 we will have two operating cycles – and they will have to be replaced with a new one at once.

So 7 million turns into 14 million turbines, or more precisely, 14269406 pieces.

Each carbon-neutral turbine for construction consumes a total of about 6000 tons of different materials, including 2500 tons of concrete, 900 tons of steel, 45 tons of plastic, 1000 tons of iron ore and 600 tons of coal to produce steel Himself. and other public resources, including mining, use of heavy technology, use of copper, aluminum, etc.

Together, our 14 million turbines represent 86 billion tons of consumption of various resources, including rare earth elements, nearly all of which hold records for air pollution and CO2 emissions from their production.

If we translate this volume into one charcoal[хотя уголь в то же время выбрасывает даже меньше СО2, чем сталь: 1.5-2.3т против 1.8-2.4т на сожженную/произведенную тонну.]then this volume, for example, would be enough for 10 years of global energy supply.

Well, now, to what I’m leading – to that most interesting moment of carbon neutrality:

14 million turbines including mining, raw material production and operation [исходя из 11000т CO2/турбина]will generate approximately 157 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

In my article, I wrote about emissions of 9,600 tons / turbine, but did not take into account the production of copper, aluminum and mining, so the number was underestimated a little there.

Now let’s look at the gas. With a production of 25 TWh * energy * 40 years[0,227 тонн СО2/МВт*ч] The gas would emit 227 billion tons of carbon dioxide without a global decarbonization effort that would make electricity unavailable.

Thus we get:

– 157 billion tons of carbon dioxide “carbon offset”.

– 227 billion tons of carbon dioxide “terrible fossil energy”.

But here again, there is a nuance.

To produce energy from wind alone, as the green lobby wants, it is necessary to install 3-4 times more turbines so that they have time to build up spare capacities, because calm weather often lasts for weeks.

So we multiply the result by three, and we get:

– 471 billion tons of carbon dioxide “carbon neutral”, without taking into account the purchase of batteries, at a cost that exceeds the GDP of the whole world.

This is twice the carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas and is about the same level if we were only burning coal.

And an additional extraction of 256 billion tons of carbon-neutral fossil resources, which have not yet been extracted, because we get gas from the guts, and not directly from mining.

This means that a 50% switch to wind energy will provide the world with the largest expansion of the dirtiest mining industry and will result in higher CO2 emissions than fossil energy use.

How do you like this “carbon neutrality” that will save us from doomsday?

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Leave a Comment