Recently, information appeared that the government is beginning to prepare for a “global energy transition” – this is nothing more than a transition to alternative energy and a decrease in the share of traditional energy sources, primarily hydrocarbons. In such a large-scale project, it is planned to involve several ministries – the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Natural Resources, as well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Of course, the movement in this direction should have begun long ago. But not everything is so simple. It turned out that discussions on the energy transition and the formation of working groups are being held behind closed doors. Probably, it would be necessary to conduct the most open discussions on this topic, invite all interested experts to them and exercise real public control. But, so far, apparently, the main motivation is the upcoming decrease in the share of hydrocarbons in developed countries and, accordingly, the purchase of them from us, and not the goal of making our economy “green”.
Already in 2020, energy production from renewable sources in Europe was for the first time higher than from fossil fuels. By 2030, the EU will stop using coal by almost 100%, oil by 79% and natural gas by 67%. The goal is so-called carbon neutrality, which assumes zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. For comparison: we have so far only set a completely ambitious goal to increase the share of renewable energy sources from the current microscopic 1% to 10% by 2040.
Traditional energy resources make up half of Russian exports and it is no coincidence that the development of “green technologies” is referred to as “the main challenges and threats” in the Economic Security Strategy. Thus, it is clear that the authorities first of all think about how to be forced to adapt to the new reality, to which other countries are moving completely deliberately. Meanwhile, it would be much better to admit that the “green economy” is not a threat, and not even an inevitability, but a benefit for everyone. And move towards it on the basis of this attitude. It would be much better not to try to minimize losses from the transition of other countries to alternative energy, but to increase their own benefits from the “green economy” and preservation of the environment.
Yes, of course, at first, the transition to a “green economy” and alternative energy sources will require investments, and above all state investments, because for private investors alone it will be quite difficult, but then everything will pay off with interest and bring immeasurable benefits in terms of salvation and preserving the planet. It is no coincidence that Jeffrey Bezos, the richest man on the planet, donates huge money to the environment, planning to spend about $ 10 billion, and so far this seems to be more useful than his projects to colonize Mars, although perhaps less romantic.
“Green economy” involves constant assessment of the possible impact of economic decisions and any other human actions on the environment. Difficult dilemmas arise – for example, compliance with high environmental standards for air and water or the development of industrial production and jobs, but they must be addressed. Another aspect of the green economy is the widespread use of new environmentally friendly efficient technologies, including alternative energy sources, waste recycling, high-efficiency agriculture and much more.
Alternative energy sources are not only sun and wind. Here, too, by the way, there is a huge potential for more efficient development, for example, the installation of solar platforms made of recycled plastic in deserts and on the water surface, the search for ways to accumulate energy.
But there are still quite exotic types of renewable energy that still await scientific solutions for their mass use. For example, the energy of the Earth’s core seems to be an extremely promising direction. If cold water is pumped into wells to a sufficiently large depth, then hot water can be obtained back, heated by an inexhaustible source of heat in the depths of the planet. And this source in aggregate is five thousand times larger than all the combustible non-renewable fossils explored to date. And the heat flux coming from the bowels of the Earth is seventeen times more than the entire current world energy production. You just need to learn how to use this energy correctly, find ways to catch and concentrate it. Even the energy of lightning can be put to the service of people. This is what scientists should be doing.
In addition to geothermal (the energy of geysers) and tidal power plants, it is possible to use the energy of the sea gradient, obtained from the difference in water temperatures at the surface and in depth, as well as the energy of salt water, obtained in places where fresh and salt water mixes, for example, at the mouths of rivers flowing into the sea.
It is also necessary to develop the production of biodiesel, for example, from soybeans, sunflower and rapeseed. And to give up ordinary diesel fuel, the spill of which near Norilsk on the permafrost has led to irreparable consequences for the environment, because there are not even microorganisms there that could help the process of decomposition of oil products.
With regard to waste recycling, in this area we have a completely deplorable state that needs an immediate cardinal change. In fact, waste incineration was equated with waste processing, which was absolutely impossible to do. On the contrary, it is necessary to remove all incinerators from cities, and not build new ones.
And it is necessary to build not incinerators, but improved waste processing plants using new efficient technologies. The fact is that only about 3% of all waste is recycled in our country, and even at the existing waste processing plants, recycling reaches only 10%. These are shameful figures, since even in Cairo, the Zabbalin Copts, sorting garbage by hand, achieve an efficiency of over 85%.
Instead of encouraging separate waste collection, we often hear very strange calls to weld chutes. The lack of garbage chutes in the five-story buildings did not lead to their residents sorting waste and going outside with several buckets. On the contrary, it stimulates people only to encourage sorting, as, for example, in the Brazilian city of Curitiba, where food and travel coupons are issued for neatly sorted garbage, or in the Philippines, where a kilogram of rice is provided for two kilograms of recycled plastic. It would be quite possible for us to renew the collection points for recyclable materials and pay money for it, as is done, say, in Germany.
Many landfills and burial grounds are still mothballed and are waiting for people to learn how to dispose of them harmlessly. There is even an interesting project to send garbage to the Sun. And large countries that produce a lot of garbage could work together on such expensive and complex projects. Otherwise, we will simply get bogged down in giant garbage patches in the ocean, the area of which is already difficult to estimate and can reach more than a million square kilometers.
It is also necessary to develop new efficient and environmentally friendly methods of food production. Fifty years ago, in the 1970s, pesticides saved the world from the non-illusory threat of hunger. However, it has now become clear that pesticides are by no means harmless, and now a new “green” revolution is needed. We urgently need to think about other methods, such as regenerative agriculture and the development of permaculture (permanent agriculture based on interconnected ecosystems), as well as pay attention to the development of interesting projects such as, for example, the cultivation of fast-growing nutritious brown algae.
It also seems quite real that the use of renewable energy sources will reduce the payment for housing and communal services, according to preliminary estimates, several times.
For the transition to a “green economy” it is necessary to create an open working group with the involvement of all interested environmental experts, physicists, representatives of the ministries involved in the project.
It is necessary to develop the so-called “green financing”, namely the stimulation of those who are ready to invest in alternative energy. And, of course, at first a lot of funds may be required from the state, but this is precisely the direction that cannot be neglected, otherwise we will remain at the tail of world civilization.
Science fiction has concepts like “green future” and “rusty future”. The first means that mankind managed to cope with environmental problems and build a flourishing paradise on Earth, and the second – that this did not work out, and the planet suffered an ecological catastrophe, hunger, overpopulation and lack of technological progress. I would very much like to hope that we will prove to be prudent and far-sighted enough to come to a “green” future with the help of the “green economy”. Pretty soon, environmental issues in our country will come to the fore, and we need to seriously prepare for this now in order to get the maximum benefits from the upcoming energy transition.
.