Posted 14 мая 2021,, 07:32
Published 14 мая 2021,, 07:32
Modified 24 декабря 2022,, 22:37
Updated 24 декабря 2022,, 22:37
As you know, the leading countries of the world have announced a stake on the so-called "green energy", with the help of which they intend to kill two birds with one stone: get rid of the "hydrocarbon curse" and stop global warming. The United States began to act especially actively in this direction after the Joe Biden administration came to power in this country. America has already entered a frantic race of megaprojects for wind farms, giving the green light to the construction and operation of the 800 megawatt (MW) Vineyard Wind 1 project off the coast of Massachusetts.
The Vineyard Wind project, with an investment of $ 3 billion, is expected to create 3,600 jobs and provide electricity to 400,000 homes and businesses.
In March, the US Department of Energy, Home Affairs and Trade said they want to reach 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind turbines by 2030, which the Biden administration hopes will create thousands of jobs and attract billions of dollars in investment over the coming years. ...
But even with such a plan, the United States will lag behind Europe in wind energy. In 2020, 2.9 GW of offshore wind turbines were installed in the EU, and by 2030 it is planned to commission 4-4.5 GW annually.
Meanwhile, despite all the optimistic statements, experts are not at all unanimous in assessing the prospects for green energy. So, publicist Marina Shapovalova writes in her blog:
“Why, as they say, it is profitable to engage in“ green ”technologies now.
Solar and wind generation in Europe is invested (mainly) by the state. And also some centralized trust funds. That is, the manufacturer of "green" generators does not work for consumer demand - it receives its income from the budget and from funds. Immediately and with a guarantee. Which, no doubt, is very beneficial. To the manufacturer. And nobody else.
Otherwise, the question of promoting these technologies would not arise at all: any end user would gladly switch completely to a more profitable source of energy generation, refusing to connect to the networks, for energy consumption, of which more must be paid. There would be queues for solar panels and wind turbines, as in the Soviet Central Department Store for imported boots.
However, the end consumer knows very well that neither alone, nor in a joint effort with neighbors, he will be able to provide his energy needs only with solar and wind generators. And she knows perfectly well why.
But at the same time he believes when he is told that the needs of a city or a region are provided with the same "cheap and clean" generation. Because at first he does not see the costs of it from the budget, although they were previously taken out of his own pocket.
True, to him, the end consumer, unfortunately, this holiday of ignorance about costs does not last forever: the costs of operating and maintaining generators have to be paid for by him. Tariffs are going up. Not only because alternative generation is costly - it is also unstable, that is, it requires additional coverage of minimums from other sources.
If you do not understand that the “profitability” of solar and wind generation is fake and scam, then ask yourself a question: why haven't you bought yourself solar panels and a wind turbine, and have not healed happily and independently, without having to pay monthly for energy consumption?
The indications that there are separate locations where a complete transition to solar and / or wind generation is possible and profitable, well explain the essence of the topic. Yes, in some places their use is reasonable and very beneficial. Yes, as an additional source in some places - too. But by no means as an absolute alternative.
The real alternative, by the way, is at the modern technological level - only nuclear power plants. Including from the point of view of both ecology and depletion of resources. But here is another topic..."
However, there is another, no less promising way out. The Proeconomics channel reports about him:
“In the world, at the level of governments of developed countries, there is a consensus that hydrogen will become one of the types of“ new fuel ”replacing the“ old ”hydrocarbon fuel. Already today, its consumption could replace up to 7% of the oil used (on a global scale). The main problems of the economy's transition to hydrogen are discussed in the book of IMEMO RAN “Contours of the World Energy Transition / ed. Dan. S.V. Zhukov, 2020 ". Some excerpts from this work.
“The need for hydrogen in its pure form (already today) is about 70 million tons per year, which is equivalent to 330 million toe (or 2.2-2.3 billion barrels of oil - 22 days per year of oil consumption the global economy, or 7% of annual oil consumption).
The existing natural gas pipeline system in many countries is much more developed and can transport hydrogen at a lower unit cost than would be the case with the construction of new specialized hydrogen pipelines. In addition, hydrogen moves through pipes almost three times faster than methane, making this option economically viable for large-scale transport. But for hydrogen to become as ubiquitous as natural gas, a coordinated program of infrastructure modernization and construction will be required.
Currently, the production of hydrogen from natural gas with CCUS costs $ 11-18 / MMBtu, while the production of hydrogen from renewable energy is $ 18-34 / MMBtu. Although in some regions “surplus” renewable electricity can be obtained at very low prices, its availability and even distribution are limited today. In addition, electrolysis is a capital-intensive process, so using only periodic surpluses of cheap electricity would be an expensive way to produce hydrogen. For example, if the cell had access to free electricity, but only operated at a 10% load factor, then hydrogen production would cost $ 30 / MMBtu. However, as renewables account for an increasing share of electricity generation in a sustainable scenario, it is likely that large hourly imbalances in wholesale electricity prices will arise, leading to improved electrolyzer economics during periods of low prices.
The cost of alkaline cells made in North America and Europe dropped 40% between 2014 and 2019, and Chinese-made systems are already 80% cheaper than American and European ones. With an increase in the production of electrolyzers and a decrease in costs, the cost of renewable hydrogen will be $ 0.8- $ 1.6 / kg in most countries of the world until 2050. This is equivalent to current natural gas prices of $ 6-12 / MMBtu on an energy equivalent basis in Brazil, China, India, Germany and Scandinavia, making hydrogen competitive with both natural gas and hydrogen production from natural gas or coal with carbon capture and storage...
The introduction of 5% hydrogen into the distribution network for a city with a population of 3 million people today will cost $ 25-50 million / year (taking into account the supply of hydrogen using electrolysis, modernization of pipelines, compressors and metering devices). Investment in low carbon hydrogen production facilities would account for about 80% of these costs. If 100 projects were implemented around the world, they would stimulate an additional 1 million tons of annual hydrogen supply. This would lead to a significant increase in production and installation capabilities, contributing to efficiency gains and a reduction in cell capital costs by about 20%. Meeting this level of hydrogen demand through CCUS reforming of natural gas would also provide vital expertise and lower costs”.