Russia (bbabo.net), - On February 15, our website published an article by the rector of St. Petersburg Mining University Vladimir Litvinenko "Carbon neutrality is not a panacea but a stimulus to the development of the economy. Among the responses to this publication, there is an expert opinion of the economist Vasily Koltashov. We offer it to readers:
Everything around us is carbon. This is an axiom. But we are also surrounded by speculations on the "green" topic. There have been a lot of them. They do not mean that we should not strive for cleaner production and a less harmful environment for living beings, and also think about the content of CO2 in the planet's atmosphere. In this sense, the author of the article, Vladimir Litvinenko, rector of St. Petersburg Mining University, is right. He rightly emphasizes that answers are necessary, as are solutions.
Climate change and global warming are hotly debated topics. There are different approaches here, and the most problematic is based on the excitement of the public as a form of "response". Litvinenko sees the situation in quite a different spirit. For him, "the causes of climate change, the physics of the carbon footprint, the prospects for hydrogen as a new energy resource and, possibly, as a mineral resource, as well as the genesis and exhaustibility of hydrocarbons, are the most important task facing science rather than society." Science comes first. But what does she say, what does she allow and what limits?
Based on what is known, the author of the article believes that "natural processes (solar radiation and stratospheric volcanic aerosols) and, to a lesser extent, anthropogenic impact are most responsible for large-scale temperature changes over the past century." This is a very important conclusion that removes responsibility from a person, even if many in the West do not agree with this for non-research reasons.
Litvinenko emphasizes that attacking hydrocarbons and reducing investment in their production under the pretext of protecting the climate is unreasonable. We are already seeing an increase in oil and natural gas prices, and it could become panicky. Energy companies will raise prices for electricity and heat, and as a result, the economy may collapse. Litvinenko does not write this, but the consequence of this state of affairs may be famine. What to do? Limit everything? No. Now on the agenda is the creation of revolutionary technologies. I had several important discussions with physicists on this subject in Cambridge at the Cavendish Laboratory. They want to create large-capacity, reliable and small-sized batteries. In Japan, they want to achieve cheaper electricity transmission. Their work is also carried out in Russia.
Litvinenko proposes not to spare resources here, but to move towards the goal. The author of the article believes: "Today it is impossible to do this without hydrocarbons." A year ago, many in the EU would have been ready to argue with this, but the second problematic winterms of energy is coming, and titled enthusiasts have decreased. Now, perhaps, they would even agree with Litvinenko's pointing out the importance of market reality, where fantasies are now becoming cheaper and material resources are becoming more expensive. Why? Litvinenko notes ironically: "when promoting alternative energy, its adherents often ignore the elementary laws of physics." And economics is sensitive to physics: if something doesn’t work, then it doesn’t work, and therefore it won’t sell.
According to Litvinenko, it is necessary to move by increasing the efficiency of "the use of hydrocarbon resources in the heating cycle." We have it for coal - 20-26% with a possible 45-55%, for petroleum products - 24-30%, while 50-70% are possible. The efficiency of using natural gas is 26-32% with a possible 70-78%. The author notes: "Scientists of St. Petersburg Mining University are conducting scientific research aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 through energy transition, taking into account the actual state of affairs in the economy and focusing on energy efficiency."
The conclusion of the scientist is as follows: "Empirical data, analysis and calculations show that due to the implementation of appropriate measures at the proper level, the potential for reducing the share of consumption of hydrocarbon resources by 2050 is 45-55%". That is, not a blanket ban, but reasonable work should give a result in reducing the carbon footprint. It is useful to change the way of life in cities and forms of consumption, reduce energy losses.
But the main thing is still "to increase the efficiency of the use of hydrocarbons in generation by more than 2 times." You can't argue with that. And new technologies will come if we move towards them, that is, engage in science, and not try to solve everything without it.
bbabo.Net