Russia (bbabo.net), - Last year will go down in history as a period of unprecedented growth in gas and electricity prices in Europe. The head of the National Energy Security Fund Konstantin Simonov spoke about why this was not an accident and why it could be a harbinger of a global energy crisis, as well as what can lead to too quick rejection of traditional energy sources - oil, gas and coal.

What are the reasons for the gas crisis in Europe? Is it the forerunner of a global energy crisis around the world?

Konstantin Simonov: On the one hand, what is happening in Europe seems to be easy to explain. A chain of coinciding factors: a record gas withdrawal from storage facilities, first because of a cold winter, and then because of a hot summer, a drop in wind generation due to the same weather. It took more gas. Europe has long pursued a policy of abandoning long-term contracts for its supply, purchasing additional volumes through the exchange. But it was this year that there was no free gas on the exchange, LNG went to Asia at the beginning of the year due to higher prices. An obvious miscalculation of European politicians who have relied on capricious renewable energy sources (RES) and exchange gas trading. We see the result - frenzied prices for gas and electricity and an increase in coal consumption, from the point of view of Europeans, an extremely dirty resource.

On the other hand, judging by the behavior of the EU's top officials, they do not see their fault in the current situation. On the contrary, assurances have been repeatedly voiced about the correctness of the chosen course, the global goals of which are the earliest possible rejection of the use of hydrocarbons as an energy raw material and the transition to renewable energy sources. Europe is ready to give up cheap and affordable energy in favor of expensive ones. That is why I believe that European regulators themselves have made a significant contribution to the energy crisis in Europe. They did not investigate the actions of speculators at all, and I generally keep quiet about Nord Stream 2. And why? Because expensive hydrocarbons completely fit into their picture of the world. And it would be fine if the EU itself lived according to its fantasies. But Brussels wants to force the whole world to follow this path. The consequences of such a transition have not been calculated, they do not even want to hear about them. And if these goals are recognized in the United States, China, India and Russia, the crisis could become worldwide. But sooner or later, sobering up will come.

And what are the consequences?

Konstantin Simonov: Global growth in prices for all goods and services, consumption quotas, since RES simply cannot provide the growing population of the earth with sufficient energy, galloping inflation and, as a result, the growth of property stratification in society and social tension ... It's good to talk about "clean energy" while sitting in a vegetarian cafe, drinking smoothies, watching the news feed on your phone. But tell about it to the nearly billion people who, according to the World Bank, do not have constant access to energy. If the world follows the path indicated by the EU, energy will generally become a luxury. Already now, many previously ordinary things are acquiring the status of luxury. First of all, this still applies to food, tourism and the service sector, but the process has already been launched. This is a fundamental reversal - if earlier humanity was looking for an opportunity to find a source of cheap energy, now it is offered to switch to energy consumption by expensive means. Calling it energy transition.

As a result, who will suffer the most, the poorest countries, or, conversely, will curb the appetites of the rich?

Konstantin Simonov: Here we should rather say that the stratification in the society of both poor and rich countries will increase. The so-called middle class will disappear. But, of course, this will more strongly affect the economies of the third world countries. They are now being offered to switch to expensive energy sources. Developing countries answer that they do not have enough money for old money either - and they are immediately offered to take "green" loans. No problem, in the West there is a lot of extra money that will have to be paid with interest. I would call it "green neo-colonialism". Very similar to the story of loans for structural reforms that were distributed in the 1990s to the independent republics of the former Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe.

But in rich Europe, the stratification of society will intensify. The first call was already - this was the movement of yellow vests. Ironically, representatives of the "green" movements took an active part in it, although the rise in fuel prices, which they opposed, was caused precisely by the government's green agenda. According to our estimates, taxes collected from electricity producers for industry in the EU have increased by more than 80% over the past 10 years. In the fuel segment, the situation is even worse.

But if the world goes green, then, in theory, traditional energy sources should get cheaper? Konstantin Simonov: Quite the opposite. We do not see any breakthrough technological solutions in the field of renewable energy sources. But we are seeing an increase in prices for raw materials required for the production of solar panels and wind turbines. At the same time, a de facto ban is introduced on investments in oil and gas projects. But the extraction of oil, gas and coal requires constant investments in geological exploration, infrastructure, development of deposits, investments in scientific and technical development, and so on. As a result, all this can lead to an increase in hydrocarbon prices. All energy resources, both traditional sources and alternative energy, will become expensive. Because they will not be enough for everyone. But, I repeat, European regulators are only happy about this - they understand that only expensive hydrocarbons make economically meaningful their projects like the massive distribution of expensive "green hydrogen".

Then the question arises, why does Europe need this, and is it only a matter of ecology?

Konstantin Simonov: Of course not. Europe, like the United States, has long seen that the center of economic development is shifting towards countries such as China or India. This began back in the 1990s, when production facilities began to be transferred to Asia. At the same time, Europe began to lose its status of technological leadership. Now Europe is trying to slow down the economic development of China and other Asian countries, declaring their economies out of date and climatically dangerous. And at the same time, the EU is trying to create a demand for new green technologies, the center of the generation of which Brussels sees itself.

Doesn't India or China understand this?

Konstantin Simonov: I think they do, although they may not yet fully understand the magnitude of the problem. Undoubtedly, the interests of the economic development of these countries will seriously collide with the goals of the climate agenda. After all, they are, in fact, offered to slow down their economic growth in order to achieve rather controversial goals. What is economic growth? After all, it is not only the strength of the state and its weight in the international arena. This is the well-being of people, their way of life, its duration, the benefits of civilization, and so on.

Is this where the turn towards hydrogen energy originated? Can it be an alternative to the development of renewable energy sources?

Konstantin Simonov: This is not an alternative, but just an addition. The energy of hydrogen is always secondary. To get it, you need electricity and raw materials - gas, coal, water. As a result, energy from hydrogen will always be more expensive than the resources spent on its production. This is a story suitable for a very rich, well-to-do world. We are still far from this. It is worth considering that Europe, for example, is only interested in green hydrogen - obtained by electrolysis using electricity generated from renewable energy sources. It is initially expensive, and hydrogen energy will be even more expensive. How to make it so that this energy can compete with that obtained from hydrocarbons? There is only one way - to increase taxes on the generation of energy from oil, gas and coal. This is now being done, including by increasing CO2 emissions charges, which have already reached $ 100 per tonne. But this is not enough, apparently, they will grow to $ 200. This is the only way to make "green" hydrogen somehow economically competitive. But this will only lead to even greater increases in energy prices. Nuclear energy and innovations in traditional energy can become a real alternative to the development of renewable energy sources. China is already building clean coal-fired power plants. Their energy is more expensive than dirty ones, but not as much as renewable energy sources or hydrogen. What can we say about the prospects for gas, which is initially much cleaner than coal.

Last question then. Will Europe achieve its goals of decarbonizing its economy?

Konstantin Simonov: I think not, how they did not achieve the goals of the program for 2020. How they failed the goals that they set under the Kyoto Protocol. By the way, we have fulfilled it. Everyone somehow forgot that RES were originally conceived as sources of the cheapest energy. The idea was simple. Sun, wind - they are almost always there, and it seems like you can get almost free electricity from them. But it turned out that there are serious technical problems - they did not learn how to store energy on an industrial scale, dependence on the weather led to the unpredictability and fragility of the system. All these problems promise to be solved for thirty years, but things are still there. And without this, you have to have reserves on traditional sources. But the European Union is still holding its own line, which for now can be described as "let civilization die, but we will achieve our goals."

bbabo.Net