Clean energy or an uncomfortable deception?
A Swedish girl stands on a podium at the United Nations, talks about climate change and how we are "stealing the future" by using fossil (or dirty as the elites love to call dinosaur juice) energy. Everyone is moved, feels sorry and immediately governments commit to sign agreements where the world is forced to cut oil, natural gas and coal without adaptation process or consolidation of us the vast majority of humanity to the supposedly green alternatives.
Suddenly everything that uses coal and its derivatives to move must disappear and its users thrown into the bonfire of contempt in the name of the fight against climate change, blaming those of us who find the solar, lithium or wind alternatives too costly or simply inaccessible for our underdeveloped world. But the reality indicates that the process of mandatory transition to clean energy will be traumatic and will lead to a real energy hell, not because of the increase in temperature due to climate change, but because of the reduction in the supply of hydrocarbons and the lack of effectiveness of non-carbon alternatives.
According to Bloomberg magazine, the transition process towards the adoption of the so-called clean energies will take decades, so we will continue to depend on fossil fuels until industries and power plants can generate energy without inconveniences. In other words, the road to the adoption of non-fossil energies will be tortuous, where shortages, inflation, reduction in the supply of goods and unemployment will be the daily bread, coupled with a context in which the fiat financial model is crumbling, the effect seems to be that of a nuclear bomb.
And what makes this mandatory transition process dangerously hard is that no matter whether your country is the richest in the world or the poorest, everyone will in some way suffer the effects of this energy divorce. The situation in the British Isles is just the tip of the iceberg, the elites gave the order: no investment in the fossil energy industry, from now on the money of the institutions will go towards clean energy. The United States, Europe and China complied with the order signed in Paris and were reducing their fossil energy capacity towards other more environmentally friendly ones, producing subsidized battery cars or closing plants that expel coal or run on uranium in favor of solar panels or windmills.
With the pandemic this process of "energy decontamination" was not noticeable, as human activities were reduced as a result of the world quarantine, the use of natural gas and other petroleum derivatives reached such low levels that for a moment the prices of these fuels were close to zero. But now the pandemic is over (but not Covid), people have to go back to work, there is more fiat money than ever and it is necessary to spend it, the problem is that no one notices the fact that non-polluting sources do not efficiently supply our inexhaustible need for consumption, that job is very well done by coal, gasoline, diesel and other derivatives obtained from black gold.
This year we saw how the price of electricity reached unprecedented levels in places like Texas, where a snowfall that in other times would not have meant an insurmountable obstacle in this opportunity became an economic drama caused by general blackouts where the economically weaker ones lost out. This same situation is being perceived in Europe and China, where high natural gas prices make life impossible for the inhabitants of the former and industrial decarbonization causes unbearable blackouts in the Asian giant.
China is the world's largest manufacturer, practically everything is made in that country and when we observe that most of everything we consume comes from industrial regions that suffer severe energy difficulties that will force a reduction in the production of goods and therefore make world trade more expensive. In addition to energy difficulties, the world's reduced logistical capacity and the limited supply of fertilizers, the latter of which are also hydrocarbon-based.
On the other hand, existing clean energies are intermittent, they require continuity in the supply of wind and sunlight, which has been particularly difficult this year. In Europe, windmills did not produce as much energy as expected, there were long periods of no wind and solar panels do not work at night or on cloudy days, something very common in the old continent. Likewise, hydroelectric energy is not enough to satisfy our consumerist life, the periods of drought in the headwaters of the rivers are prolonged, affecting the production of electricity. Necessarily, the politicians had to make concessions and allow the use of their precious natural gas, less polluting than oil and more effective than the clean alternatives mentioned above but more popular.
Given the reduction and disinvestment in the hydrocarbon industry the capacity to refine this energy is poor, therefore the fight for a key supply of these will be to the death and will make inflation unbearable as the adoption of clean energy methods consolidates to levels where it is possible to assume its functions without the help of dinosaur juice.
In closing I must say that for politicians everything is the fault of climate change and evidently this period of energy crisis will be blamed on this phenomenon caused by our addiction to hydrocarbons. I understand very well that the prolonged use of fossil fuels has a direct impact on environmental health, however I feel many doubts about the way we are forced to assume this new 'green' life, which could be considered gradually and not as rushed as we see it today. Climate change has been talked about since the last century and now they want to change a way of life to which they themselves accustomed us, perhaps in the future they will come up with another form of energy to replace this green deception.
