How to turn a country into a human desert
Earlier this year, when the US and Germany were clarifying their positions on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, the deal later included Germany’s commitments to compensate Ukraine for the loss of money for the transit of Russian gas.
As the German edition reported at the time Handelsblatt, Berlin and Kiev have agreed on a joint project for the production of hydrogen fuel. Ukraine should help the European Union to get rid of “dirty” thermal energy by 2050. In the medium term, Ukraine will be able to supply 7.5 gigawatts of hydrogen to the EU (almost a fifth of what should be produced in the EU by 2030). This is how the organizers of the energy transition portrayed a “bright energy future”.
During her last visit to Kiev in August, Angela Merkel also developed the theme of the “hydrogen project” for Ukraine, saying that “in 25 years Europe may refuse to purchase Russian gas or consume less of it,” therefore, “Kiev needs to engage in the production of hydrogen and” green “energy”.
In general, such manilovism is not common among politicians, but, apparently, this can also be sold to a Ukrainian client. It is known: decarbonization requires monstrous costs, and alternative energy in terms of economic efficiency is not able to compete with hydrocarbon and is supported by government subsidies, tax incentives and a “green tariff”, which consumers are forced to pay.
same Handelsblat writes that the EU’s dependence on Russian raw materials is undesirable, but at present it cannot be avoided: “There is no alternative to oil and gas from Russia. However … in the post-oil era, dependence on Russia will need to be urgently reduced … This means that Germany and the EU should promote the development of renewable energy sources and the production of hydrogen … in Ukraine, North Africa and other neighboring countries … Russia wants to market hydrogen from natural gas and nuclear energy, if necessary, even much cheaper to get competitors out of the way … and Europe must resist these temptations at any cost – primarily because of climate protection. ”
Experts distinguish between “blue” hydrogen, obtained from natural gas (this is the main method used by industry to produce process hydrogen, but does not provide any benefits in terms of reducing carbon emissions), and “green” hydrogen, produced by electrolysis from water. In the second case, the source of energy can be nuclear power plants, which are absolutely “carbon-neutral” and provide very cheap electricity, but the environmental lobby imposed on the German society a panic fear of nuclear power. Therefore, only hydrogen is now considered “clean”, extracted from water at the expense of energy obtained from solar and wind power plants.
However, in such a scheme, hydrogen acts as a carrier, not a source of energy. It, energy, must be spent to obtain hydrogen from water (by dividing it into hydrogen and oxygen atoms), and then “in the right place” to obtain energy by combustion (combining hydrogen and oxygen atoms). The fundamental laws of physics, which politicians cannot abolish, do not allow this process to be carried out without tangible energy losses. Experts say that the efficiency of such a system will not exceed 20-30%.
Environmental ideology is based on the assumption that economic considerations can be neglected. However, the question arises: why do the Germans want to develop the production of “green” hydrogen far beyond the borders of the Fatherland (in Morocco, in the Ukraine)? After all, transporting hydrogen thousands of kilometers away is a very expensive undertaking, “hydrogen pipelines” are much more expensive than gas pipelines. Why would Germany invest hundreds of billions (we are talking about capital investments of this magnitude) in other countries, and then pay tens, if not hundreds of billions annually for finished products, if it seems that this money can be left at home, where they will work for the German economy?
The answer is obvious: you don’t need it. The creation of capacities on renewable energy sources requires the alienation of vast territories, and there are none in Europe. Wind power plants already have to be located in the offshore area, which significantly increases their cost. For the energy transition, we need lands free from people!
Hence, the interest in North Africa is understandable – there is the Sahara, the largest desert in the world, where there are plenty of lands unsuitable for any other economic use. However, Ukraine is not a desert yet ?! More than 70% of its territory is agricultural land; another 15% – forests, the rest – settlements, industrial facilities, infrastructure.
The answer is obvious here too: huge plots of land will need to be alienated for windmills, solar power plants, close enterprises, liquidate settlements, and evacuate the population. This requires a massive population reduction. For example, as a result of repeated waves of “pandemic” and related activities, which ultimately should “free” the territory from people.
Now in Ukraine, the area under forest tracts is being freed up through their predatory felling. If the Europeans are anxious about their own forest lands and have banned their industrial felling, then they twist their arms to Kiev, demanding that the restrictions on the export of round timber be lifted. The thieves’ origin of the exported timber is not seen at close range.
The impending alienation of agricultural land for solar power plants and windmills (it is not for nothing that the West insists on the earliest possible free sale and purchase of agricultural land!), Which will leave millions of people without a source of livelihood, makes us recall the fencing in England of the 15th – early 19th centuries, when feudal lords drove the peasants from the land, giving land for sheep pasture (wool trade is much more profitable). This is how English capitalism grew. “Sheep began to devour people,” they said then.
The English peasants left without land emigrated to the colonies, and now the Europeans have their own interest in the Ukrainians. When Yanukovych was negotiating an association agreement with the EU (2013), then-European Commission President Romano Prodi said that “cooperation with Ukraine is facilitating an influx of new labor.” And in order for the influx of cheap labor from a certain territory to arise, it is necessary to sharply lower the standard of living on it, so that its inhabitants move to earn a living in foreign lands. Now this is happening.
Ukraine has become the most convenient reservoir, fueling Europe with cheap, disenfranchised labor. A resident of workers is much cheaper than a European worker. And the transformation of the whole of Ukraine into an exclusion zone (desert) for wind turbines and solar power plants will only accelerate the formation of a desert.
… A beggar source of cheap labor, a raw material appendage, a landfill for the location of industries that cannot be developed at home – this is how its Western partners see the future of Ukraine.
If you notice an error in the text, select it and press Ctrl + Enter to send the information to the editor.