The EU countries have reached an integrated agreement on the development of renewable energy sources (RES). In December, they signed a directive on the intention to increase the share of renewable energy to 27% of the overall consumption by 2030. "Forpost" set out to understand how great the chances of saving our planet from global warming and environmental catastrophe if use RES.
Climatologists and conservationists have long argued that if the temperature on the planet increases by 2 degrees Celsius, we will not be able to reverse the situation and stop the melting of glaciers. The sea level will constantly rise; entire regions or even states will be under water. Considering the constant growth of the Earth population, that will lead to global wars, famine, and havoc.
To this day, mean air temperature has already increased by 0.9 degrees compared to the pre-industrial era, and we may well overstep the critical point in this century. How can we prevent this?
There is a popular opinion that only the development of renewable energy sources will save us. They will replace traditional oil, gas, and coal, then carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere will cease, and a happy future will come, wherein people will have minimal impact on the ecosystem. If we start from this judgment, the EU countries' agreement on the development of renewable energy is welcome, especially since the West is quite capable of achieving the declared indicators.
"This decision has a direct and positive impact on all Europeans. More use of renewable energy sources will help our cities, industries and homes to become cleaner, healthier and more reliable, "said Kadri Simson, Minister of Economic Affairs and Infrastructure, presiding in the EU Council.
Unlike his European colleagues, US President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris agreement on climate and completely ceased supporting renewable energy sources, despite protests from environmentalists and leaders of leading technology companies. What is the reason for this decision? Is it just a desire to save on the protection of the environment or does it have grounds that are more reasonable?
In fact, the number of supporters of Trump's position in the world is quite large and there are many explanations for that. First, due to the transition to alternative energy, the issue of providing the producing countries with the necessary raw materials is the most important one. The European states practically do not have their own deposits of rare-earth metals (REM) that very necessary for the operation of wind generators and solar batteries.
China almost monopolized this market today. It may happen that in the medium term, the talks that have been quieted recently about the energy dependence of Europe from Russia will change their vector. And then the executive authorities of the European Union will have to think, first of all, how to reduce the dependence on imports of Chinese rare earth metals, which has grown dramatically precisely because of the rapid development of the "green energy".
Secondly, the use of facilities generating alternative energy also leads to numerous environmental problems. Such as the destroying of the soil, flora, and fauna. Actually, they arise, for the most part, not where RES operate, but in those areas where rare-earth metals are extracted.
In China, local authorities often ignore the requirements and standards of the government, and also send funds for environmental protection activities to other projects that can give a competitive advantage over neighboring provinces.
However, even without these "excessive zeal", the production of the REM is unsafe for the environment. It is associated with the consumption of a huge amount of water and electricity. In addition, according to expert estimates, annually extractive industry companies of Northern China discharge about 10 million tons of highly acidic and radioactive waters without purification, and the production of 1 ton of REM concentrate leads to the formation of approximately the same amount of radioactive waste.
"In the production of each ton of rare-earth metals, 8.5 kg of fluorine and 13 kg of dust remain in the form of waste. And the use of defluoridation technology at high temperatures using sulfuric acid in the treatment of the REM generates 9600-12000 cubic meters of waste gas, which contains dust, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, as well as about 75 cubic meters of acidic liquid waste and about a ton of radioactive waste "– says the author of the book "China’s Rare Earth Elements Industry: What Can the West Learn?" Cindy Hurst.
The concentration of heavy metals in the areas of work and storage of industrial waste is 2-3.6 times higher than the background levels, which may pose a threat to the environment and local residents. It is interesting that this excess of heavy-metal concentration in soil is not considered dangerous in China since the limits set by the National Quality Standards are several times higher.
Obviously, such an environment contamination situation, typical for the Chinese rare-earth industry, categorically contradicts the principles of sustainable development of society. Therefore, economically developed countries implementing renewable energy sources will have to solve a very difficult task in the near future: how to help China to provide the necessary level of environmental safety of REM production, without raising the price of these metals and not reducing the volume of exports of deficient raw materials from the Celestial Empire. Otherwise, it will not be a very beautiful situation, when improving the environment in one place, European officials create the prerequisites for wrecking it in another place.
And, finally, the value of the matter. An ordinary person, as a rule, is not interested in how much energy is received by means of RES. Many believe that the essence of renewable energy is precisely that it is cheaper than traditional. At first glance, this is quite logical, because you do not need to drill expensive wells in order to get wind and solar heat, and transportation is also not required.
In fact, in the cold Russia, which is based on hydrocarbons, the average price of 1 kWh for the population is just above 3 rubles (ca. 5 cents). In a much warmer Germany, leading in the development of renewable energy sources, electricity costs 6 times more.
