Downloads: |pdf| |doc| |epub| |fb2| |illustrations|

The term decarbonization is known to everyone now. Suffice it to mention the decisions taken by the oil companies:

• Shell — zero СO₂ emissions by 2050;
• BP — reduction of emissions by 30­-35% by 2030. Achieving net zero emissions in the entire production chain by 2050, as well as reducing the intensity of emissions from all products sold by 50% by 2050. Increase in renewable energy capacity from 2.5 GW in 2019 to 20 GW by 2025 and up to 50 GW by 2050 Increase in biofuel production from 22 tbp to 100 tbp in 2030;
• Total — reducing emissions by 30% by 2030 and achieving zero target for net emissions by 2050;
• Eni — reduction in absolute emissions by 80%and emission intensity by 55% by 2050. Zero net carbon footprint for exploration and production by 2030;
• Equinor — achieving zero emissions by Cessation of APG flaring and reduction of methane emissions to almost zero by 2030. Growth of renewable energy capacities to 12-16 GW by 2035;
• ExxonMobil — reducing the intensity of methane emissions from oil and gas production by 25% by 2025;
• Chevron — reduction of emissions in the oil industry by 5-10%, in natural gas — by 2-5% by 2023. Investments in thermonuclear fusion;
• Baker Hughes — reduction СO2 emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieving net zero СO₂ emissions by 2050 in accordance with the Paris Agreement on the climate;
• Gazprom — reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 3.8% by 2024when transporting natural gas;
• Rosneft — prevention of emissions of 20 million tons of СO₂ until 2035, 30% reduction in the intensity of emissions in exploration and production, the volume of "green investments" for 2018-2022 is 300 billion rubles. The energy saving program implementation to reduce emissions by 8 million tons of СO₂ eq. until 2022;
• Tatneft — achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. Reducing СO₂emissions by 10% by 2025, and by 20% by 2030.

Note that achieving zero СO₂ emissions or achieving carbon neutrality (Scope 3) is possible only when oil and gas production is stopped or the asset is withdrawn from the company, since it is in this case that the zero carbon footprint from the company's activities is achieved. As you can see, this global project should radically change our life in the foreseeable future. But first, let's skip the subtleties of the decisions made by the companies and dwell on the question — what is wrong with carbon, which is a part of organic molecules and is the basis of life, and why is it necessary to get rid of it?

To do this, it is necessary to find one’s position about the meaning of the term decarbonization and what the origins of this project are. The first one is pretty easy to figure out. This term implies the switch to low-carbon energy sources — renewable (solar, wind, tidal), the use of hydrogen, thermonuclear fusion, etc. The second point is not that easy to figure out. It is believed that the main reason for decarbonization is the negative impact on the planet's climate of carbon dioxide emitted during fuel combustion. In this regard, it is assumed that decarbonization will prevent or reduce global warming.

Problematic issues of justifying decarburization

According to various studies, there have been periods on Earth with much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Therefore, the global warming is not so global, but is the current climate change. In particular, in the era of dinosaurs, our Earth was a green planet; in the Arctic and Antarctic, remains of heat-loving flora and fauna are found. There is ample evidence that the Great Cooling occurred just over 13,000 years ago, after a planetary catastrophe. It should also be emphasized that in the operative part on the expediency of Russia's joining the Kyoto Protocol, the Russian Academy of Sciences issued its verdict — “The Kyoto Protocol has no scientific substantiation” [1].

Dynamics of carbon monoxide change
(from the works of N. M. Gavrilov)

When considering the principles of decarbonization, a number of questions immediately arise. First, it is completely incomprehensible why the main reference is precisely to carbon dioxide, which contribution to the heat balance change is only 9-26%, unlike other greenhouse gases, the main of which are water vapor (contribution 36-72%), methane (4-9 %), and ozone (3-7%) [2].

Recently, there has been a tendency to switch to hydrogen energy, but, as V. S. Litvinenko rightly noted at the webinar “Hydrogen Strategy and Key Trends in Energy Transition”, this direction carries a whole set of unresolved problems caused primarily by the high combustion temperature of hydrogen. This leads to a decrease in the resource of engines, furnaces. In addition, it is necessary to create special pipelines, storage conditions, to reduce the cost of hydrogen production, etc. This is probably why the position of the Ministry of Energy, voiced by P. Yu. Sorokin, is reduced to the implementation of a reasonable approach to hydrogen energy, and at the same time, in his opinion, Russia should not ignore this direction.

But for some reason no one notices that the use of hydrogen energy will definitely lead to an increase in water vapor, which makes a greater contribution to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. For all that, the output of water vapor is multiplied in comparison with conventional fuel. For example, burning one kilogram of traditional fuel produces about 1.2-1.4 kg of water vapor, while burning hydrogen — about 8 kg of water vapor. For all that, if hydrogen is obtained by steam conversion of methane, then again, as a side effect, we have carbon dioxide. To carry out this process, as in the case of water electrolysis, it is necessary to expend energy, for which to burn hydrocarbons. As a result, taking into account the EFFICIENCY of all these processes, the consumption of hydrocarbons will not decrease in any way. Minatom representatives believe that the electricity generated by nuclear reactions is clean, and the problem of hydrogen production is being solved without any harm to nature. But for all this, they, probably quite by accident, fail to take account of the fact that nuclear waste from nuclear power plants cannot be classified as harmless to the environment.

There are projects for the injection of carbon dioxide into oil reservoirs for the purpose of its utilization and as a method of enhanced oil recovery. In this case, there is also a one-sided approach. If CO₂ is injected, then energy must be spent on it, for which hydrocarbons are burned. In addition, as practice shows, injected carbon dioxide reappears with oil in production wells over time, which only indicates a delay in this process.

Particular attention should be paid to another greenhouse gas — methane, the concentration of which in the atmosphere increased from 715 ppb in the pre-industrial era to 1774 ppb in 2005, that is, almost 2.5 times, in contrast to the increase in carbon dioxide from 280 ppm in the pre-industrial era to 379 ppm in 2005, i. e. by 36% [3]. However, much less attention is paid to reducing methane emissions, the main source of which is gas and oil production, compared to decarbonization. For all that, it is believed that the greenhouse effect from methane is 25-28 times higher than that of carbon dioxide.

The question may arise — where did methane come from in the pre-industrial era? Significant natural emissions of methane are known, which are caused by cracks along which methane and other hydrocarbons migrate from the depths of the earth. According to O. G. Sorokhtin and A. S. Ushakov [3], the emissions of methane from “black smokers” — cone-shaped peaks hundreds of meters high in the rift valleys of the World Ocean — are estimated at 10 million tons per year (10 billion м³ per year ). The calculations carried out by F. G. Dadashev and others have shown that in the area of ​​the Apsheron Peninsula, during the eruption of mud volcanoes, billions of cubic meters of gas and several million tons of oil are emitted per year. V. D. Skaryatin and M.G. Makarova [4] showed that with such an intensity of migration only during the Quaternary period about 410¹² tons of oil would naturally seep throuth the planet's interior, which is twice as much as its currently known geological reserves and 7 times more recoverable reserves. According to G. I. Voitov, about 0.44 billion m3 of hydrocarbon gases are emitted into the atmosphere from the surface of the West Siberian Lowland annually.

Methane emissions by black smokers

All this testifies that the natural migration of hydrocarbons to the planet's surface, including methane, was quite considerable at different times, but has grown essentially in recent decades. However, we will repeat — much more attention is paid to methane emissions as compared to the decarbonization process.

Overview map of the oil and gas content of the Ciscaucasia with deposits and mud volcanoes (from the work of V.P. Gavrilov)

Second, it should be remembered that there are natural reasons for the carbon dioxide emissions, which include the processes of respiration, fermentation, decay, fires, and volcanic activity. Therefore, one of the main subjects is the relationship between anthropogenic and natural carbon dioxide emissions. The definition of this indicator is complicated by many factors. More than half of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by land biota and oceans, and the rate of this absorption does not remain constant, but increases. Therefore, the balance of carbon, hydrosphere and lithosphere in the atmosphere can be calculated approximately [5, 6].

According to works [2, 5], the total anthropogenic CO₂ emission for 2011 did not exceed 8% of its natural annual cycle. Note that this is less than one tenth of the total emitted CO₂, but we are witnessing massive introduction of decarbonization processes. According to another work included in the list of extremist literature, this figure is much lower and is at the level of 1%. It becomes obvious from this information that this subject is clearly politicized.

The influence of financial and political forces on science

In order to find the truth about decarbonization, it is necessary to separate the political component from the scientific one. History knows many examples of when science, and not only it, was ruled by financial and political figures. For all that, this applies not only to history, when the winners rewrote it at their discretion, but also to natural sciences. Suffice it to recall the persecution of genetics, that hindered the development of this science for quite a long time. Moreover, the reasons for these persecutions undoubtedly existed and are related to racial and national characteristics and differences that someone really did not want to reveal.

Even the very fact of our civilization’s getting hooked on the oil needle was caused by certain financial circles. Let us recall the unique inventions of N. Tesla, about which the newspapers of that time wrote. He managed to get electricity from practically nothing, of course, in the modern understanding of science, since no one canceled the law of conservation of matter. N. Tesla has repeatedly demonstrated his achievements and even published in the newspaper the design of the device for generating electricity. What did we see in the end? His inventions were literally destroyed, and his technologies were classified by the US special services. There is not a single copy of the newspaper describing the technology. More than a hundred years have passed, but we do not see that something similar to the Tesla device was started up in the United States, even under the slogan of decarbonization.

Among home scientists, it is worth highlighting the unique projects led by Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences D. S. Strebkov. His team managed to independently walk the way of N. Tesla's inventions and implement transformers with unidirectional energy transmission (82 patents), create solar cells with the world's maximum efficiency of 25% (hundreds of patents), and solve the problem of wireless transmission of electricity across the oceans. All the developments are prototyped and tested in various industries, including aerospace. Under his leadership, the dream of physicists was realized — the unification of four types of interactions. However, we do not see the realization of his developments, which could have buried all existing energy, including the oil and gas industries. Instead, the works of D. S. Strebkov were not published in the reports of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the operating equipment was sent to a scrapheap, the contracts with foreign suppliers were destroyed.

Another striking example is the works of V. S. Leonov, who, on the basis of the created super unification theory, managed to develop a working model of a fuel-free propulsion system. However, despite all his efforts, the unique development turned out to be IN NO DEMAND in Russia, but IN GREAT DEMAND abroad.

Instead of the introduction of REALLY CARBON-FREE ENERGY, there is a transition to a kind of surrogate — the use of wind, tidal energy, and hydrogen energy. Switching to these supposedly clean energy sources will not improve the current environmental burden on the planet, but will increase the payment for it and, accordingly, MAKE THE SOCIETY MORE CONTROLLED. Actually, this is what the existing decarbonization campaign is being started for. Behind the outer mask of the economic structure change and concern for the environment, the REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH is being planned. Otherwise, that is, with a real concern for the environment, the unique existing developments for the production of “atmospheric” electricity and its transmission would have long been implemented everywhere.

It looks like SCIENCE IS SPECIALLY TURNED to someone’s needs direction, hindering the introduction of advanced ideas and technologies, although outwardly quite different slogans are being put forward. A striking example of this trend in Russia is the Commission for Combating Pseudoscience of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Naturally, the question arises — who needs it? The correct path of the civilization development is dangerous for those who are afraid of losing their financial and political power. And this is not some kind of misunderstanding or mistake, as it might seem at first glance.

It should be noted that the questions raised on the true path of the development of science go BEYOND THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SCIENTIST’S ETHICS. Our future depends on understanding the laws of nature, because on the basis of scientific ideas about nature, various technologies and equipment are created, that is, the world in which we live. If our ideas about nature are wrong, then this will lead to the inevitable collapse of civilization. Suffice it to recall the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, the consequences of which could have been much more crucial for humanity. Modern society has already come to the REAL ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER on the planet. Therefore, out of purely theoretical concepts, the question of the development or degradation of science turns into a question that concerns everyone.

Finally, the inconsistencies in the imposed decarbonization, first of all, point us to certain conclusions regarding the benefits for the financial and political circles. Therefore, we will try to understand this problem without political overtones.

The real reasons for the need to reduce oil consumption

Previously, we proposed a hypothesis that allows us to solve fundamental unsolved problems in the geology and development of oil fields — formation of oil in sedimentary and magmatic rocks, the existence of various types of oils, replenishment of reserves in the long-term developed fields, the discrepancy between the age of oil and the age of the host rocks [7]. The hypothesis is based on a completely different concept of matter and a different view of our planet’s organization. In particular, our planet is not only a physically dense substance that we can observe with the help of our senses and devices, but also the spheres of other matter that are invisible and not felt. All these spheres, like nesting dolls surrounding the Earth, are interconnected, resulting in the synthesis and decay of physically dense matter under certain conditions. First of all, this should be attributed to the atmosphere, which is partially lost in the form of a gas plume during the movement of the planet and is replenished if there are conditions for this. It is this more complex structure of the Earth that proves the observations of V. I. Vernadsky that the geochemical system of our planet existed earlier and is currently in the state of STABLE DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM.

However, the replenishment may slightly differ from the original when the conditions for the synthesis of physically dense matter change. Therefore, all current calculations of the cycle of elements and their compounds, for example, the considered carbon, are approximate. This factor can explain the difference in the component composition of the atmosphere over geological epochs and shorter periods of time.

According to the hypothesis presented, oil is the waste from the former vital activity of organisms, but not in terms of the existing disposal of organic matter and subsequent known processes, but in the form of the spent primary matter after the death of organisms, which are utilized in certain areas of the depths of various types of rocks [8]. Of course, this utilization is conditional, since part of the hydrocarbons, as noted above, still ends up on the planet's surface. But the disposal of hydrocarbons makes it possible to partially separate the living and inanimate nature because of the special qualities of oil hydrocarbons.

These special qualities require separate study. Earlier, we tried to find a reference through studies of the isotopic composition of carbon С₁₃ and С₁₂. It is known that most plants have a special preference for the light isotope of carbon, which is confirmed by theδ₁₃С parameter in the range —22 ‰ ÷ —35 ‰ with the carbon content in atmospheric carbon dioxide δ₁₃С = —7 ‰ [9]. The δ₁₃С parameter characterizes the deviation of the isotopic ratio of the sample from the standard. Methane from magmatic rocks is the heaviest (- 8 ÷ — 18 ‰.) [10, 11]. In the first approximation, this could indicate the harmfulness of heavy carbon, but this plant selectivity is due to the favorable conditions for photosynthesis for light carbon dioxide. For all that, it was found that under severe environmental conditions and aging of the human body, there is a decrease in the content of heavy isotope С₁₃ from —21 ‰ to —24 ‰ [12], i. e. heavy isotopes are necessary for the functioning of the animal world.

The study of the isotopic composition of carbon did not help to confirm the statement made by B.V. Makov [9] on the destructiveness of carbon in oil and gas. More informative could be studies on the effect on wildlife of carbon dioxide obtained from the combustion of hydrocarbons and from the combustion of organic matter without reference to the isotopic composition of carbon. In our opinion, the statement on the destructiveness of carbon in oil and gas, as an element of former life, may be more convincing than reducing СО₂ to prevent the warming of our planet. Therefore, from these positions, the switch to the low-carbon technologies, and even more precisely to the technologies with minimal use of oil and gas carbon, is certainly necessary. But outwardly, this is presented as the need to reduce СО₂ to prevent the warming of our planet.

The main conclusions

Thus, according to the scientific data, human anthropogenic activities in the production of carbon dioxide account for only about 1-8% of all emissions. Therefore, emissions of carbon dioxide caused by human activities should not have any fundamental effect on the greenhouse effect. The much larger, multiple increase in methane in comparison with the pre-industrial era did not provoke decisive actions comparable to decarbonization. The decarbonization imposed on the society is practically not related to the actual processes of improving the ecological situation on the planet, but has as its goal an increase in the cost of energy and energy resources for the consumer and, accordingly, an increase in the degree of the society control.

At the same time, the carbon contained in hydrocarbons, in comparison with the carbon of biochemical gases, can have a negative effect on living nature, and therefore it is absolutely necessary to limit and, finally, stop the production of oil and gas. Replacing the existing traditional and renewable energy sources should become REALLY ENVIRONMENT FRIENDLY DEVICES for generating electricity, proposed and tested by different scientists in the last century.

References

1. Pavlenko V.B. The Paris Agreement as the Threat to the National Security of Russia // Astrakhan Bulletin of Environmental Education. — 2017. — No. 4 (42). — p. 34.
2. Gavrilov N.M. Physics and theory of climate. Part 3. Radiation factors of climate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324606359_Fizika_i_teoria_klimata
3. Sorokhtin O.G., Ushakov S.A. Development of the Earth. — M., Moscow State University Publishing House 2002. -- 559 p.
4. Skaryatin V.D, Makarova M.G. Geofluidodynamics of hydrocarbons and replenishment of deposits. In the book. "Geodynamics of oil and gas basins". — M., RGUNG, 2002 .-- p. 213-219.
5. Fedorov B.G. Carbon emissions: carbon balance of Russia. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/vybrosy-uglekislogo-gaza-uglerodnyy-balans-rossii
6. Brovkin V., Bendtsen J., Claussen M. Etal. Carbon cycle, vegetation and climatic dynamics in the Holocene: Experiments with the CLIMBER-2 model // Global Biogeochem. Cycles. 2002. Vol. 16.No. 4.P. 1139.
7. Iktisanov V.A, Shkrudnev F.D. Mysterious dark oily liquid. M .: JSC "VNIIOENG", 2019, 104 p.
8. Makov B. V. Refusal from Anglo-American-European technologies. http://www.salvatorem.ru/?page_id=3140
9. The use of 13C isotope marker for the assessment of the parameters of growth and accumulation of carbon by plants / A. A. Artyukhov, G. Yu. Grigoriev, A. N. Rublev, S. A. Senchenkov and others. // Perspective materials. — 2011. — No. 10. — p. 1-5 /
10. Alekseev F.A., Lebedev V.S., Ovsyannikov V.M. Isotopic composition of carbon of biochemical origin gases. M., Nedra, 1973, 88 p.
11. Zorkin L.M. Genesis of gases in the underground hydrosphere (in connection with the development of methods for prospecting hydrocarbon deposits) // Geoinformatics — M., 2008. — №1. —p.45-53.
12. Mikhailova L.P, Fridman Yu. M., Ignatovich N.V. Stable isotopes as a marker to determine the biological age of a person and the degree of environmental pollution. https://ineca.ru/?dr=library&library=bulletin/2002/0084/011.