At first I will give a small spoiler, the partial answer is that the gas does not belong to us but to future generations, and also that the price of environmental damage is not calculated in the prices of gas and oil. The drillers and middlemen will benefit but the rest of the public will pay the price
Note – this article is not political, as everything I wrote is based on scientific consensus. As I have been telling opponents of warming for years, nature does not know how to distinguish between rightists and leftists - everyone will suffer and is already suffering from warming and its effects. Also in relation to the gas plan, my position is not political but stems from environmental and economic considerations and from thinking about future generations. As a 'social business' operator, I am allowed to take care of future generations as well, despite the ridicule I receive for this.
As a veteran reporter for the environment (The field in which I started my journalistic career) I have been worried for thirty years. In the mid-XNUMXs, we talked about the pollution from the refineries and the electricity company - and nothing changed, except that the refineries went from government ownership to tycoon ownership and the pressure on the government and the municipality shifted from the workers' committees to lobbyists. We talked about the need to prevent damage to the ozone and recycling.
Starting in the mid-nineties, an issue began to surface global warming, and it turns out that even in this matter the matter only got worse. Although the awareness is increasing, but again and again the oil giants manage to delay its treatment and even turn it into a political issue, even though the earth belongs to all of us, and denial will not cool it down.
Let's also mention that a few years ago tycoons tried to sell us the frozen treasures of oil shale, And in that case the court was able to rule in favor of the residents of the Halla Valley.
The residents of Arad were less fortunate, the lobbyists managed to bring about a decision to excavate the Barir field under the residents' noses, despite the residents' protest and despite the wall-to-wall agreement of all the professional bodies in the Ministry of Environmental Protection and the Ministry of Health.
And so it happens in the gas outline as well, the voice of a tycoon prevails over the voice of millions of residents and it is good that the Supreme Court ordered its cancellation and not only for the official reason of the stability clause but for much more important reasons.
Such a field will cause Israel's emissions to increase and not decrease, despite the commitment presented by the Minister of Environmental Protection and the Prime Minister at the Paris Climate Conference . The economic explanation is quite simple: although gas is more economical per unit of energy than oil, but while Israel only imports the amount of oil it needs, the gas will pollute us, but most of it will be exported, and therefore the emissions per capita in Israel will increase and not decrease.
Look for the interests of the supply chain
So why not switch to clean energy? Simple, because the value chain of solar energy, for example, is much shorter than that of oil or coal. Production, transportation and storage of the fuel is required, and this creates a livelihood for a lot of middlemen, starting from the oil producers, through transport companies and more. Building a solar power plant is not much cheaper than building a conventional plant - about a billion dollars, but after that, the source of energy is provided for free, and this entire value chain, except for the electricity producers and carriers, collapses.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but there is evidence for it: not long ago, the heads of OPEC, and in particular Saudi Arabia, announced that their intention is to flood the market with oil to make green energy projects unprofitable and then raise it back to even a higher price. Those who remember, following the oil crisis in the seventies, massive developments of oil substitutes and green energy began, for example, even then the oil countries saw the threat, flooded the market and the ventures were closed due to lack of viability.
Not to mention that behind the global warming denial campaign are oil producers and the most prominent among them - The Jewish Koch brothers – Refinery owners in Texas. They distribute tens of millions in donations to politicians, mainly in the Republican Party, to such an extent that in the previous elections, all but one of the candidates expressed an unequivocal position against the actions to stop the warming, that the damage is theoretical but the real cost, and more. It's good by the way that in the current election the issues of warming are not at the top of the agenda, and there is a reason for that - the voters became disillusioned and even those identified with the Republicans saw that it was impossible to ignore the reality.
You just have to look out the window
Israel is also starting to feel the warming. For years I have been telling the warming deniers that to feel the warming they just need to open the window and see the damage of the drought. It turns out that this argument has an unequivocal proof when the International Geophysical Union conducted a comprehensive study that included Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Jordan and more - mainly by measuring the thickness of tree rings that changes between dry and rainy years. andIt turned out that the same drought in the eastern Mediterranean, which has lasted except for short one-year breaks since the end of the nineties, is the longest in 900 years. That is why we accepted the crises that led to the Arab Spring with or without quotation marks, and in particular the civil war in Syria. Those who think that oil and coal are cheap, refused to include in them the price of the wars that arise because of their emissions, as well as the waves of refugees (from Africa to Israel, from Syria to Europe), not to mention the fatal damage to the agricultural sector.
In addition, you must have noticed that the rain has stopped coming from the north and is starting to come from the south. Ask the farmers in the Jezreel Valley.
There is no consideration of the cost of the wars caused by the warming
Man does influence his environment but does not control it. It's a subtle but important difference. In this it is no different from any other living creature that when the environment changes it uses a combination of two tactics - migration and an attempt to adapt. We still see the Alps today Plants that grow today in higher mountains than in the past to return to the same conditions they had at lower elevations, not to mention animal migrations, for example, changes in the pattern of bird migration, and not only macroscopic creatures that migrate, but also microscopic ones, for example, viruses such as Sars and the avian and swine flu, and in the agricultural sector - and the most famous of them, The Miss Bees and the extinction of bananas by a virus that spreads throughout the world.
In the West, perhaps, at least for the time being, they are managing to overcome the symptoms of warming, for example Israel has begun to pour water and even transfer it to its neighbors. But in countries with shaky infrastructures and a government that doesn't care about the citizens, such as Syria, there is no one to moderate the impact of climate change by one means or another, no one cares about it, but the ones who pay the price are the refugees themselves and the Western countries.
If the energy prices also took into account the indirect cost that global warming causes (which may cause the earth to reach a crisis point where in fact its price will be infinite), the governments in many countries, not only in Germany, would encourage massive use of clean energy unlike today where its use is marginal.
Streamlining
And as in the entire economy, also in the field of energy, disruption of the supply and demand curves by an unjustified price change creates inefficiency in the use of energy.
There are thousands of ways to save, we can give a few examples,
- Establishing a solar power plant near a water desalination plant and thus saving a lot of energy and lowering the price of water.
- There are solutions such as SMART GRID and electric vehicles
- It is possible to try a proposal that I made (unfortunately orally, so there are no documents) to the Electric Company and the Electric Authority to utilize the vast areas owned by the Electric Company and the existing transmission capacity to generate electricity from the sun as well. The refusal was absolute for the same reason, only this time the electric company went from the good to the bad. The electric company's argument was that it was not allowed to produce energy from the sun but only to buy from the private producers and it could compete with them. The head of the Electricity Authority at that time told me in a corridor meeting in the Knesset that it would not be effective (despite the vast areas). You would have thought that someone had checked it professionally, until later in the conversation he recited to me all the mantras of the opponents of global warming and I realized that they just want to suppress the production of energy without the supply chain protected by lobbyists.
- To optimize the storage capacity of the electric vehicles and to add additional energy sources to them, for example energy from the sun as a boost to electricity in order to reduce electricity consumption on the scale of millions of such cars, so for example it will be necessary to fill them with electricity only at night.
- Possibility to store electricity in power plants to deliver it to consumers only when there is demand - today the waste is enormous.
- And I'm sure there are more creative methods to optimize energy consumption with current technologies or small improvements to them starting from the individual level, through the city level to the level of the entire country and the national infrastructure.
in the name of future generations
The world is rightfully outraged that Daesh destroyed cultural treasures that are thousands of years old, but still does nothing to prevent greater damage caused not by the movement of a few tens of thousands of people but by 8 billion residents. The last three or four generations are destroying works of nature that are hundreds of millions of years old.
Economists measure countries according to the rate of growth, but this growth does not come without serious damage to the planet (for example, air pollution in China). Trees had to die hundreds of millions of years ago to become coal, and animals that filled the earth and became oil not for us to waste them in 100-150 years. It should be noted that we are wasting not only the resources of the past but also the resources of the present and the future - example - the cutting down of the rain forests, the extinction of animals and plants and more. It should be remembered that man is also an animal (from the ape family), and evolution applies to him as well.
In view of all this, the gas must remain in the ground in order to
- Do not add to warming.
- Not to cause a halt to alternative energy projects as happened in the seventies.
- Since the transition from an oil-based economy to a clean energy-based economy will be gradual (and some worry that it will be extremely slow), our children in 20-30 and even 50 years will also need it. We have more than enough - first we will streamline and then we will make sure to increase the output. Future generations will thank us.
However, since politicians are thinking about the next elections and the more distant future is not an influential factor (for example, the cancellation of the position of Commissioner for Future Generations in the Knesset), they should be told that we should not wait for the next generation: the crisis is already here, and the reminder of it is beyond our northeastern border.
More sources
58 תגובות
skeptic
Have you heard of Fraptom Movila?
skeptic
I was on the site of wind power plants - when the electricity is not needed, the excess power is used for water distillation. The station is on the seashore, in a desert area.
skeptic
Since you are in the know, two questions (if more for me):
1) The output of the device that is indicated in the data in the appendices of the legal document (in the table next to the picture) is there an output of heat or electricity?
2) Is there somewhere a comparison between these data and data of existing power plants?
A message that includes the main findings of an annual test report (in a cold fusion reactor that produced 1 megawatt) are included in the message I just wrote, the message is delayed (perhaps because it includes a link to a court document). The findings prove without a doubt that cold fusion in a Russian cold fusion reactor produces a huge amount of energy at a ratio of at least a factor of 6. (A multiplier of 6 means that each kilowatt invested in the reactor creates 6 times more energy).
This document is downloaded from the United States District Court
Southern District of Florida website
.
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Leonardosuit01-main.pdf
Rossi's complaint to a court in Florida regarding the development and marketing of ECAT. I don't currently understand what the agreement is about, but as part of the agreement, details are given from the trustee's report on the annual experiment in a 1MW cold fusion reactor. According to this report the COP of 1MW is above COP=6. That is, on average, for every kilowatt hour invested in the reactor, the reactor produces more than 6 kilowatt hours (energy). The contract is in a PDF file and is 27 pages long.
Hope the insertion of the link will not delay the publication of this message. In any case, there is probably free access to court documents for any newspaper that wants.
Regarding the quality of the experiment. It is about energy generation and energy consumption at a rate that is on the order of a billion watts, measurements of water flow of many cubes through the heating pipeline, measurement of energy created is according to temperature differences before entering the reactor and after leaving the reactor.
According to the huge quantities and the simple calculation method, the calculation errors are negligible.
The document was submitted to a court in a civil case, so the court will examine the facts and may call the expert examiner FABIAN PENON, whose name I think, to testify. He is an engineer with a PhD in nuclear reactor engineering or something like that.
Anyone who wants to rant about cheating or miscalculations can go ahead. As the lovable Einstein said: human stupidity is almost infinite.
Those who understand interest understand that in the coming years massive commercial activity will begin for the production and marketing of cold fusion reactors: the dogs will bark at the caravan but the caravan will continue on its way.
skeptic
Catch up on a book written by a journalist about a convicted crook? Is this how the scientific method works for you?
Fascinating 🙂
discouraged
Indeed, a main bottleneck for the use of solar energy is accommodation. You should not despair, it is possible that within 100 years they will find a solution to the problem of storing electrical energy.
In the meantime you are right, solar energy is not usable and it is a waste of money invested in current technology. I don't think the blame lies only with the greens, there are many to blame from all directions. As with wind energy, here too there is no cost-effective electrical storage method, so it's a waste of money.
A. Ben Ner
What I said to Nisim and A. It is also partly valid for you - that's why I have no interest in responding in detail on the matter beyond what I mentioned and what I say here.
I am content with bringing the important facts in the LENR (information "on one leg") and beyond that, as the old Hillel said, beyond one leg the duty on you is "by the way a complete waste".
In order to understand what is going on in LENR research you need to study much more than a weak entry in the Hebrew Wikipedia. who deals only with old-fashioned matters from 1989. Although the Pons-Fleyman experiment is important, its importance is understood only by LENR researchers, not by the general public who draw nonsense conclusions from it.
Overall -
I noticed that most of the commenters here, when they express an opinion, they rely on information gaps that they know of, spice them up _with naive logic_ and draw conclusions.
Relying on Hebrew Wikipedia or a semantic interpretation of words proves nothing. An insult to intelligence and nothing else.
The editor of the Wikipedia entry is not up to date with the scientific status of LENR, let's say the science of cold nuclear reactions. He is stuck in terms of his knowledge in 1989 and based on his poor knowledge he may draw wrong conclusions.
Now your reliance on semantic interpretation (your words about "room temperature") shows how you don't know what you're talking about. When talking about a cold nuclear reaction, LENR, there is no intention of a reaction at room temperature but of a reaction at a temperature lower than 3000 degrees Celsius. The upper limit of temperature 3000 Celsius is derived from the fact that most of the materials used in known technology cannot be used for a long time at a temperature higher than 3000 Celsius. For example: turbines for generating electricity work at most at gas/steam temperatures of 1600 degrees Celsius (this is so that the turbines will work for decades almost without interruption).
And more about temperature. In the advanced version of Ikat reactors that Andrea Rossi is developing today, the version we call Ikat-X, he had to produce reactor cores with a shell made of _composite materials_ so that the cores would work for a long time without corrosion or material fatigue. (See entry "Composites").
I don't want to bring links here because it will delay the publication of my response. But says without links:
In June 2016, a two-day conference is planned in Stockholm. The conference is organized by technical journalist MATS LEWAN. Regarding the latest innovations in LENR science with an emphasis on ECAT.
The conference may be canceled if the report of the annual experiment in a large 1MW cold fusion reactor is not published to the general public. In any case, about 20 experts expressed their willingness to present their positions at this conference. Among the experts is Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate in physics who proved (contrary to what was accepted at the time) that the property of "superconductivity" can exist at temperatures that are not close to absolute zero. Another important participant is one of the managers of the robotic manufacturing company ABB (or a similar name). This company has a great reputation as a leading robotics company, this company doesn't deal with bullshit. Andrea Rossi is in close contact with the company for the production of robots ABB with the intention of producing relatively cheap fusion reactors using robots, this may be the background for the participation of one of the managers of ABB in the conference.
Sorry if there were spelling and typing errors in my words. I did my best to avoid them (within a reasonable time frame).
last words
Those who really want to understand what is happening regarding LENR and regarding ECAT technology are recommended to read the English book AN IMPOSSIBLE INVENTION by the technical journalist MATS LEWAN. The book can be purchased immediately from the AMAZON store. The second edition of the book is updated until December 2014 and includes the description of the Lugano experiment, this is a 32-day public experiment supervised by 6 senior scientists. The Lugano experiment is worth more than the Michaelson Morley experiment, but it is currently hidden by academia because it proves the validity of LENR in ECAT technology. The so-called "there is no prophet in his city".
A third edition of this book is planned to include the annual trial of the 1MW reactor, the 1MW reactor is a megawatt LENR reactor.
A.
Stay in the realm of legends because that's all you understand. Most of your words are fundamentally wrong as he said and therefore you have no chance of understanding how the scientific method works. To understand how the scientific method works, one must first not engage in erroneous hashes.
As of today, the green energy people are money suckers like the last of the tycoons. Agreements are signed and locked to buy electricity during non-need hours at a rate of 2 to 4 times the production cost of fossil electricity.
I would not be at all surprised if it turns out that behind every successful solar farm there is a diesel generator that produces real electricity.
All that supporters of solar electricity lack is the ability to store huge amounts of electricity for the cold winter nights. This little thing separates a real idea from a teenage fantasy.
I have an idea too. All I'm missing for Star Trek is an engine, not bad for now I'll start with upholstery for booster seats I don't think any entrepreneur will be willing to invest a lot in such a project. Ah, sorry, there is a government, it finances with nobody's money projects that sound good/aspire to be good/engrave well.
Benner
If I'm not mistaken, the legend says that cold fusion will release the energy directly into electricity. It would be a magical process with no risk no contamination ridiculously cheap and simple. Cold fusion will save us from any energy shortage and the depraved scientists are just working to prevent it. But a day will come soon and the cold fusion will reveal itself and punish all those who did not believe in it. That is why it is possible and necessary to continue to pollute freely because in any case the problem will be solved soon and every home will have a cold fusion device that will cost only NIS 10 (except for the bad scientists who are trying to develop green energy such as wind and solar, they will not accept)
People need to understand even though science has discovered that it is possible to do things that seemed impossible. He also discovered what could not be done. It is impossible to blind the speed of light, it is impossible to go back in time and it is impossible to perform fusion without bringing the atoms to a very high energy.
Regarding what is called "cold fusion"
If it is cold then it does not emit energy
If it emits energy then it is not cold
In addition, see a quote from Wikipedia:
Cold fusion is a field of research that deals with testing the feasibility of nuclear fusion at room temperature. Such a process, if it were possible, could be a cheap and available source of energy. The "reverse" process - nuclear fission - is used to produce energy in all nuclear reactors.
Although success in the realization of cold fusion processes was announced several times in the past, all attempts to repeat the experiments failed. It is agreed among physicists that there is no known process of cold fusion, and it seems that such a process is not possible at all.
The announcement of a couple of well-known scientists in 1989 about performing cold fusion, aroused a lot of media and scientific interest, but ended up becoming an embarrassing event, when it turned out to be a laboratory error.
skeptic,
"There is no intention of proving this to the academy (which only hindered the research for years). Instead, the suitability of cold fusion reactors will be left to the judgment of the general public, who will buy the reactors and judge for themselves."
What you say makes sense, i.e. we will not put this (supposedly) proven revolutionary technology up for review, but let the public judge, just like with homeopathic remedies flooding the market, where the public has judged very wisely.
For everyone who fantasizes about a melting pot in a few years, and thinks that in the meantime it is possible to pollute freely.
A. Building a melting pot is a huge engineering and technological project. To date, they have not been able to build one that produces more energy than it needs to operate. Perhaps in 2019 they will finish building the first reactor that will produce energy, it will cost 10 billion euros and will produce only 500 megawatts. It just isn't. Not cheap either. The cost of operation and maintenance are also not small at all. Skeptic's extension "that the first cold fusion reactors will be sold to the general public within 10" sounds like we can buy them at the grocery store. Not every technology is discounted over the years, uranium reactors, even though they have been around for decades, still cost a fortune each (in contrast to solar collectors, which are constantly decreasing in price).
B. Maybe we'll wait for a cold melt? It turns out that it is already better to generate electricity from the tremendous energy that is in the horns of unicorns
third. If the greenhouse effect increased linearly, it might be possible to say let's wait for a perfect technology that will solve all the problems. The problem is that the process accelerates itself. The glaciers melt and less light is reflected, a huge amount of carbon dioxide may be released from the ice layers, and energy consumption increases. Can't wait! We must reduce the pollution already yesterday.
third. But there is good news, a huge melting pot has already been built. Huge enough that it can supply most of the electricity to the whole world!
The one who built it is God (who is an atheist and the word hurts can replace it with the word "nature"?) Of course I mean the sun, which is true that it is not the magic solution that we wanted, but already today it can provide at least most of the energy for humanity and in an economic way, certainly with long-term thinking that understands that the drop in the price of oil temporarily. Even if we continue to burn fuels at night, at least we will reduce the pollution enough to gain enough time to find better solutions or more efficient ways of storing energy.
For anyone who has any doubt - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)
skeptic
You wrote "The report proves (apparently) _clearly_ that cold fusion takes place". That is, 100% certainty... Maybe 🙂
And that's another good part of your delusional response.
Miracles
I've told you before. What do I think of your poor understanding of scientific matters? Besides raising your voice and blaspheming, you understand nothing about delicate matters. Your understanding is based on dubious sources that you consider to be true since you do not have the ability to understand on your own what is true and what is not true.
On February 17, 2016, an annual experiment in a large cold melting reactor ended and on March 30, 2016, a strict annual monitoring report of the operation of the reactor was delivered. The report proves (apparently) _clearly_ that cold fusion exists and is capable of providing energy in large quantities. The strict monitoring was done at the request of investors in the amount of approximately 62 million dollars (at least) who intend to market the reactor or a similar reactor as soon as the product is ready for marketing. The previous experiments with ikat reactors also proved that cold fusion works, but there is no intention to prove it to academia (which only hindered the research for years). Instead, the suitability of cold fusion reactors will be left _to the judgment of the general public_ who will buy the reactors and judge for themselves directly.
The report may be made public if and when the investors agree to it (according to commercial considerations they have regarding the timing). The sale itself may be several years away when the product is ready for marketing.
I have no more to add. I am not ready for idle arguments with people who argue without knowing what they are arguing about.
skeptic
Again with the cold cutting practices? 🙂 Not enough with this farce?
Censorship again? Two of my messages have now been put under MODERATION supervision
Oded,
You seem to be more aware of the energy market than most. (If my memory serves me correctly, you also commented at the time on the question of the feasibility of producing fuel in Israel from local oil shales.)
Therefore, I draw your attention to the fact that cold fusion energy is on the verge of commercial launch. I estimate that the first cold fusion reactors will be sold to the general public within 10 years after solving problems of costs and maintenance that have nothing to do with nuclear reactions but with the wear and tear of materials.
Once cold fusion reactors, LENR, enter the market there will be heavy market pressure on fossil fuels which will result in low fossil fuel prices. It seems to me that all fossil gas investment considerations in Leviathan will have to be re-evaluated.
[In context I will state that my opinion is that even today the chance of exporting gas from the Leviathan field is a low chance - all because of geopolitical problems that Israel has which is surrounded by hostile countries. Since Israel is surrounded by hostile countries, it cannot supply cheap gas to Europe through an underground continental pipeline]
Yigal
There is no evidence that global warming by the end of the century will be more than one degree Celsius.
In addition to that, within 50 years energy production will mostly switch to energy production from cold fusion reactors, the so-called LENR. So that the consumption of fossil fuels for energy purposes will decrease (you will not ignore that there will still be types of energy consumption that are not possible using electrical energy).
A messy and unclear article. Even the most important sentence in the article, which is supposed to be "simple", is not really simple and explains nothing:
"The economic explanation is quite simple: even though gas is more economical per unit of energy than oil, but while Israel only imports the amount of oil it needs, the gas will pollute us, but most of it will go to export, and therefore the emissions per capita in Israel will increase and not decrease." what? Can you explain what this sentence means? In the meantime, all I understood was that gas is better than oil. Therefore, it seems that the sentence actually supports the removal of the gas from the sea, contrary to the claim that the article tries to assert.
Meanwhile the article seems clearly unconvincing, and despite the initial pretense, as if all the reasons are scientific, it seems that the article was written from the heart and not from the mind.
The idea in the article is fundamentally correct, but in order to develop a smart grid and not use coal and petroleum distillates (diesel and fuel oil) to support the system (in general, I will mention that solar does not work at night and the storage capacities are currently very weak, therefore the large stations that rely on fossil fuel must provide the higher consumption from 17 p.m.: 00 to 20:00 and of course in the morning. That's why we also need large stations like in the past to support the network) Natural gas turbines are needed and therefore it is of utmost importance to keep natural gas in Israel, establish a smart grid with renewable energy components and use gas slowly to support the system Over time, and provide redundancy.
The keep it in the ground is not catching on at the moment because Tamar has been injecting gas for 3 years and 60% of our electricity is produced from natural gas. Most of it is converted and a minority from the LNG buoy near Hadera. Our dependence on gas has only increased and that is why the government's condescension to energy companies such as Noble and Delek. A smart grid will reduce this dependence considerably. But for that you need people with a vision and fearlessness of the lobbyists (who have already shown how they get rid of politicians)
Gal
Not everything is corruption (not that there isn't any). There are times when a situation really arises where even leaders with good will encounter difficult dilemmas because of the system. (A lot of the state budget comes from taxation, which is generally intended to reduce fuel consumption)
Look, look, when the temperature rises in another 2.5 degrees, the people will go berserk and the politicians will run like poisoned mice to the scientists who will answer them with the famous "we told you so" and then it will be too late.
What you are actually saying is that there is a lot of dirty politics here.
There must be some way out
On what basis do you say that there is not enough wind and solar energy? (You can also add to the list energy from waves and tides)
There are many studies and calculations that show the opposite.
Nuclear reactors are not a magic solution and have many disadvantages and risks. When everything works it really doesn't pollute, when there is a malfunction there is a huge disaster. The more miners there are, the more disasters there will be. And in the meantime, no one has managed to build an efficient melting pot, although many are trying. You never know how many years will pass before they succeed.
The world ignores the simple truth.
The threat of carbon energy is twofold:
1. The amount of oil and gas in DHA is final and you have to prepare for the day after.
2. Carbon energy pollutes and warms.
On the other hand;
It will never be possible to satisfy the energy requirements of humanity through solar and wind energies.
therefore;
Only nuclear and/or hydrogen energy will be an efficient and clean substitute (!!!)
for carbon energy.
Crazy idea
Eliminate the special tax on oil products almost entirely.
Then supplement the budget from other sources, let's say increasing the VAT (apart from food) in such a way that the burden on the citizen will remain more or less the same because the tax on fuel is already rolled into almost every product. A law will be enacted that the special tax (besides the VAT on fuel like any other product) that will remain on fuel will be used solely for the purpose of reducing the use of fuel. That is, every shekel from the tax on fuel for private cars and taxis will be used to subsidize public transportation. Every shekel from the fuel tax of an electricity company will be used to subsidize green electricity.
In the beginning there will be a low special tax and if the years will increase it.
On the one hand, in the short term, fuel will be cheaper and there may be an increase in usage. But right after that, subsidies for green alternatives came out. It is also possible to give a reduction in the special tax for a certain period to industries that will present an investment in energy efficiency even if they are not yet using green energy. In fact, any increase in the use of fuel will make the use of green energy more profitable and fuel less worthwhile.
You have to understand, in the distorted situation that has been created, the protector neither wants nor can remove the infection. Because any decrease in consumption will cause a budget hole. Thus Israel is one of the most polluting countries and with the highest tax on fuel.
Solar energy is already at the Grid Parity stage, that is, at the stage where no subsidy is required for its use, but there is one big problem - the sun does not shine at night! When a good solution is found for storing energy on a large scale (on the order of tens/hundreds of thousands of megawatt hours, for comparison, electricity consumption at peak times in Israel is 10,000-13,000 megawatt hours) and with reasonable loss rates, everyone who is blessed in a geographical area saturated with sunshine hours will pass For solar energy, it will not only be more environmental, but also more economical. Whoever invents an efficient and cheap solution for storing electrical energy on an enormous scale will not only be a millionaire, but will also receive the Nobel Prize...
Just to demonstrate the problem of the electrical energy storage crisis of the modern era: how many smart phone owners will agree to pay 3-5 times for a battery that will guarantee 2 times longer time for the same order of magnitude (weight and size) of a battery? In my estimation, close to 90%... the world is waiting for a breakthrough in electric energy storage of a reasonable size and weight compared to a standard lithium-ion battery, when this happens it will be possible to use an electric vehicle for hundreds of kilometers between charges, and the streets will soon be filled with scooters / motorcycles / commercial / Electric trucks / buses, just as today they are full of electric bicycles... this is the future and it will happen, the only question is when. The efficiency of an electric motor far exceeds the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, and an electric motor is much more economical than a standard car engine, one only needs to invent the right battery to bring about the revolution. Already today, experiments are being conducted in Israel on a limited number of electric buses (with technology similar to the standard lithium-ion batteries) that will be based on overnight charging / fast charging using 'supercapacitors', if this is successful - it will spread by itself, because an electric engine is much more economical than an internal combustion engine Gasoline / diesel based (not only fuel cost, also maintenance).
Generating electricity from renewable energies within the boundaries of countries is not applicable when it comes to non-continuous sources (wind, sun, as opposed to water that can be stored in reservoirs behind dams) as long as there is no effective ability to store electrical energy, the most economical 'storage' is connecting electrical networks of geographical areas Relatively distant, such as the European network, where distant countries back each other up during peak consumption times (depending on the time of day, which varies between distant places). There are conduction losses in the transmission of electrical energy over long distances, but these losses are low compared to any other currently known means of storing electrical energy, including 'pumped energy'.
There are plans to connect Israel (via Cyprus) to the European grid, which will also remove Israel from its current status as an 'electric island' (in the absence of connection to electricity grids in neighboring countries, mainly due to political considerations and also due to shaky electricity generation and relatively low volumes around us), will enable the sale of electricity to countries Europeans in low times in the country, and will provide cheap foreign electricity in times of peak consumption instead of generating at a high cost and with fuel that creates a lot of pollution. The problem is that such an underwater electricity cable is relatively expensive, depending on political factors, will pass through Cyprus where electricity is quite expensive, and may lead to a situation where Israel will generate electricity for Cyprus, meaning it will create excess air pollution in the country for the needs of a foreign country. Israel will also have to keep enough power generation capacity for itself in case of failure / sabotage / political mess, which will create additional costs of maintaining stationary power generation stations most of the time. But if you want to start the topic of electricity production in Israel from renewable energies economically, the main key is the connection with the European network.
Thanks. What a drag
Apart from being a source of energy, natural gas is also a raw material for the production of a variety of central chemicals such as hydrogen, ammonia, methanol and acetic acid (vinegar) used in the production of fertilizers, chemicals for medicine and agriculture, and ethylene and propylene used in the polymer industry.
A reduction in natural gas exports will enable the development of local industry and increase and diversify the local production of these chemicals. In this way, it will lead to a reduction in the import of many chemicals into the country and the supply of many jobs, and so on to the economic independence of the State of Israel.
The chemical industry in Israel contributes a significant part of the country's GDP and serves as a source of employment for many of its citizens. On the other hand, it has a great contamination potential. For example, using natural gas to produce ammonia will make it possible to reduce the transportation of ammonia in the sea and on land by producing ammonia near the largest consumers of ammonia in Israel - the fertilizer industry, and without the need to store ammonia in large quantities as is currently the case in Haifa Bay.
Methanol, which is used both as a cleaner fuel and as a starting material to create many chemicals, is also produced from natural gas and is currently imported into Israel. In addition, ethylene and propylene, two central chemicals in the production of bags, bottles and plastic packaging - are produced from ethane and propane, whose main source is natural gas.
Israel's gas economy policy, which should have been at the center of the Zemach committee's discussions, must be broad, inclusive and long-term. But instead of profiting from natural gas several times and using it for economic profit, social welfare and improving the quality of the environment - the committee's decision on the extensive export of natural gas interrupts its value chain in Israel and transfers it to other countries.
(by Professor Adi Wolfson)
*Sell all the gas..*
flame
There is no reason why Israel cannot succeed where Europe succeeded with much less sun. True, they paid money for it. But they earned a lot, even with reduced air pollution (it is true that the greenhouse effect works on the whole world, but most of the pollution is localized. Less pollution, less cancer and diseases)
Another thing. For a moment you say that there is no near solution for renewable energy. And wait, you say that we must source all the gas quickly.
Finally
I don't completely rule out nuclear reactors, but you also have to take into account high protection and security costs if you want to build one in Israel.
to Snofkin
The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is certainly an intriguing and promising venture, but we are still very far from translating these developments into large-scale practical applications.
Regarding your claim regarding other uses of natural gas, I would be happy to receive external sources that support your general statement. If this were indeed the case, I would expect to see much more widespread use of natural gas for purposes other than fuel production and conversion to electricity. Today, the refining and cracking processes of fossil fuels are mainly channeled to produce fuels (about 95%), while the rest of the petrochemical industry is satisfied with only 5%, most of which are by-products of the cracking and refining processes. We have nothing to do with so many polymers, what's more, the production of most of them is not applicable as part of an on purpose process but only as by-products, but the main thing is that you spoke decisively.
There are other solutions besides the roofs - and by the way, in places where there are large roofs like chicken coops it is worthwhile, so it is certainly worthwhile in the vast areas owned by the Electric Company. Regarding miners I agree with you. The ongoing pollution from oil is many times greater than the damages of a nuclear accident. Indeed, one of the problems is the quality of the environment, and in general with regard to decisions whose results will be expressed only in the fourth term after the politician retires. Thus long-term considerations are always in last priority.
to enthuse…
How many points:
1) As they published not long ago, a nanometer catalyst was developed that converts solar energy into hydrogen with 100% efficiency. It is definitely a good solution for energy storage.
2) Natural gas is much more profitable when it is used as a raw material in the chemical industry for the production of more expensive materials. Its value chain is also much longer this way. Burning it or selling it is the most primitive use that can be made of it. The point is that even in 50 years there will be a use for natural gas and its price will be higher so it's a shame to rush and burn it all now.
*So, as you said beautifully - it's a shame that you are incredibly pretentious about your advice in a field that you clearly don't understand...
Legal
Not so fast. Fossil fuel reserves can in theory be enough for much more than that. With the technological development we are constantly finding more sophisticated ways to extract fuels from the land and the sea.
The ugly part of this equation is that the production costs rise steadily (even if not continuously), since we have already produced the easy-to-produce fuels a long time ago.
Take for example the gas shale in the USA and the energy revolution brought about by the technological development of production methods there (look for a historical graph of gas prices in the USA versus production volumes and see for yourself).
This is exactly the rationale behind the assessments of the development of alternative ways of producing energy that are not based on fossils (mainly nuclear energy in a large KNM and renewable energy), it will simply take more time. This is an industry of enormous scope, and it takes many years to change direction.
My conclusion from this whole story is that until the Messiah comes riding on a green donkey, we need to hurry and extract the gas we found in our puddle as quickly as possible. In any case, in 50 years it is expected to lose most of its value. In the meantime, we are berating ourselves by dividing the bear's skin, while the body rots safely in the heart of the sea.
No.
Installing solar collectors to produce electricity on the roofs of private houses is a clearly uneconomical solution, mainly because of the cost structure and the incredibly low efficiency.
The Electricity Authority was also present in the flesh to discover that money does not grow on trees, and that despite huge subsidies given to households in this field (artificial rates and disconnected from reality) and despite the attempt of quite a few players to enter this industry - it failed to take off.
In this economy, there are built-in advantages to size, there are management costs and regulatory system, and the collectors themselves suffer from a limited shelf life, to such a level that at a reasonable interest rate it is not even possible to guarantee the investment return (principal + interest) for the economic life of a home collector.
The only green solutions that seem promising today are several orders of magnitude larger - new generation nuclear power plants, such as the one currently under development in Germany.
This is an energy that is much cleaner than what we are familiar with, very competitive from an economic point of view (it can definitely compete in a sophisticated market with coal and gas-based power plants even without the need for artificial fuel) and much safer to use than traditional power plants. The trouble is that the nuclear industry suffers from very bad public relations (eg Chernobyl and Fukushima), and mainly has to deal with a deadly cocktail of conservatism, ignorance and opacity of the political echelon (all over the world, not necessarily in Israel).
As a result, we're not likely to see fourth-generation nuclear reactors on the market in the next twenty years (it's a very expensive toy to develop), but hey - at least we've got some gas and oil to burn until then.
I heard that in another 50 years all the polluting fuel in the ground will run out, then we will already be able to breathe
Beautiful !
flame
It is true that switching to renewable energy is not free. It is true that in many years we will also have to use polluting energy. But if Europe managed to lower the usage by dozens of percent, then Israel can do much more.
It is possible to take some simple measures, even like providing subsidized loans to citizens to install receivers on their houses.
Oil prices will not stay low forever. The world is now in recession when it goes to growth the demand for oil will increase, not to mention underdeveloped countries that could wake up. As was the case with China (Hod, and African countries for example).
my father
There is no doubt that you are right that this should be the solution.
On the other hand, it is clear that it is not simple at all and not only for the technical reason. For example, the state also needs to collect more taxes to make up for what was reduced from taxes on fuel, for example. Of course, this distant mediation will pay off.
I agree with Assaf about immigration. Global warming has very little if any contribution to the issue. The Arab Spring was not created because of drought. And the poverty that exists in the Arab countries does not stem from a crisis in agriculture there because of failed to the point of corrupt management and lack of development. Also from Africa there is more immigration because the rate of reproduction is much greater than the economy there can grow.
I just hope the trick of lowering oil prices and then raising them stops working in the end. And that it will happen before the damage is irreversible.
It's a bit of a shame that you are incredibly pretentious about your advice in a field that you clearly have no understanding of.
Solar energy sounds like a wonderful solution to laymen, but the economic reality proves that another vision has passed.
What do you know about the energy efficiency of photovoltaic cells or thermosolar installations compared to the efficiency of CCGT type power plants?
Are you aware of the differences in the construction costs, or in contrast - the maintenance costs of photovoltaic stations? I would be happy if you could direct us to effective and proven solutions for energy storage that are not of the pumped storage type.
Unfortunately, energy is also consumed in the hours of darkness, and therefore the electricity sector is obliged to have a mix of power plants that is able to provide energy even in the off-peak hours.
There is much to be done to move to more sustainable energy consumption, and also to adjust the production mix to take into account environmental costs, but your article does not meet the professional standards of someone who claims to challenge the status quo.
And a word with you regarding the gas outline - 'Nostradamus' down here is right in at least one thing - the gas that has been lying in the belly of the earth for ages will continue to lie there forever if we don't bother and extract it in the coming years, if only because the costs of future oil and gas production are expected to rise to levels that will require a massive investment in R&D for the development of alternative fuels, until the extraction of gas from the existing reservoirs becomes uneconomical.
And of course, referring to your gloss about the environmental pollution with gas - since CO2 emissions (as you know) are not particularly good at reading policy maps, they tend to affect global pollution and this is the perspective in which they should be considered. Any transition from coal or oil-based energy production to gas-based energy production means a significant pollution of the emissions, even if your synthetic calculation regarding "pollution per resident cow" in the country yields a different result.
The most widely used newspaper in the country is Israel Hayom...
But the most common means of communication in the country is Facebook and each of you can help - go to the Facebook page of the science site, and share the article with any relevant group. You can also do it directly but then I won't have statistics on how far the article has been distributed.
https://www.facebook.com/hayadan
To respondent A. I wrote what the solution is - efficiency and transition to alternative energy with a more serious attitude than until now.
my father
But what about the fact that natural gas pollutes much less than oil and its products, not to mention coal which is also used for electricity in Israel.
Of course I am against exporting the gas. But leaving it in the ground sounds excessive to me.
A week ago I was in Palm Springs, there are thousands of wind driven electricity turbines.
Like the Hoover Dam project, a blessed project of clean energy that initially encountered difficulties but proved its worth, thanks in large part to government help.
Political is related to government (there may be a more precise definition, it doesn't matter). So yes the article says what he thinks the government should do. But I think my father meant that it has nothing to do with the political camps, that is, nothing to do with Yamin or Shmuel.
Nostradamus
My son, you are talking nonsense again. You let me down again. I will ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to take you under his protection and beat you with a bone. You will have no choice but to memorize the books of St. Augustine.
Even without reading the content of the article,
Obviously, his intention was political...
One of the biggest problems is the special tax on oil products. The tax was originally created to reduce usage. But the money is used for government expenses (of course important things, security, education, welfare). But once the money enters the general budget, the state has no real interest in lowering consumption. This is not a conspiracy. Let's say a MK builds a plan to encourage citizens to place photovoltaic collectors on their roofs, and say the plan costs half a million (just a number) an official from the treasury will come and tell the ministers (which is not entirely a lie) the plan costs another 7 million for a tax official (the electric company will buy less fuel) and even Minister will not want cuts. Same story with cigarettes. I am not against a special tax on things that the state needs to reduce consumption of, but there must be a monitoring mechanism that the money does not enter the general budget so as not to get the opposite result. All the money should go to finance and tax benefits for green energy. Of course, now it will be difficult to get it out of the budget.
My father - do you think you can get this into the daily press, perhaps the most widely used newspaper in the country!?
You are wrong ,
Like you, I am also aware of the pollution and emissions caused by the use of mineral fuel,
but :
A - The warming is already here and indeed there is an essential need for the present but also to prepare for the consequences,
B - Energy production from gas causes less emissions,
Anyone who produces energy from gas will save on pollution even if it is non-Israeli parties,
C - If all the goodwill installations for the utilization of renewable energy will be a source of energy
especially for future generations,
D - Mass migration is also caused by population explosion,
And after all that, and after seeing some of the comments,
It turns out that the origin of the conservatism that appropriates wisdom
To one side of the political map does not result from excessive wisdom...
It turns out that today you can buy gas and transport it to Israel at a cost of 60% of the price of the gas in the map. In other words, according to the outline, Israel will pay billions to foreign companies and some tycoons more than it could pay to import gas. Why? Because the heads of state want to maintain their ties with the tycoons. Lucky to have an unbiased supreme court.
my father
Excellent! Despite the stupid reactions of our boring friend.
And despite everything against your noses and anger, the gas will come out of the ground and you will forget about the government for another 2000 years when your damages will be repaired and you will rest in Berlin
future generation? Do you who run a scientific website really believe that fossil fuels will still be used in the future? If not now, the gas will remain underground forever and no one will see a shekel from it, neither welfare nor science, nobody...
It is hard for me to believe that you are so gullible, so what remains is that you are against Israel, its economy and its political situation, like any common leftist, inside of which this is his own agenda, and even a thousand denials will not help