Here’s a proposal from the International Energy Agency, which asserts that a 30% reduction can be obtained this year, with reductions over 50% in the longer term.
I’ve only scanned the summary so far, but plan to read the whole thing over the weekend.
29 thoughts on “Can the EU Significantly Reduce its Russian Gas Imports?..Even in the Near Term?”
“The 10-Point Plan is consistent with the EU’s climate ambitions and the European Green Deal and also points towards the outcomes achieved in the IEA Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Roadmap, in which the EU totally eliminates the need for Russian gas imports before 2030.”
It is the same old Screaming Leftie Green New Deal fantasy. Never let a crisis go to waste. The Usual Suspects are simply using the problem NATO created in the Ukraine to keep pushing their old plan.
What these Lefties ignore is the possibility that their initial failure to deal reasonably with Russia’s concerns, and their further failure to try to broker a peace instead of pumping in weapons, may result in a nuclear war which would devastate Europe (as well as the US). That would certainly eliminate the need for Russian gas!
I was about to post, if it says the key is solar/wind then I ain’t reading it…
My understanding is that the consensus is that Europe’s probably ok for this winter, as it is March already, but could be in trouble for next winter if things drag on that long. Which my guess is they will.
Given that OPEC shows no sign of being in any mood to boost production, and our own regime absolutely refuses to as well, I don’t see how they can replace what they get from Russia…
Gavin beat me to it.
The 10-Point Plan is consistent with the EU’s climate ambitions and the European Green Deal and also points towards the outcomes achieved in the IEA Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Roadmap, in which the EU totally eliminates the need for Russian gas imports before 2030.
I stopped reading there.
a pity he spread the slander against general flynn
consider the consequences of this conflict, if we don’t go nuclear, scarcity if not famine, massive economic dislocation, neither helps any proper prevention against current or future epidemics,
I recommend actually reading it. Largest single item identified is expanded use of non-Russian sources of natural gas–10 billion cubic meter via pipeline from Norway and Azerbaijan, and 20 to 60 bcm from LNG….the report states that there is sufficient regasification capacity for 60 bcm, but constraints on availability from the exporting countries make 20 bcm more realistic.
If this is correct (Germany is building 2 LNG facilities, which would imply they think there is inadequate capacity presently), then US production and liquification facilities, along with those in Qatar and the world LNG shipping fleet, become the constraint.
germany and azerbaijan have elaborate connections, thats what the whole galitzia scandal in malta was about, if ukraines gas reserves (found in the donbas) are unavailable, then qatar steps up, see the earlier thread, of course we aren’t expanding our ample capacity, because skydragon,
The high prices have already and will continue to curtail demand. Large industrial users are surely optimizing energy consumption and especially cost against production to reduce the impact on unit cost.
Behind that, it’s the same old; “If everybody would just do this we would save soo much energy .” that we’ve been fed the last 50 years and that never works out any better than the wind and solar that produce a tiny fraction of what’s promised.
For the short term, LNG imports are running up against limits to on shore storage and regasification. The South Koreans and Chinese might be able to provide moored water borne facilities faster than land based capacity could be built. The optimistic time frame is still a few years. At some, not too distant point, the limits of export and transport will assert themselves. Both export terminals and ships can be built but it takes time.
Most LNG capacity is committed to end users by long (20-30 year) term contracts, possibly a third is available on the “spot” market. I’ve noted on other threads that Chinese buyers have diverted cargoes to the European market from China. The high price increase it very profitable and reduced consumption in China makes it politically feasible. In a different year, the last condition probably wouldn’t apply. I’ll bet that Israeli/Greek gas field-pipeline is looking better.
Following recommendations like this is what’s given Germany the obscene energy prices they already have.
the one the regime, has pushed hardest to shut down
The magical thinking of the left/globalists suggests that we are headed for a crash of some sort. NASA is now giving up on space after billions spent and now NASA will focus on global warming.
There is no reality behind electric vehicles. Even Elon Musk is saying we need to expand oil and gas. The myth of the National Strategic Reserve is nonsense.
“I think that this 30 million barrel release was largely symbolic,” Siegel says. “The only way to get rid of oil and gas volatility and to protect people from price spikes or suffering is to get off oil and gas.”
More magical thinking.
David F: “Largest single item identified is expanded use of non-Russian sources of natural gas–10 billion cubic meter via pipeline from Norway and Azerbaijan, and 20 to 60 bcm from LNG”
That assumes that the sellers will be prepared to sell. For example, Norway has a small population and already has the world’s largest “rainy day” fund. It may make more sense for Norway to limit gas sales to what they need to pay for imports, and save some of the gas for their next generation. Something similar may apply to several other gas exporters, like Qatar or Australia.
Simple rule of thumb — if they are not talking about nuclear power, they are not serious. The IEA is not serious.
Talking about nuclear power — the nuclear reactor is simply a source of heat. Converting that heat into mechanical/electrical energy is subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics. The bigger the temperature difference between the hot end of the process and the cold end, the more efficient that energy conversion will be. And incidentally it takes energy to cool natural gas to liquify it to LNG, and it takes yet more energy to regasify it from LNG to useable natural gas.
A fellow got a patent for the concept of an LNG regasification plant integrated into a nuclear power plant, using the very cold LNG as the cold end of the process. Efficiencies could approach 100%. It would be entertaining to see Germany finding its best option for avoiding Russian gas would be to build nuclear power plants next to facilities full of combustible LNG.
Of course, building anything is going to take Germany 5 – 15+ years, depending on how many lawyers & activists get involved.
Simple rule of thumb — if they are not talking about nuclear power, they are not serious. The IEA is not serious.
Exactly. We are governed by a generation of well credentialed idiots.
An example is John Kerry.
In June 2014, Kerry’s predecessor as secretary of state complained about the impact of Russian money on financing “astroturf” environmental campaigns. “We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, ‘Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia,” Hillary Clinton said.
At least Hillary was sentient in 2014.
kerry has always been a traitor, biden a dupe, at best, the point is the damage to western civilization
The proposal does in fact discuss nuclear power: specifically, returning non-operating reactors to operation, continuing the use of ones now slated for shutdown, and the contribution of a new nuclear plant which is coming online in Finland. However, this saves only 3.7 bcf, compared with 9.2 bcf for ‘bioenergy’, which means I think mainly wood chips. There was no proposal for *new* nuclear facilities as far as I could see.
Nor did I see any mention of the proposed Israel-to-Europe natural gas pipeline, which was to have a capacity of 10 bcf and be completed by 2025. The Biden administration has withdrawn American support of this project:
“Biden is not only catering to Russia regarding the EastMed pipeline decision but also to Turkey, who is offended that it was left out of the EastMed pipeline accord. Turkey believes that it should be part of the pipeline project amid claims over natural gas in the east Mediterranean.”
David F: “The proposal does in fact discuss nuclear power: specifically, returning non-operating reactors to operation, continuing the use of ones now slated for shutdown, and the contribution of a new nuclear plant which is coming online in Finland.”
Exactly! Their plan has no new nuclear plant construction — and this in a world where China has 12 plants under construction to add to their 47 in operation, with another 212 in the planning process. In the not too distant future, the cost of energy will be so much higher in Germany than in China that German industry will become uneconomic — with or without Russian gas.
Those IEA guys simply are not serious — at least in part because the Germans are not serious.
No one in the Western media is telling people what’s going on.
Brazil exempted by Russian export ban of fertilizers, Russia will continue to supply fertilizer to Brazil, whereas Russia blocks fertilizer exports to the EU
Or preparing people for what’s coming.
It’s not the world vs Russia, it’s just the West, and for Team Grownup to have alienated Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, etc, is geopolitical suicide.
“Those IEA guys simply are not serious — at least in part because the Germans are not serious.”
There’s an old saying “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” If Germany is willing to stop shutting down its nuclear power plants, re-open the ones it already shut down, and build two new LNG import terminals, call it a win and move on. A major change in Europe is occurring that will make European civilization far less fragile than it currently is. That it doesn’t solve every problem is no reason to oppose this effort.
mkent: “… build two new LNG import terminals …”
You are right that something is better than nothing. But let’s not be cavalier about the challenges Germany will face in switching from lower cost pipeline gas to much higher cost LNG.
Those proposed import terminals are only a small part of the story. First, Germany needs a gas field (lots of wells & facilities) in some foreign land — sometimes a place with corruption and human rights abuses; then often a pipeline from the field to a shore with a suitable harbor; next a liquefaction plant to treat the gas and cool it to a very low temperature; then a fleet of specialized LNG tankers; a suitable port at the other end to unload the tankers; a regasification plant; and perhaps a pipeline connecting the plant to the receiving country’s gas distribution network.
All of that costs a lot of money and takes time to line up. Consequently, much of the global LNG trade is done under the long-term contracts necessary to justify the many investments. There are some excess volumes available, but those volumes are limited. It is not a simple case of “build a regasification terminal and the LNG volumes will appear”.
If Germany is serious about breaking its addiction to Russian pipeline gas, its only viable large-scale options are nuclear or coal. Germany’s most practical alternative is to do some virtue signaling … and then carry on depending on Russian gas.
Although the analysis doesn’t show any further development of nuclear in its gas-saving calculation, such development is in fact probably going to occur in several EU countries: France, with their long history of nuclear power use, Poland, is looking like an early customer for GE-Hitachi’s new Small Modular Reactor product, maybe the UK, where Rolls-Royce is working on a SMR project, though I don’t think it’s as far along as the GE-Hitachi effort.
US LNG export capacity:
Do you have any links to anything about the nuclear/lng plant? It sounds like an interesting concept.
But 100%? That sounds like it defies the laws of physics.
Of the top of my head though it reminds me of an experimental system the us army worked on in the 60s of 70s.
It used a small (10mw?) reactor to heat nitrogen then run it through a more or less standard gas turbine/generator.
So now you make me wonder if it would make sense to use a nuke to heat the liquid NG to vaporize it and heat it then run the hot gas through a turbine to cool it to a usable temperature for distribution. Maybe use the turbine to run the NG compressors for distribution.
Just a crazy idea of the top of my head. Probably needs more cogitation. It may be completely wacko.
A lot of people seem surprised that Musk woul be in favor of more fossil fuels. There is no logical reason they should be.
There seems to be a popular belief (not here) that batteries are an alternative to fossil fuel. They aren’t. They need to be charged with electricity to be useful.
No electric generation, no battery cars.
@300gw of additional electrical generation (300 nukes, 300,000 windmills, 40m sq/m solar) will be needed uf we go to battery cars.
Musk knows that short and medium term (30-50 years) the only way to get there is fossil fuels. Nukes too, of course but right now it takes 20 years to get one online. Hopefully mass produced modular plants will help there but we don’t know that yet.
So, perhaps even more than most, Musk needs fossil fueled generation to be successful.
Just in case there’s any doubt, I am all} in on nuclear energy and have been since the 60s.
We have been appallingly stupid about how we’ve developed it in the us.
In addition to generating capacity, we’ll also need to build a while new distribution grid to handle the 300gw.
From the 230kv distribution all the way down to the service entrance in your house and everything in between
John H: “Do you have any links to anything about the nuclear/lng plant? It sounds like an interesting concept. But 100%? That sounds like it defies the laws of physics.”
Sorry, no link. Info came from a discussion with the engineer who was filing the patent application.
The basic concept is consistent with Carnot theoretical maximum efficiency:
Conversion Efficiency = ( 1 – T.hot/T.cold )
where the source & sink temperatures are in Degrees Absolute.
If the source temperature is very high and the sink temperature is very low, the theoretical efficiency can tend towards 100%. I don’t know how close they were expecting to get.
The question I had was about the required volumes of cold NGL necessary to match the heat coming from the nuclear reactor, but did not get an answer on that point.
Regardless of whether a nuclear/LNG regasification plant ever gets built, the apoplectic fits the proposal would cause the Usual Suspects would make it all worthwhile!
Oops! Equation should read (1 – T.cold/T.hot). My apologies for that.
John Henry…on the one hand, Musk knows where electricity comes from, and understands that nat gas supplies are necessary to keep the grid running so his cars can be recharged (and his factories can keep operating, and those whole economy doesn’t collapse)…on the other hand, though, more oil production means lower gasoline prices, which harms electric-car economics vis-a-vis traditional cars.
So from a strictly narrow point of view, Musk should favor lower nat gas prices and higher oil prices….
re Nuclear….Victor Davis Hanson suggested the other day the Putin is menacing Ukranian nuclear plants specifically in order to stir up more fear of nuclear and hence stop or delay any nuclear renaissance, thereby protecting the long-term market value of his gas exports.
the beatings will continue…
The power for battery cars comes mainly from fossil fuel. Some nuke, some hydro but mainly fossil.
If fossil fuel costs rise, so will the cost of charging teslas.
I don’t know if the relative price differential change or even in which direction, though. Just that both should rise and fall together
Comments are closed.