Miscellaneous News

A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
This was the sticking point the EU had with Russia. Russia wanted long term gas contracts and the EU wanted to buy it on demand. But you can't finance prospection, drilling, gas wells, and pipelines on demand can you. Now they think they can also get on demand contracts for LNG. But from what I read 70% of LNG gas volumes are sold with long term contracts and only 30% are sold on demand. Even with LNG you still need to pay for prospection, drilling, gas wells, and liquefaction facilities. Large liquefaction facilities alone can easily cost billions and years to build. Try justifying that on an on demand contract. The EU are being retards. And as a result they will have one of the most expensive gas supplies in the world at this rate.

And talk about switching to renewables is just that. Talk. Since there is no cheap reliable way to store the renewable energy if you go full renewable your electricity will cost 4-6x more than it would otherwise. That will basically kill any energy intensive industry. Europe will be reduced to screwdriver assembly of items manufactured abroad and its industry will collapse. Not that the Greens in Germany would mind that.
Click to expand...

Just a small point.

If you built up the current best-in-class grid storage at 11cents/kWh combined with wind/solar, I reckon wholesale electricity costs in Germany would be roughly triple that of coal.
 
In4ser

In4ser

Junior Member
Not to mention to build all that new capacity you need additional energy and materials which are already in short supply. Maybe if Germans ask nicely just maybe China would be willing build it for them at discount but Teutonic pride and Sinophobia in the West makes that unlikely.
 
Last edited:
4Runner

4Runner

Senior Member
Registered Member

New Marcos era emphatically born in the Philippines​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This election result is significant. At least, there would be no spoiler to China from ASEAN in the next few years. That also means RCEP will have relative tranquility for a few more years. After that, EU would be more insignificant to China economic development than today. China would be ready by then.
 
X

xypher

Senior Member
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
This was the sticking point the EU had with Russia. Russia wanted long term gas contracts and the EU wanted to buy it on demand. But you can't finance prospection, drilling, gas wells, and pipelines on demand can you. Now they think they can also get on demand contracts for LNG. But from what I read 70% of LNG gas volumes are sold with long term contracts and only 30% are sold on demand. Even with LNG you still need to pay for prospection, drilling, gas wells, and liquefaction facilities. Large liquefaction facilities alone can easily cost billions and years to build. Try justifying that on an on demand contract. The EU are being retards. And as a result they will have one of the most expensive gas supplies in the world at this rate.

And talk about switching to renewables is just that. Talk. Since there is no cheap reliable way to store the renewable energy if you go full renewable your electricity will cost 4-6x more than it would otherwise. That will basically kill any energy intensive industry. Europe will be reduced to screwdriver assembly of items manufactured abroad and its industry will collapse. Not that the Greens in Germany would mind that.
Click to expand...
Agreed on the last part, I have to note that there are problems other than energy storage with renewables. For one, frequency control becomes very hard due to their fluctuating nature which increases the chances of network failure. As far as I remember, there already was some incident in Ireland in regions with high renewable penetration levels - I attended a lecture on that topic, so probably won't be able to dig the source up. Therefore, you will need some base power generation anyway - and currently GCC stations are the best in terms of both cost and relative carbon footprint. Nuclear is more expensive, may trigger public fears and there is a problem of storing radioactive waste; coal is dirtier while usage of carbon capture technologies make it uncompetitive in terms of cost; hydro is good but unless you have a lot of suitable water sources, then you won't be able to generate enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top