84FSP said:LNG export capacity is slow to build and currently sold out. They turned that spiggot on in February. The real issue is Gas not oil as I understand it. Oil is far easier and far more available.
I -think- that it would be trivial to make any turbines over there burn oil instead of NG based on my experience with gaseous and liquid fuel systems.
I do not know how refineries could handle our crude, and what proportion of their needs we could serve by delivering it.
I believe one of the primary use the Germans need for NG is home heating. I am not sure electrical production is a primary issue (the de-de-commissioning of the nuke plants)
Building up US oil and NG production also goes very much against current US energy policy, so, for political reasons, I suspect not.
And yes, transporting NG across the Atlantic is going to be far more difficult then oil. You have to use these, and they are far fewer (?) of these than oil tankers:
Updates:
Russian forces are reportedly committing newly-mobilized Western Military District (WMD) men to the Kherson and Kharkiv Oblast frontlines without prior training. A mobilized servicemember of the 1st Tank Regiment of an unspecified unit recorded a video plea stating that his unit will not receive training prior to deploying to Kherson Oblast on September 29.[6] RFE/RL’s Mark Krutov geolocated the serviceman’s surroundings to the 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division’s base in Kalininets, Moscow Oblast. ISW previously reported that Russian forces have committed elements of the 147th Artillery Regiment of the 2nd Motor Rifle Division to Kherson Oblast in late August, and are likely attempting to reinforce units in the south (that have operated in Kyiv and Kharkiv Oblasts) in short periods with untrained, newly-mobilized men.[7] Elements of the 2nd Motor Rifle Division previously based out of Izyum asked to leave their positions on August 30 due to moral exhaustion.[8] Russian opposition outlet Mediazona also reported that mobilized men of the 237th Tank Regiment of the WMD’s 3rd Motor Rifle Division based out of Valuyki are deploying to Donbas frontlines after only one day of training.[9] ISW cannot independently verify Mediazona’s report, but the 237th Regiment also operated around Izyum since late March.[10] Mobilized men with a day or two of training are unlikely to meaningfully reinforce Russian positions affected by Ukrainian counteroffensives in the south and east.
In reply to aircooled :
A quickie search on Google says there are 600 LNG carriers and 800 oil tankers.
Good point about the political ramifications, but I didn't realize that was turned on since Feb, how has that impacted actual usage, and was there an increase worth noting?
Google says 397 B Cubic Meters of NG used in the EU annually. It seems those carriers have around 150K Cubic meter capacity, but a 600x expansion ratio, so 90M Cubic Meters of gaseous NG. The EU produces 44 B Cubic Meters NG annually. That means we would need 353B, or 3,922 trips with carriers to EU from -somewhere-. Assuming we divert every LNG carrier to the cause, that's over 6.5 trips annually per ship.
I guess it's possible, but unlikely.
The US produces 934 B Cubic Meters, so it's there.
I think it would be better for European houses to switch rapidly to heat pumps and add power to the grid in whichever way is convenient/affordable. Build SMRs, rapidly erect wind turbines and solar panels with storage, build biogas-to-RNG plants, all that good stuff. This way there is no single central fuel transport bottleneck, no hard necessity for additional fossil fuel combustion, and they're better prepared if this happens again rather than just kicking the can down the road by treating a symptom of overdependence on a very specific fossil fuel (from a very specific source, worse yet). It may even be cheaper overall. Too bad it's pretty late in the game for this, they should've put wartime priority on these tasks as soon as the invasion started.
If Germany (the most affected country by far from my understanding) had a better environmental policy over the last 20 years or so, Putin wouldn't have had the wealth and power to start this war in the first place.
GameboyRMH said:
If Germany (the most affected country by far from my understanding) had a better environmental policy over the last 20 years or so, Putin wouldn't have had the wealth and power to start this war in the first place.
I've read multiple times that Russia secretly supported factions in Germany that led them to the environmental policy they have, in an effort to make them more dependent. Part of Putin's long game/misinformation tactics.
eastsideTim said:GameboyRMH said:
If Germany (the most affected country by far from my understanding) had a better environmental policy over the last 20 years or so, Putin wouldn't have had the wealth and power to start this war in the first place.I've read multiple times that Russia secretly supported factions in Germany that led them to the environmental policy they have, in an effort to make them more dependent. Part of Putin's long game/misinformation tactics.
It's a page from the Soviet playbook. The Soviets did the same with European green groups (and their anti-nuke follow travelers) the 1970s and 80s to undermine energy independence (Arab vs Russian oil, but same effects) and willingness to support US tactical nukes on European soil at the same time.
More bad news on the topic of war-related environmental issues:
https://futurism.com/the-byte/experts-leaking-russian-pipeline-environmental-disaster
GameboyRMH said:More bad news on the topic of war-related environmental issues:
https://futurism.com/the-byte/experts-leaking-russian-pipeline-environmental-disaster
so, i can take the cats off my car now?
Russia blames bombing on underwater pipeline damage. Russia also is only player with submarines in the area.
Weird.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:Russia blames bombing on underwater pipeline damage. Russia also is only player with submarines in the area.
Weird.
Seismic activity near the site, two Russian ships in the area days ago, they are not even pretending or trying.
I know you don't agree, Pilot, but this is irrational. It will gain nothing, and simply hurt everyone.
Okay, so if the pipes weren't actually being used and flowing natural gas, then the rupture is simply allowing what was in the pipes to escape, right? This is a finite volume of natural gas we're talking about, correct?
Finite, yes, but large.
Yes, you would think, but it is a really long pipeline!
The reasoning, I agree, behind a Russian attack on their own pipeline is a bit strange, but it kind of seems like an Occoms razor situation. Russian justification is hard to figure, but anyone else's is even harder!
It does give them a solid excuse to cut off flow.... so when the children are freezing this winter (not likely)... they can absolve themselves? The Russians are good at this sort of stuff, if it was them, they have certainly thought it out.
In reply to aircooled :
OMG they're actually saving the planet by shutting off the gas!
I don't think it matters who actually did it, what matters is who we believe did it.
If Ukraine: You're causing other nations to suffer, give up now to spare them.
If Russia: (Shock face) Oh my gosh, you did something really mean (Shock face).
In addition to the possibility of other nations turning against Ukraine, Putin's calculus may also include...
1. Boosting domestic morale (Mother Russia is under attack - defend her)
2. Deflecting blame (I'm not the reason you're suffering - Ukraine is doing this to you)
3. Justification for escalation (I didn't want to nuke you but you gave me no choice)
GameboyRMH said:More bad news on the topic of war-related environmental issues:
https://futurism.com/the-byte/experts-leaking-russian-pipeline-environmental-disaster
I know of a very quick way to convert that gas into some less damaging components...
GameboyRMH said:I think it would be better for European houses to switch rapidly to heat pumps and add power to the grid in whichever way is convenient/affordable. Build SMRs, rapidly erect wind turbines and solar panels with storage, build biogas-to-RNG plants, all that good stuff. This way there is no single central fuel transport bottleneck, no hard necessity for additional fossil fuel combustion, and they're better prepared if this happens again rather than just kicking the can down the road by treating a symptom of overdependence on a very specific fossil fuel (from a very specific source, worse yet). It may even be cheaper overall. Too bad it's pretty late in the game for this, they should've put wartime priority on these tasks as soon as the invasion started.
This would require a complete overhaul of the electrical grid as well.
The amount of heating BTUs you can push through a pipeline requires a tremendous amount of electrical energy.
More than likely right about the time that Germany would complete such a transition, Russia would have huge social changes and end up being a bastion of democratic reform.
It's not a bad goal, and it probably should happen, but whether or not it can beat the conflict impacts in a limited amount of time is debatable.
In reply to pheller :
I don't see how Germany's going to gain energy independence while continuing to shun nuclear. I'd think that if anyone could engineer and run a safe network of reactors it'd be them.
I've been thinking about the damage to Nord Stream 1, and what the motive might be for a deliberate attack. The only thing I can come up with is removing the option for turning it back on, and the only reason for Putin to do that is to undermine the negotiating position of elements within the government that may be advocating for a deal and reconciliation with the West. Given that any sort of arrangement that ends hostilities would be driven by the desire to end the sanctions regime, and that the major generator of hard currency is fossil fuel exports, it follows that for such a deal to work the means of delivering natural gas to the EU would have to be available. By rendering the pipeline inoperable, advocates of a peace deal have lost a significant bargaining chip in their internal power struggle to influence policy. Put another way, how can one argue that Russia should seek peace in Ukraine in exchange for the lifting of sanctions when there's no way of generating the necessary foreign exchange to revitalize trade with the West? This would serve to consolidate Putin's reorientation of Russia's economy to the east, simply for want of any other viable option.
I suspect Russia will use the pipeline leaks (among other things) in the upcoming rally to gain support for the war. It will be presented as one of the many ways the West is out to "get Russia" in an effort to get the population (that's still in Russia) convinced that the war is necessary. Perhaps Russia caused the leaks?
Back in March Putin said Russia must undergo a "self-cleansing of society" to purge "bastards and traitors". Sooooo.....
Once Putin announces the annexation of the occupied areas he will say full mobilization is necessary to "defend" the new Russian territory. Of course he's using the excuse that he's liberating Russians in those territories to cover that he wants a resource rich land bridge to Crimea but the general Russian population wouldn't know that.
Currently he's letting opponents to the war out of Russia. (So less opposition) Then I expect the curtain will close and draft eligible men won't be allowed out of the country before much cannon fodder news from the front lines gets back to the homeland.
Currently, vocal opponents demonstrating are being suppressed, and it's been suggested that many of the draft eligible demonstrators taken away are being conscripted and shipped out with little training as conscripts. ("cannon fodder" So less less opposition)
Draft eligible residents still in the annexed territories will be conscripted. (again more "cannon fodder" and so less opposition)
So at that point, Putin has gotten rid of most of his strong, young, daring, male opposition, and is left with supporters and a weaker more apathetic populace to control and intimidate. Much easier to fight a war when you're not fighting with your populace at the same time.
Then hold a big rally to bring the populace into agreement that the war is justified and everyone should work together for the sake of the country. Staging for the rally is currently being built.
pheller said:GameboyRMH said:I think it would be better for European houses to switch rapidly to heat pumps and add power to the grid in whichever way is convenient/affordable. Build SMRs, rapidly erect wind turbines and solar panels with storage, build biogas-to-RNG plants, all that good stuff. This way there is no single central fuel transport bottleneck, no hard necessity for additional fossil fuel combustion, and they're better prepared if this happens again rather than just kicking the can down the road by treating a symptom of overdependence on a very specific fossil fuel (from a very specific source, worse yet). It may even be cheaper overall. Too bad it's pretty late in the game for this, they should've put wartime priority on these tasks as soon as the invasion started.
This would require a complete overhaul of the electrical grid as well.
The amount of heating BTUs you can push through a pipeline requires a tremendous amount of electrical energy.
More than likely right about the time that Germany would complete such a transition, Russia would have huge social changes and end up being a bastion of democratic reform.
It's not a bad goal, and it probably should happen, but whether or not it can beat the conflict impacts in a limited amount of time is debatable.
Grid capacity could be an issue, but pushing all those heating BTUs as electricity would only be required if all the houses were using resistive heating, a heat pump only needs to drive the compressor to move the heat around like an AC unit, which requires about half as much energy.
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to pheller :
I don't see how Germany's going to gain energy independence while continuing to shun nuclear. I'd think that if anyone could engineer and run a safe network of reactors it'd be them.
France right next door has been casually powering their country with nuclear energy for decades, while Germany has been freaking out about it and scaling it back and running on brown coal like it's 1899. The only explanation other than foreign political interference might be that Germany was one of the European countries contaminated by Chernobyl.
An in-depth discussion of Russia's eastern energy pivot from The Diplomat. This tends to reinforce the theory I posited above re: Nord Stream. Such a radical shift in focus is sure to have its vocal opponents within the Russian hierarchy; removing the means by which ties with the West might be renewed post-conflict makes such a shift much harder to resist.
On that gas pipeline thing.
I have read that shutting off the flow of product in the pipeline will cause a lot of damage to the entire pipeline. This has to do with the fact that the pipeline travels in permafrost environments and a non moving fluid will freeze.
This looks like a good way to keep the fluid flowing when there are no customers on the other end.
You'll need to log in to post.
