Europeans and Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Let the world know when they put 40-->100GW interconnect + pumped hydro storage dam capacity good for ~2wks -->4wks in writing and make it a plan.  Until then we are talking semantics. 

Why would you need a 40-100GW interconnect for an economy where electricity demand tops out at around 60GW an d that country has a range of electrical generation sources (Nuclear, gas, biomass, wind, hydro, biogas, waste to energy, solar) 

As previously stated the UK will have 8.8GW of interconnects by next year.

 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

16 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Europe doesn't have ten years to try to build any new nuclear plants. The last French one was a disaster as I have already explained. The cost overruns were incredible as the United States has learned also. Natural gas is superabundant all over the world. It is the best way to go. Coal is the dirtiest with the most real pollution. Natural gas is flared throughout Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. it could easily be directed to Europe. 

Europe has failed miserably by not developing their own natural gas and not diversifying their suppliers. They can now depend on dirty coal, the Russian Bear, LNG, and wind turbines etc. 

They could buy a nuke from Rosatom? No cost overruns there. I think, Finland is doing just that and Sweden is switching to Russian fuel rods.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, JoMack said:

The wind farms are in West Texas and connected to high voltage transmission lines running across the state of Texas. A very large state I might add, and, you know, the wind don't blow, the wind don't show - in other words, generate nothing, stores nothing, if and unless batteries (that I believe you are suggesting?) would cover large swaths of West Texas to store the energy near some plant sites, would solve the problem.  But in the case of Texas, and I believe in many states, it's not happening.  So when Mother Nature decides to have a full on lull on the wind side and she decides to roll in on the clouds on the solar side, renewables fail, which is another word for -- blackouts.  In Texas ERCOT the Godzilla that buys electricity and passes it around to the generation companies at its discretion, has been developing its usage in the state by using subsidies for wind and solar instead of using brains for reliability.  As subsidies grow and investment in the reliable, consistent energy sector withers, here in Texas and soon coming to a town near you, get your wood, candles and generators primed, cause what happened in Texas, was a just a warning before the real catastrophes begin to arrive.

Case in point Europe. 

Supposedly, Texas is going to get serious about decreasing flaring. I have been saying it should have been made illegal long ago. The technology to do so is readily available. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Just now, Andrei Moutchkine said:

They could buy a nuke from Rosatom? No cost overruns there. I think, Finland is doing just that and Sweden is switching to Russian fuel rods.

 

1 minute ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

They could buy a nuke from Rosatom? No cost overruns there. I think, Finland is doing just that and Sweden is switching to Russian fuel rods.

You may have a good idea. Build them there and trust the Russians to send the power for their price. On second thought nyet!

[NickW + 2,714]

18 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Europe doesn't have ten years to try to build any new nuclear plants. The last French one was a disaster as I have already explained. The cost overruns were incredible as the United States has learned also. Natural gas is superabundant all over the world. It is the best way to go. Coal is the dirtiest with the most real pollution. Natural gas is flared throughout Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. it could easily be directed to Europe. 

Europe has failed miserably by not developing their own natural gas and not diversifying their suppliers. They can now depend on dirty coal, the Russian Bear, LNG, and wind turbines etc. 

So obvious that isn't it given the recent superspike in prices..........

As for developing the resources it has to be there in the first place and fracking underneath heavily populated areas is a non starter.

I agree the French nucs have been awful of late. Fortunately Rolls Royce have been building PWR's for some of the worlds best nuclear subs over the last 60 years and plan to scale that up. These smaller nucs are modular and easy to deploy as they can be assembled in a factory and shipped to site by truck. 

[notsonice + 1,068]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I think batteries will eventually work out. Does anyone know what the energy LOSS is on pumped hydro? I would guess that it is more than high tech batteries. 

Does anyone know what the energy LOSS is on pumped hydro? 75 -85% for the round trip. For batteries 80  to 90 % depending on the battery type. Relatively the same. The real factor for pumped hydro is the availability of suitable sites (not very many good sites in the world)

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Kommersant's journalist aptly summed up in my opinion that today's Putin conference on gas was more or less for Europeans the equivalent of what the meeting of the American Fed is for financial markets.  At the end, the journalist also stated that it was probably the coolest moment for Putin in at least a number of months.

I recommend 2 really good articles from a reliable Kommersant - it is worth using a translator if someone does not know Russian  (although I would recommend  the Russian translator yandex rather than google in case of translating from russian)

Kiss on the pipes How and for what Vladimir Putin took European love

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5019361

Quote

 

On October 6, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a video-conference on global energy issues, at which he explained to Europe how Russia will behave towards it. That is, it is possible that additional volumes of Russian gas will be sold on the exchange in St. Petersburg. And at the same time, Gazprom will fulfill its obligations on transit through Ukraine, although this is not in any way profitable for it. Kommersant's special correspondent Andrei Kolesnikov watched how Vladimir Putin felt for two hours that he was the master of thought throughout Europe. Was there?

Vladimir Putin lit for two hours at a meeting on energy

Vladimir Putin undoubtedly prepared very carefully for this meeting. Suffice it to say that at some point he put aside the prepared speech and took up the sheets of paper he had written from top to bottom (and not sheets) of paper. I can't remember anything like that. I used to write in the margin of the invitee list, of course. And on the back of this list. And neat too. But no special speech, he did not bring it with him so demonstratively.

And it is understandable at what point he postponed one speech and delivered another. Almost immediately. That is, he, without telling anyone, deliberately replaced one speech with another.

What such fateful could this speech be about, why was such a top secret move undertaken, which he did not consider it possible to inform anyone about, but, on the contrary, considered it necessary to hide everything? What was it about these sheets of paper that he could only entrust the secret and even, perhaps, the sacred to them?

Yes, it was something that is not a joke. It was about the prices for Russian gas for Europe.

Moreover, at the very beginning, the Russian president warned that the meeting was attended not only by specialized specialists, but also by the heads of the subjects of the federation. So what a simple meeting on energy issues was it?

It was a meeting, if not of the entire State Council, then at least of its presidium, or rather that part of the governors, in whose regions there is oil, gas, coal and a peaceful atom.

That is, there was a shock gubernatorial group here.

“I think,” he nodded, “this is a good opportunity to jointly analyze the regional dimension of the large-scale processes that are taking place in the global energy market.

Vladimir Putin was even poetic at first:

- As you know, the global energy market does not tolerate fuss - so far it has been so beautiful about serving the muses, and not the global energy market, but this is no longer the case - and shyness, investment plans are long-term in nature, so sharp rash actions can lead , and, judging by the current situation on the market, they lead, are already leading to serious imbalances ... Such, which we now observe in the European energy market, where this year several unfavorable factors have developed simultaneously.

And Vladimir Putin listed all these factors. One could say - with triumph. But there was no celebration. Or too well hidden, that is, one that still does not allow us to say that there was a celebration.

For example, Serbian President Aleksandr Vucic, for example, did not hide on the eve of his celebration: when he said (at the EU-Balkans summit - Kommersant ) that it was necessary to conclude long-term contracts with Gazprom, then both now and in two year would pay $ 200 per thousand cubic meters.

“Firstly, the rapid post-crisis economic recovery has warmed up the demand for energy,” explained Vladimir Putin. “Secondly, at the beginning of 2021, in many European countries, a cold winter led to a serious decrease in the reserves of natural gas in underground storage facilities. We are talking specifically about their underground storage facilities, the underground storage facilities of our European partners. Thirdly, later, in the summer, due to the heat and calm weather, the production of wind energy was noticeably reduced.

How European prices rose 20% over the day for no apparent reason

He was talking about gas. He spoke about his favorite topic, which he knows and is sure that he even feels. He spoke easily and confidently. He thought about each of the reasons for the phenomenal jump in prices separately. And then I came up with it. And about windmills too. He never really liked them and talked about it from time to time. They also destroy all living things around them, earthly, and most importantly - underground. Yes, and underwater.

- It should be borne in mind that over the past ten years in Europe, the energy balance has changed dramatically. Many countries in the region have abandoned coal and nuclear power plants in favor of weather-dependent wind power, Mr Putin explained.

That's what he said most importantly:

- And, finally, fourthly, the practice of our European partners. This practice once again confirmed that, in fact, they made mistakes. We spoke with the previous European Commission, and all of its activities were aimed at curtailing the so-called long-term contracts, was aimed at the transition to exchange gas trading.

This explains the triumph of the President of Serbia.

- It turned out that today it has become absolutely obvious that this policy is erroneous - erroneous, since it does not take into account the specifics of the gas market due to a large number of uncertainties. And consumers, including, for example, fertilizer producers, are losing price targets altogether! All this leads to failures and, as I said, to imbalances.

The meeting was internal, so the governors were invited, but now it was becoming obvious that Vladimir Putin was focusing exclusively on foreign markets in his speech. And the governors were now providing him with the rear.

“As a result,” the Russian president continued, “now the gas price has broken all historical records. Today it is already aspiring to $ 2 thousand per thousand cubic meters (by the evening it has decreased, but there is no doubt that not for long. - A. K.), this is more than ten times more than the average price of last year. I would ask my colleagues today to report in detail on how the situation is developing.

It was not the first time that he picked up the scribbled sheets:

- Now, right before the meeting, I took a certificate from Gazprom. 2018 was a record year for us, for deliveries to far abroad ... First of all, we are talking about Europe, of course, because deliveries to the Asian region are still extremely small and do not have any significant impact on these numbers.

This was the case when numbers sounded like music to him. And he performed:

- So, 2018 - 201.7 billion cubic meters. m, record. 2019 - slightly less due to requests from our partners, 199.4 billion cubic meters m. 2020, pandemic, production cut in Europe - 179.35 billion cubic meters. m. 2021 is the year of economic recovery. In the first nine months of this year, a plus to last year 18.8 billion cubic meters. m ... This is plus 15% over the same period last year! And if this pace continues, we can reach another record figure for the supply of our energy resources to Europe, including gas.

For him, the topic of security of supply was important. During the meeting, Mr Putin returned to her several times - both casually and deliberately on purpose:

- By the way, these long-term contracts, under which Gazprom supplies gas abroad, have a minimum level of supply and a maximum one.

There has never been a single case in history when Gazprom refused to increase supplies to its consumers if they submit appropriate applications - not a single one!

Vladimir Putin, having mastered these numbers, now seemed to bathe in them:

- Our largest consumer in Europe is the Federal Republic of Germany, in the first nine months of this year, 2021, by 2020 - plus 10.124 billion cubic meters. m of gas, this is 131.8% compared to last year. Even in 2020, when the total volume of supplies to Europe decreased compared to 2019, we still delivered more to Germany - plus 4.7 billion cubic meters, that is, 112.9%.

The Russian President should have said about Ukraine as well. How not to say:

- By the way, we see all sorts of speculations about the gas transportation system of Ukraine, about supplies through it. I would also like to note here that our contractual obligations for deliveries through the Ukrainian gas transportation system are 40 billion cubic meters. meters of gas per year. Over the nine months of this year, Gazprom has increased these supplies ... this flow, more precisely, through the transport system of Ukraine by more than 8%. And we can say with confidence that we will exceed our contractual obligations for gas supplies through the territory of Ukraine. Increasing more, more volume is economically unprofitable for Gazprom, because it is more expensive. Pumping through new systems is much cheaper, by about $ 3 billion per year to the corresponding supply volumes.

Why Budapest's contract with Gazprom caused outrage in Kiev

Thus, the obligations under the contract with Ukraine will be fulfilled, but Gazprom will not go beyond the scope of this contract. Has the same right. That will not work. And so it came out. Will not be repeated. Rather, it will not get worse.

Vladimir Putin just spoke in such a way that it was perfectly clear who actually runs Gazprom.

“And besides,” he continued, “I would like for information those who think — really think, and do not use it as an instrument of some kind of political struggle — think about preserving the environment, so I would like to remind you that the supply for new pipeline systems that have been commissioned in recent years and are being commissioned now, 5.6 times reduce the amount of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere due to the fact that there is new equipment, a larger volume with lower emissions, bearing in mind the quality of the pipeline system, through which you can pump products with high pressure. Everyone should know about this.

Yes, everyone who thinks about preserving the environment has known for a long time.

On the whole, the President of Russia reassured the Europeans:

- But nevertheless, today I would like to hear suggestions from you, dear colleagues, what else could be done to stabilize the global energy market. We are ready for such work and would like this work to be built on an absolutely commercial basis, taking into account the interests of all participants in this process.

But he did not seem to forget about his own:

- Therefore, our decisions on the development of the fuel and energy complex of our country, Russia, must be balanced, they must take into account our national interests, and most importantly, the needs of our citizens and, of course, must be focused on the long term. We need to try to look beyond the horizon of not even one, but two or three millennia ...

Oh, that was a bit too much. But on the whole, nothing was surprising. And most importantly, prices will rise in about the same way all this time, for the last three weeks.

- Decades, sorry, - Vladimir Putin corrected himself.

But still enough for his life.

- According to international experts, including OPEC, starting from 2035, the growth rate of oil demand will begin to slow down, but in general, until 2045, consumption will increase, by about 0.7% annually, - the Russian president dispelled the last illusions if they some did (but they did not). - Demand for natural gas will continue to grow at a faster pace - over 1% per year. First of all, because gas is a cleaner type of fuel in the global energy balance.

Vladimir Putin returned to the technical, so to speak, text of his speech.

And in general it was clear why he paid so much attention to every word he said in this meeting. It cost too much, literally, physically.

Actually, this rarely happens with words from Moscow. More often, in fairness, from Washington. From the depths of the US Federal Reserve, for example.

And then there was such a case.

The President gave the floor to Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak.

How Gazprom started filling a new gas pipeline to Europe

“As for the gas market,” he said. “It has also already recovered at the pre-crisis level (we noticed that . - A.K. ) ... And literally in a day, prices rose by $ 500 ... And the reasons are not only fundamental, associated with the refusal of European politicians (from long-term contracts in favor of spot contracts . - A.K. ) ... And poor-quality forecasting of the balance of supply and demand due to increased consumption and a fall in domestic gas production in Europe ... In Norway, production fell by 10%, in the Netherlands - by 70% 2013 ... But these factors would not have affected the rise in prices without speculative approaches!

Yes, now Europe was being finished off with their feet. Because now those who are solving problems have been speaking. It does not create them. And these were people who knew how to predict efficiently.

“It all started, in fact, in the summer, when Latin America was extremely hot,” explained Alexander Novak. “Then the liquefied natural gas from the USA was reoriented to Latin America.“ And this ensured the LNG deficit in both Europe and Asia and in Asia, the rapid growth in electricity consumption in the face of a shortage of generating capacity has created a deficit and demand. Well, and, accordingly, in Europe, there really is a lack of a full supply of gas in storage facilities ...

But Mr. Novak all this time hinted at a more dramatic reason. And he finally voiced it:

- But speculative factors drive up prices very much. And here, most likely, one cannot do without an investigation (of the activity - A.K. ) of exchange players, because the current price does not objectively reflect the current situation.

Thus, Alexander Novak unwittingly (I am sure unwittingly!) Questioned Vladimir Putin's structured scheme, in which there were no hellish stock market players, but Europe's inability to calculate and weigh everything in an elementary way.

That is, the speech of the President of Russia was still primarily political. He finally had the opportunity to condescendingly reproach Europe - and he actively used it today, filling up all these sheets with his reproaches.

And Alexander Novak found in the case understandable and even innocent, one might say, people for whom gambling on the stock exchange is just a calling.

“In general, it’s not very good for the gas market - such prices,” said Alexander Novak. “Of course, companies earn money, but fundamentally, many production facilities, gas chemical enterprises can be closed, which is already happening in the same Great Britain and other European countries, and there is a more intense transition to renewable energy sources at such prices, and there is a desire to invest in more inefficient mining projects ... Therefore, the market must be quickly stabilized.

But Aleksandr Novak was also in the end understandable in his logic. The situation can cool down, according to him, of course, the soonest certification of Nord Stream-2, but what else.

“This would give a positive signal,” he explained. “And if it were possible to supply additional volumes of gas exchange trading on the electronic trading exchange in St. Petersburg… At least small volumes that could bring down the speculative effect.

But for this, the Europeans would really say thank you to Russia. No, the sanctions would not have been lifted, of course. And new ones would be imposed later. But I would say thank you.

- But here it is imperative to take into account that we are still pumping gas into our underground storage facilities ... - Alexander Novak added. - It will be another ten days, two weeks ...

That is, we also tear off from the heart.

“It can be done,” Vladimir Putin agreed. “But it should be done not on the spot in Europe, but, as you said, on the stock exchange in St. Petersburg.

That is, if there are speculators, then let them be our speculators.

- Generally speaking, this proposal to switch to exchange gas trading was promoted by the experts of the last convocation of the European Commission, mainly British. Where are these British experts now and where are their proposals now, it is clear ... - the President of Russia waved his hand.

Yes? Is it right there ?!

“And consumers in continental Europe certainly suffer from these offers. But exchange trading ... If it knocks down demand, then it can be done. Not to the detriment of yourself, of course.

That is, not to the detriment of pumping into our own storage facilities.

Or that we are still earning, perhaps he meant. And very good.

“On the whole, we tried to convince them that exchange gas trading is not very effective,” Vladimir Putin shrugged his shoulders. “It carries a lot of risks. These are not watches, pants and ties, and not cars, and this is not even oil that can be produced and stored anywhere, including in a tanker, waiting for a certain situation on the market ... Gas is not traded like that ... It cannot be stored like that ... Even liquefied gas ... It is necessary to produce, liquefy, load into tankers, deliver, then regasify again ... This is a complicated, expensive process ... It does not work that way.

Gazprom, however, basically has a different gas.

“It was possible to increase supplies through the Ukrainian gas transportation system ...” Vladimir Putin suddenly said.

At first glance, this was strange: after all, half an hour ago he said that it was possible, but not. In fact, he now wanted to tell the whole truth of the Ukrainian GTS, so he decided to recall it on the fly in this way:

- Gazprom saves about $ 3 billion a year on new pipeline systems. It is possible to increase the pressure in new pipes, but it is impossible in the Ukrainian gas transportation system, because it has not been repaired for decades, and something may burst there at any moment ... In general, unfavorable consequences will come both for the transit country and for consumers ...

In general, I have not left a stone unturned, just in case. And the pressure - where is it, pressure?

After all, he already told the Energy Minister (Nikolai Shulginov - Kommersant ) that it would be more profitable and more expedient, according to Gazprom, to pay a fine to Ukraine, but to increase the volume of pumping through new systems (Yes, Gazprom is ready seemed inhuman - but only against the background of Vladimir Putin's humanity). But he asked not to do this, because, to the detriment of oneself, one must even fully comply with the obligations for transit through the Ukrainian gas transportation system.

There is no need to put anyone in a difficult position, including (even - A.K. ) Ukraine, despite all the moments associated with Russian-Ukrainian relations on this day. And secondly, there is no need to undermine confidence in Gazprom as an absolutely reliable partner in all respects!

And this, about the reliability of Gazprom, was really an argument.

- I remember, - Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, settled more comfortably in his chair, - these discussions in the European Commission. It was very difficult to talk with these so-called experts, because they do it with a certain degree of snobbery, their opinion is extremely correct, they never wanted to hear anything else. Hopefully, adjustments will take place now.

Vladimir Putin spoke out.

It took at least an hour. And this hour was starry for him.

For the first time in months.

 

And hard realpolitic after show for reasons for this decision https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5019276

 

Quote

 

Goodwill cubic meter Russia is ready to bring down the rush demand for gas in Europe

Russian President Vladimir Putin admitted the possibility of a "neat" increase in Russian gas supplies to Europe through sales on Gazprom's electronic trading platform. This mechanism allows Gazprom to sell gas for export in a controlled manner, without competing with long-term contracts. But the volumes that the company can now offer on the ETP are unlikely to significantly help Europe in overcoming the energy crisis.

Electronic gas trading in favor of Europe may balance economics and politics

Gazprom could increase gas sales to Europe through its electronic trading platform (ETP), Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said during a meeting chaired by President Vladimir Putin. According to the Deputy Prime Minister, such a step could bring down the sharp rise in gas prices in Europe, which is partly speculative in nature. “It would be possible and expedient to supply additional exchange volumes of gas on the electronic trading exchange in St. Petersburg, at least small volumes that could really bring down the speculative effect. But here it is imperative to take into account the fact that today we continue to pump gas into UGS facilities (in Russia. - "Kommersant") ”, - he remarked. “If it knocks down the rush demand, then we can do it. Only not to the detriment of yourself, of course, "- Vladimir Putin replied, adding that" this must be done carefully "and after discussion with Gazprom.

Gazprom uses ETP as an additional channel for selling gas for export in addition to long-term contracts. It is important that this is not a classic exchange trading, but an auction: Gazprom puts certain volumes of gas up for auction and then collects closed bids at a price from participants (European gas consumers and traders) who have passed prequalification. At the same time, Gazprom can satisfy the bids in full, partially or completely reject if the price seems too low to it.

 

In the crisis year of 2020, when the price of gas in Europe fell sharply, the volume of sales on the ETP exceeded 27 billion cubic meters, accounting for more than 15% of all Gazprom's supplies to Europe. But in 2021, when gas prices began to rise, Gazprom sharply reduced the gas supply on the ETP (sales amounted to just over 5 billion cubic meters in nine months), and since September it has stopped selling it altogether with delivery for this year. This approach, as Kommersant wrote, was supposed to support the motivation of the German authorities to complete the procedures for launching the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline as soon as possible ( see Kommersant on July 14 ).

At the same time, in the third quarter, Gazprom objectively faced difficulties in offering additional gas for export. The company had to satisfy the significantly increased domestic demand, including from the generation side, as well as fill the Russian underground storage facilities that were empty after the last cold winter ( see Kommersant of August 12 ). In addition, an accident at a plant in Novy Urengoy in early August reduced the peak productivity of Gazprom's fields in Nadym-Pur-Taz. The volumes that Gazprom can now offer on the ETP (and, according to Kommersant's information, it can be about 30-50 million cubic meters per day), in principle, are not able to balance the European market, given the shortage of 20 billion cubic meters of gas in local UGS.

Some of Kommersant's interlocutors believe that this is a demonstrative gesture.

“We need a balance: both the motivation to maintain (to launch Nord Stream-2. - Kommersant ), and the goodwill to show,” one of them thinks.

During the meeting, Vladimir Putin stressed several times that it was unprofitable for Gazprom to supply gas to Europe through Ukraine in excess of the volumes fixed in the transit contract, and the company intends to increase supplies "along new routes."

Against the background of Vladimir Putin's statements about a potential increase in supplies from Russia, gas prices at the Dutch TTF hub on October 6 decreased by 9.5%, to € 104.9 per 1 MW • h ($ 1250 per 1,000 cubic meters) during trading up to $ 1900. However, the real cooling effect that not only the sale of Gazprom at the ETP, but even the launch of Nord Stream 2, may have on the market, is likely to be limited.

According to most experts, whether this winter is cold in the Northern Hemisphere will be decisive for price dynamics.

At the same time, OIES analysts Mike Fullwood and Jack Sharples emphasize the growing dependence of the European gas market on the dynamics of the global LNG market. According to their estimates, the decrease in gas supply in Europe in 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic year of 2019 amounted to 48 billion cubic meters, of which only 13 billion cubic meters fell on pipeline gas suppliers (Russia and Norway), another 15 billion cubic meters - due to a reduction in intra-European production and 20 billion cubic meters - to reduce LNG supplies.

Yuri Barsukov

 

 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Europe doesn't have ten years to try to build any new nuclear plants. The last French one was a disaster as I have already explained. The cost overruns were incredible as the United States has learned also. Natural gas is superabundant all over the world. It is the best way to go. Coal is the dirtiest with the most real pollution. Natural gas is flared throughout Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. it could easily be directed to Europe. 

Europe has failed miserably by not developing their own natural gas and not diversifying their suppliers. They can now depend on dirty coal, the Russian Bear, LNG, and wind turbines etc. 

So the answer to the gas price superspike and quite possibly physical shortage of gas is to build more gas plant and become even more reliant on a single fuel source?

Meanwhile in the real world and  looking fwd over the next decade, assuming the UK had a sane energy minister:

• Extend the life of remaining coal plant (5-6GW) out to at least 2030
• Consider whether to recommission any mothballed coal plant
• Consider any prospect to extend the life of the AGR's (nucs) by a year or two. They are already running on half power)
• Fast track any planning applications for WTE plant. Plastic and paper is already piling up since China and other countries banned imports - it doesn't actually get recycled. We used to pay them the landfill tax to burn it on bonfires - might as well burn here for power
• Although disagreeing with their tactics 'Insulate Britain' have a point and a mass insulation program would probably be the quickest way of reducing domestic gas demand.
• Get RR moving on building the first SMR (400-440MW per unit)
• Re-incentivise the roll out of small scale solar 
• Fast track any wind, biogas, biomass planning applications that are in the pipeline
• Reconsider whether a limit amount of coal fired new capacity is necessary to diversify energy supply and security

 

 

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Gazprom seems to have near recovered its position relative to Western oil majors a decade ago. Rosneft fully done so, Lukoil - now substantially above.

Though conversely, makes me wonder how much more room there is for further (relative) expansion.

 

[turbguy + 1,398]

2 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Most of the wind turbines are actually DC already, or at least wind turbine parks are.

Ahhh...

No.  Modern land-based turbines are synchronous AC machines.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

2 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Ahhh...

No.  Modern land-based turbines are synchronous AC machines.

Really? What do these do

https://new.abb.com/power-converters-inverters/wind-turbines/utility-scale

[turbguy + 1,398]

1 minute ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Really? What do these do

https://new.abb.com/power-converters-inverters/wind-turbines/utility-scale

They control operation of DFIG's.

A DFIG is a variable speed, synchronous generator.

The majority of today's fast-speed geared wind turbines are either fitted with a DFIG (or a synchronous PMG).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/double-fed-induction-generator

.

 

 

[Starschy + 211]

The actual situation is not the average because of delays of Northstream2 and Turkstream. The initial Load of Turkstream. Not to forgot that Russia itself will consume more Gas for Heating. (That job was delegated from Mr. Putin to those 3 Main Companies, years ago).

That some EUCountries not prolonged their Contract is a historic Error.

Gazprom is pumping 1-1.5 Bio m3 per day.

If the Winter get in early and a handful Countries are enough that the Gasprice will increase. The Ukraine pipe is over 2000 km longer as Nordstream2, it will take some time.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

2 minutes ago, turbguy said:

They control operation of DFIG's.

A DFIG is a variable speed, synchronous generator.

The majority of today's fast-speed geared wind turbines are either fitted with a DFIG (or a synchronous PMG).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/double-fed-induction-generator

I know what double fed machines are, but the ABB things are DC inverters for upstream. Click on the Areva Wind offshore promo video on the same page, and they'll actually show you the cutout of their generator, which used permanent magnets and is thus producing DC directly. Which does not preclude it being double-fed. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly-fed_electric_machine

A much simpler page, which ought to explain the main point of the "double feed" It's an electrical motor-generator which got separate windings for the rotor and for the stator. What kind of windings, they don't not say. Because it matters not. (Though a permanent magnet Halbach cylinder is not strictly a winding in conventional sense Here is an even simpler, older device illustrating the principle, called the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_converter

It uses two separate windings to convert between any kind of AC and DC every each possible way..

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

So the answer to the gas price superspike and quite possibly physical shortage of gas is to build more gas plant and become even more reliant on a single fuel source?

Meanwhile in the real world and  looking fwd over the next decade, assuming the UK had a sane energy minister:

• Extend the life of remaining coal plant (5-6GW) out to at least 2030
• Consider whether to recommission any mothballed coal plant
• Consider any prospect to extend the life of the AGR's (nucs) by a year or two. They are already running on half power)
• Fast track any planning applications for WTE plant. Plastic and paper is already piling up since China and other countries banned imports - it doesn't actually get recycled. We used to pay them the landfill tax to burn it on bonfires - might as well burn here for power
• Although disagreeing with their tactics 'Insulate Britain' have a point and a mass insulation program would probably be the quickest way of reducing domestic gas demand.
• Get RR moving on building the first SMR (400-440MW per unit)
• Re-incentivise the roll out of small scale solar 
• Fast track any wind, biogas, biomass planning applications that are in the pipeline
• Reconsider whether a limit amount of coal fired new capacity is necessary to diversify energy supply and security

 

 

Whatever is practical and proven is needed. Coal is the dirtiest option so natural gas is the best bet for the long term or when renewables can take over. That will be decades away if we are talking global solutions. Nuclear may work for Asia but Americans and Europeans will not settle for it IMHO. The costs always skyrocket and the time to meet government regulations is incredible. The cost benefit ratio over the long term is very bad when you consider guarding all of the nuclear waste for the rest of the lifespan of mankind. 

See my topic on Nuclear Plants

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit

No rebates or government support. All the governments are broke. Just let the free markets pick the winners. Europe has totally screwed themselves and Biden is now doing the same thing to America, or at least is trying. He is sadly misinformed or just wants to bankrupt America so the socialist Demoncrats cant take total control. I actually think he is just a puppet of the left wing.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy to destroy our economy. This is the leftists real plan to take over for good. 

https://conduitforaction.org/the-cloward-piven-strategy-orchestrating-a-crisis-so-government-can-solve-it/

[turbguy + 1,398]

48 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

I know what double fed machines are, but the ABB things are DC inverters for upstream. Click on the Areva Wind offshore promo video on the same page, and they'll actually show you the cutout of their generator, which used permanent magnets and is thus producing DC directly. Which does not preclude it being double-fed. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly-fed_electric_machine

A much simpler page, which ought to explain the main point of the "double feed" It's an electrical motor-generator which got separate windings for the rotor and for the stator. What kind of windings, they don't not say. Because it matters not. (Though a permanent magnet Halbach cylinder is not strictly a winding in conventional sense Here is an even simpler, older device illustrating the principle, called the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_converter

It uses two separate windings to convert between any kind of AC and DC every each possible way..

For OFFSHORE machines DC makes sense, since transmission is easier and cheaper with no reactive issues to deal with (and one less conductor with minimal "skin" effects).

LAND-BASED wind machines are synchronous AC machines

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

23 minutes ago, turbguy said:

For OFFSHORE machines DC makes sense, since transmission is easier and cheaper with no reactive issues to deal with (and one less conductor with minimal "skin" effects).

LAND-BASED wind machines are synchronous AC machines

Not in Europe, they aren't. Too many synchronization issues with wind AC. The inverters are targeted at any odd wind farm. Here, Infinion offering working at a deeper component level

https://www.infineon.com/cms/en/applications/industrial/wind-energy-systems/

Seem to be offering to equip the "pre-double fed" machines with conversion to DC.

"one less conductor" is a tremendously bad idea BTW, because it means you've got a "sacrificial" anode elsewhere.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

So obvious that isn't it given the recent superspike in prices..........

As for developing the resources it has to be there in the first place and fracking underneath heavily populated areas is a non starter.

I agree the French nucs have been awful of late. Fortunately Rolls Royce have been building PWR's for some of the worlds best nuclear subs over the last 60 years and plan to scale that up. These smaller nucs are modular and easy to deploy as they can be assembled in a factory and shipped to site by truck. 

That sounds like a very scary prospect to me. 

[nsdp + 449]

xxx

Edited October 7, 2021 by nsdp
wring commet

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

3 hours ago, Tomasz said:

Gazprom seems to have near recovered its position relative to Western oil majors a decade ago. Rosneft fully done so, Lukoil - now substantially above.

Though conversely, makes me wonder how much more room there is for further (relative) expansion.

 

Charts are too low-res to read though.

[nsdp + 449]

1 hour ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Not in Europe, they aren't. Too many synchronization issues with wind AC. The inverters are targeted at any odd wind farm. Here, Infinion offering working at a deeper component level

https://www.infineon.com/cms/en/ap xcetions. Sybchronous turbines and DC motor generator seets ar ethe only eby invertersications/industrial/wind-energy-systems/

 Seem to be offering to equip the "pre-double fed" machines with conversion to DC.

"one less conductor" is a tremendously bad idea BTWbecause it means you've got a "sacrificial" anode elsewhere.

The synchronization problems are caused by.  Staatcoms etc  Mayge you should catch up on your reading at IEEE. https://spectrum.ieee.org/zombie-coal-plants-reanimated-to-stabilize-the-gridl, https://spectrum.ieee.org/can-synthetic-inertia-stabilize-power-grids, https://resourcecenter.ieee-pes.org/publications/technical-reports/PES_TR_7-18_0068.html and the DOE labs.   https://tcipg.org/sites/default/files/slides/2012_02-03_Dagle.pdf

[nsdp + 449]

39 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

That sounds like a very scary prospect to me. 

xxxx

[nsdp + 449]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

So the answer to the gas price superspike and quite possibly physical shortage of gas is to build more gas plant and become even more reliant on a single fuel source?

Meanwhile in the real world and  looking fwd over the next decade, assuming the UK had a sane energy minister:

• Extend the life of remaining coal plant (5-6GW) out to at least 2030
• Consider whether to recommission any mothballed coal plant
• Consider any prospect to extend the life of the AGR's (nucs) by a year or two. They are already running on half power)
• Fast track any planning applications for WTE plant. Plastic and paper is already piling up since China and other countries banned imports - it doesn't actually get recycled. We used to pay them the landfill tax to burn it on bonfires - might as well burn here for power
• Although disagreeing with their tactics 'Insulate Britain' have a point and a mass insulation program would probably be the quickest way of reducing domestic gas demand.
• Get RR moving on building the first SMR (400-440MW per unit)
• Re-incentivise the roll out of small scale solar 
• Fast track any wind, biogas, biomass planning applications that are in the pipeline
• Reconsider whether a limit amount of coal fired new capacity is necessary to diversify energy supply and security

 

Nick that means the reactor had to go operational in 1961. Russia had one submarine and the US had 8.  The US has scrapped any and all nuke boats older than the Block II  Los Angeles Class, The Los Angeles was scrapped in   2010. You need to do a fact check before you start typing. Nautilus  and 1st Seawolf ,Trition,  all Skate Skipjack and Hallibut class, all George Washingtons and as of 2019 the  Ohio is the oldest sub in service.Bremerton went to nuclear decommsioning in 2020.

The USNS Enterprise was 55 years because of delay in  deliveries of the Ford.  She was the  only ship to go over 50 and that is because the Ford is ten years late,

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

33 minutes ago, nsdp said:

The synchronization problems are caused by.  Staatcoms etc  Mayge you should catch up on your reading at IEEE. https://spectrum.ieee.org/zombie-coal-plants-reanimated-to-stabilize-the-gridl, https://spectrum.ieee.org/can-synthetic-inertia-stabilize-power-grids, https://resourcecenter.ieee-pes.org/publications/technical-reports/PES_TR_7-18_0068.html and the DOE labs.   https://tcipg.org/sites/default/files/slides/2012_02-03_Dagle.pdf

I did. What a waste of time. There is no mention of no "staatcom?" What is it? If you mean the static inverters, there is nothing wrong with them, unless underprovisioned badly. Other than this, bunch of American grid guys churning out PowerPoint slides. Which tells me that they got nothing much. By hey, nobody beats the Yankees at PowerPoint, don't get me wrong.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

3 minutes ago, nsdp said:

Nick that means the reactor had to go operational in 1961. Russia had one submarine and the US had 8.  The US has scrapped any and all nuke boats older than the Block II  Los Angeles Class, The Los Angeles was scrapped in   2010. You need to do a fact check before you start typing. Nautilus  and 1st Seawolf ,Trition,  all Skate Skipjack and Hallibut class, all George Washingtons and as of 2019 the  Ohio is the oldest sub in service.Bremerton went to nuclear decommsioning in 2020.

The USNS Enterprise was 55 years because of delay in  deliveries of the Ford.  She was the  only ship to go over 50 and that is because the Ford is ten years late,

What does the talk about US subs and carriers have to do with what are you responding to? Are you suggesting recycling those?!? You can't Military grade reactors run on highly enriched uranium. Instead of a "melting down", they'll turn into actual bombs. Apart from military nukes, Russia also builds a lot of nuclear icebreakers (starting 1957 I think?) Those can be reused, and in fact, have been. There is now a floating nuclear power plant Lomonosov docked near the town of Pevek.

US generally has a lot more pro forma operational carriers than they can actually crew / operate. Never seen more than 4 out at sea at once.(most of the time, just two) See

https://worldview.stratfor.com/topic/tracking-us-naval-power