Europe gas market -how it started how its going

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/29/2021 at 3:04 PM, Eric Gagen said:

Or in short:

For decades, Western Europe benefitted from the fact that Russia had no serious alternative markets for its excess natural gas production.  Now, thanks to a variety of factors, the Russians have some choices in their sales alternatives, and the Europeans are no longer receiving cut rate natural gas - they have to pay the market price, which is set by LNG demand in Asia .

They chose not to produce their own natural gas but that is still an option. The Germans still say no to nuclear as do all aside from France, to my knowledge. Eastern Europe may go nuclear. Nuclear is a long term proposition and very expensive. Natural gas is not and it is clean. Green Nightmares are here. 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

10 hours ago, Piotr Berman said:

Once I read that an American congressman wanted protection for American titanium producers, as it is a strategic material.  That made me curious and I did some checking.  Titanium is relatively plentiful and mined in many places, a big proportion is used to make paints.  However, while the raw material is not expensive, making the metal is somewhat difficult.  What is difficult, and is being done in Russia, is making high purity titanium necessary for airplane parts.  Because of the pandemic, the production of airplanes is down, and the factory is not making profit, however it is indeed strategic so the conglomerate that owns it keeps it alive.  To me it was interesting, because it shows how the global economy depends on a myriad of technologies, and breaking it into two hostile blocks, like in the original Cold War, would have plenty of losers.  

You are semi-right. All of the titanium used in US/Western aerospace comes from this Russian company

https://www.vsmpo.ru/en/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSMPO-AVISMA

They have not found a way to avoid it, as witnessed from the company being constantly added and immediately removed from US sanctions list. This is also the stuff Americans used to steal. to build the SR-71.

The company is profitable. The production of Russian domestic aircraft is actually up instead of down. The government is bankrolling a bunch of new SSJs as part of import-substitution schemes and the MC-21 is just around the corner. On the military and chopper end of the business, things are as usual or better. Apparently, they are building new Tu-160 bombers from scratch again. Note that the product in question is not really "high purity" titanium (which is crap) but advanced titanium alloys in sheets.

Titanium works very similar to aluminum. In its basic form, it is not a very impressive material. If you survey the consumer parts available in titanium, like left- and right- threaded M5 bolts to attach racing bike pedals, you will find out them to be actually inferior to better stainless steel alternatives in any parameter but weight. (Which requires a significant suspension of disbelief does anything for a part that size)

Best Russian aerospace parts?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/russian-metal-ball-object-bahamas-harbour-island-b1808214.html

Is this a possible Russian contribution to reusable missile parts, perhaps? They can make a titanium ball which survives a drop from the orbit without a scratch.

Let me interpret this for you. A titanium sphere which they weighted to some 41 kg and carrying 43-something liters of fuel (which the inscription says) is bound to have a displacement of around 42 liters. Which I don't think is coincidental. Because what was the question?

Surprise, surprise. Russians can read your literature, especially science-fiction, too, and take not every time you come out with a nifty new way to genocide all Russians. Consider the "Project Thor" orbital bombardment scheme, see

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

Which is actually due to late

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

who simultaneously proposed it his capacity as advisor to Boeing, notable science fiction writer (especially in co-authorship with late Jerry Pournelle) and purveyor of a popular column in Byte magazine. He, of course, used all those three venues available to him to float his proposal. Since than, did US invest significant amount of resources into the scheme to find out the following things that I could've told them right away.

a) They don't know where to get that much tungsten.

b) It still has a tendency to burn up in the atmosphere when dropped without propulsion

c) The impact velocity turns out to be "only" about Mach 8-9, which is well within reach of conventional rocketry for same size projectile. No real point in taking it to space.

Personally, I could immediately think of a several ways to improve Jerry's proposal. I think I have quite a talent for genocide, or at least for breaking things. Always suspected that other Russians do, too.

A fully emptied fuel tank like that weighting 41 kg but displacing 42 would be bound to float in water near completely submerged, with only the neck sticking out. This would make it a suitable "message in a bottle" as it would invariably be picked up by the ocean currents and taken to one of surprisingly few places, which ought to be predictable. Since there is nothing interesting in Bahamas, I suppose they missed the target. They did, however, get their telemetry back thanks to useful idiots in the British tabloid press. Alas, ignorance is bliss. Maybe the British idiots should think twice next time they want to do something gravely offensive to most advanced space-faring civilization around?

The Chinese have their own sources of aerospace-grade titanium alloys, but their market situation is less than transparent, as usual. I imagine that very few, if any, of some 20 Chinese suppliers who publicly advertise to provide such materials to anyone, actually do. So, at least Boeing prefers to buy Russian. Sanction this, and see the level of competitiveness of your aerospace exports drop.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

They chose not to produce their own natural gas but that is still an option.

An option how? Short of aggressive fracking schemes, there are no known untapped sources of gas anywhere in the West. The

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

which started the European love affair with NG is wrapping up prematurely, due to becoming a source of quakes. Norway finds just enough gas to compensate what their older wells lose off.

Disclaimer. I am not sure if the deep water exploration in ice is accounted for. The tech for doing so is experimental. See

https://www.eni.com/en-IT/operations/norway-goliat.html

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

As you can see, there was some major mishap there, which caused Eni to scram in 2015. It is a Norwegian only show now, but appears to be operational, albeit in skunk works mode. This platform is dynamically positioned and currently reinfects all the gas to get more oil.

Officially, the only platform operating in pack ice is the Russian

https://www.gazprom.com/projects/prirazlomnoye/

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

That one is stationary and on shallow ground. Otherwise are the two about the same, producing about 100,000 barrels of oil annually from up to 32 sub-wells or whatever those things are called.

Interestingly enough, it was Prirazlomnaya that was hit by Greenpeace, not the dodgier Goliat

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

Dropping the blah blah about the evils of authoritarian Russian regime, potentially a ground breaking case in maritime law, deciding that oil rigs DO NOT constitute a vessel at sea and thus unauthorized boarding of them does not constitute piracy. Expect Russians to learn how to weaponize environmental activists against their competitors too, soon enough. The Europeans are gonna wish they didn't do this to Russia.

In another episode, I already described how Russia now has a domestically produced alternative for LM2500 genset that is actually more powerful, all thanks to sanctions on Prirazlomnaya.  Here is the start of this story

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/12/11/us-tech-bound-for-russia-seized-by-authorities-a68557

(with Vector 40G being also an upgraded version of LM2500 specifically targeting oil and gas exploration. Those things are about a 20ft container sized and power US Arley Burke destroyers, among other things. Anybody at USN interested in propulsion upgrades, perhaps?)

Anyhow, back to Norway. The situation there is extremely easy to oversea. The NG extracted on the region is very rich in

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

significantly flammable and explosive gas at room temperature. So, the Norwegians have to separate the ethane before they pipe the methane, which also allows them to fetch the premium price for the ethylene fraction. See

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

In practical terms, the size of these gas works are limited to the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vågsøy_(island)

or a smaller island in front of it which you can see in the article on the gas plant which could be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldøen

or not. Colloquially, all those place are usually called

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Måløy

which is now apparently just the town that is located there. (where the dangerous gas processing is actually certainly NOT) It is supposed to be a word in a rare "Southern Saami" dialect, which I think is just Russian, meaning "little one"

The ability to cart away liquefied ethylene is limited to the ability of this company

https://www.j-l.com/epic-gas-and-lauritzen-kosan-combine-fleet-and-businesses

which appears to be a global monopoly now. The "product tankers" used are smaller than regular LNG carrier, are painted in bright orange, yellow or read and carry every conceivable hazardous cargo warning. Must be a good business though, as most ethylene for producing polyethylene apparently still comes from hydrocracking liquid petrochemicals, so the stuff is more expensive than gasoline.

Of specific interest are the up to 34 "product tankers" that were operated from Denmark by J. Lauritzen. You can easily track them via AIS using the following mnemonic. They are always named after either manifestations of 

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

or female leadership characters in the history of

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

both of which are dead giveaways to the

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

connection. (In case you ever wondered about the similarity of their flag to the Danish one)

The only country which has a technology to float a whole oil qualification / gas production (ought to be something like "sorting" IMHO) is Russia. In fact, does the Novatek's upcoming Arctic LNG train go offshore.

https://www.arctictoday.com/a-giant-module-for-novateks-arctic-lng-2-project-sails-the-northern-sea-route/

For which purposes there is this (sorta) shipbuilding plant being built

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-lng/2021/05/worlds-largest-lng-construction-yard-taking-shape-belokamenka

The plan is to build prefab blocks much larger than your typical oil rig there and put LNG liqualification and works on there. I could've sworn the plant was owned by Rosneft instead of Novatek?

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-lng/2021/05/worlds-largest-lng-construction-yard-taking-shape-belokamenka

Just found another interesting document linked from there

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-lng/2021/03/push-global-lead-lng-moscow-takes-aim-arctic-tundra

which is PM Mishustin's strategic LNG development plan. Another nifty detail is that Novatek's floating plants will have a reserved ability to produce ammonia instead of LNG. Neat. With a boiling point around −33°C, the stuff wouldn't even have to be pressurized in the high Arctic. Could use any odd tanker for carrying it.

As usual, who exactly is sanctioning whom? Absolutely nobody is going to have a better deal on gas for Europe (and most premium portion of Asia, like Japan and Korea than Russians. Don't like Gazprom's pipeline gas? Pay some more and get some Novatek LNG. Because

a) Russia is simply closer

b) Cryogenic liquids are inherently cheaper to make in the Artic. They can get away with using two, instead of a three-stage train. (already discussed elsewhere)

c) Now, there is also a yet-unknown benefit of having mobile qualification trains / production plants following the gas. Not sure I explained well enough what's good about it, as analogies escapes me. Putting an oil refinery onto an oil rig does not seem to be that good of an idea?

Or, they can repeat this stupid stunt

From ( https://www.ft.com/content/4885b7f5-97a2-4e66-af91-a9211956b0f5 )

Just in case somebody would be inclined to interpret spot pricing as a great achievement of free market economies, even when the price for gas is somehow spot (it is not really and not ever obviously will be for LNG), the price for tankers is very much not really spot. They are also available at significant discount if there is a long term contract for their recurring use. Most are actually being built with a specific contract in mind.

Does anybody remember where I can get that article which lists the tankers actual destinations? I think something like one is heading to Poland, which made the most noise (as usual) and it could be just another publicity stunt. Most are going towards the most obvious places - Atlantic coast of Spain or Portugal. Building LNG terminals anywhere further East is simply a present to Russia's Novatek.

The current divide is supposedly going through the Belgian gas net. As evidenced by the existence of this

https://www.fluxys.com/en/company/zeebrugge-lng

That is, anything further East of this point is getting Russian gas, even if it is LNG. Further West, it may make sense to pipe American or Qatari gas from the Spanish/Portuguese locations on the Atlantic coast or the Med. Unless you want a Polish-style publicity stunt, you are getting a swap from LNG traders otherwise. Having said that, this scheme is possibly a temporary one, (ab)using the specific quirk of Qatari Q-Max carriers. All but one of those have a small built-in re-liquefaction plant. This makes them much more useful as storage facilities for LNG than tankers. (The current paradigm is to use a bit of evaporating LNG for near free and environmentally benign propulsion fuel)

This leaves out the Med. Why is so little going on there? I am aware of this

https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/news-events/newsroom/first-croatian-lng-terminal-officially-inaugurated-krk-island

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/da/ip_19_4910

(I think some kind of LNG terminal, not in much use, has always been there?)

So, get this. Croatia gets financed for major LNG build up, so they may supply Poland. Poland gets financed for major LNG buildup so they can supply Croatia. Problem - neither of them got any LNG. Lets interconnect anyway

https://www.ceep.be/north-south-gas-corridor-poland-croatia-join-efforts/

I dunno why are there so little LNG activities on the coast of the Med yet, but I have a hunch that the final beneficiary of whatever new interconnecting pipelines the EU bankrolls is going to be Gazprom (see the TAP/TANAP debacle)

The battle royale between Poland and misc. mighty Latverias as to which one is going to be the regional hub supplying others with gas has already been decided, but none other than USSR, with surprising winner being Latvia, due to having a natural geological formation called Inčukalns which can store some 4.5 bcm of gas without evaporation loss, with expansion possible

https://www.conexus.lv/information-about-storage

https://www.skultelng.lv/en/underground_gas_storage/

This winner is surprising because Latvia, being the poorest of all misc. Latverias, actually received the least amount of EU dough for LNG buildup. The way EU infrastructure pork barrel works is that the recipient is usually not the one who's needs the subsidy most, but who's got the most matching funds. (In experiments where they tried to change the basis to the most emotional proposal, Britain always won

So, here you are witnessing a rare instance of EU legislating against the laws of geology (not to be confused with geography, the more traditional source of natural laws to legislate against)

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

с новым годом @Andrei Moutchkine

https://tass.com/society/1383253

Edited January 1, 2022 by QuarterCenturyVet

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

They chose not to produce their own natural gas but that is still an option. The Germans still say no to nuclear as do all aside from France, to my knowledge. Eastern Europe may go nuclear. Nuclear is a long term proposition and very expensive. Natural gas is not and it is clean. Green Nightmares are here. 

If gas prices remain anywhere near where they are now nuclear is very cheap even when compared to the Hinkley C agreed strike price. 

[NickW + 2,714]

21 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Do you have any of these?

https://www.force4.co.uk/department/safety/signalling-visibility/flares

These might be OTC items in UK only, where they exist for the strangest official reason of having to save whales. You know why that is?

Yes I have a coastal pack. My understanding was they were always available for visual distress / location marking. 

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

They chose not to produce their own natural gas but that is still an option. The Germans still say no to nuclear as do all aside from France, to my knowledge. Eastern Europe may go nuclear. Nuclear is a long term proposition and very expensive. Natural gas is not and it is clean. Green Nightmares are here. 

Meanwhile in the real world we can take a look at strike prices for the big offshore developments in UK waters. Strike prices for offshore wind by Mwh are half that of natural gas traded on the Dutch market that sets european gas prices. 

 

Dogger Bank A P1 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 1 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	47.20£/MWh
Dogger Bank A P2 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 1 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	47.20£/MWh
Dogger Bank A P3 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 1 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	47.20£/MWh
Dogger Bank B P1 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 2 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	49.47£/MWh
Dogger Bank B P2 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 2 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	49.47£/MWh
Dogger Bank B P3 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 2 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	49.47£/MWh
Dogger Bank C P1 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 3 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	49.47£/MWh
Dogger Bank C P2 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 3 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	49.47£/MWh
Dogger Bank C P3 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 3 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	49.47£/MWh

[Eric Gagen + 713]

@Andrei Moutchkine

The natural gas resources that Europe is 'refusing' to develop are shale gas in France and the UK.  Poland attempted to develop theirs, and it was discovered that in spite of large theoretical resources in the ground it could not be produced in a practical way.  

There is probably a lot of undiscovered natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean also - Certainly Egypt and Israel have world class production underway, or about to begin.  There is expected to be major potential offshore of Turkey, Cyprus, Syria and Lebanon also, but there are a lot of complicated geopolitical and undersea border issues that have to get solved to access most of that area.  

[NickW + 2,714]

34 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

@Andrei Moutchkine

The natural gas resources that Europe is 'refusing' to develop are shale gas in France and the UK.  Poland attempted to develop theirs, and it was discovered that in spite of large theoretical resources in the ground it could not be produced in a practical way.  

There is probably a lot of undiscovered natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean also - Certainly Egypt and Israel have world class production underway, or about to begin.  There is expected to be major potential offshore of Turkey, Cyprus, Syria and Lebanon also, but there are a lot of complicated geopolitical and undersea border issues that have to get solved to access most of that area.  

The areas where they did test bores in the UK are near or under heavily populated areas. RonW thinks we should carry on frack regardless but I am not aware that the US allows fracking underneath cities and towns. 

The area that would be interesting are the Southern North Sea coal measures which are very thick and very gassy. Would be interesting to see if anyone can develop an economic method offshore method to frack these areas. 

[Starschy + 211]

The french region around Montpellier is in my opinion no option for Shale Gas. That Region is on a very high Tourismus Scale. There are multiple large Rivers.

Cities like Carcassonne, Nimes or Montpellier have enough Fans to block Shale Gas ideas.

Edited January 1, 2022 by Starschy

[Eric Gagen + 713]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

The areas where they did test bores in the UK are near or under heavily populated areas. RonW thinks we should carry on frack regardless but I am not aware that the US allows fracking underneath cities and towns. 

The area that would be interesting are the Southern North Sea coal measures which are very thick and very gassy. Would be interesting to see if anyone can develop an economic method offshore method to frack these areas. 

It does, and in places where there are oil and gas fields it’s the norm, not the exception. The city of Los Angeles is built on top of a large number of oil fields.  Wells were drilled underneath Dallas Fort Worth airport (one of the largest in the world$ while it was in service using lateral wells during the last 10 years.  The Hastings oilfield is underneath parts of Southern Houston.  My home in Katy is over the top of an old gas field which is now in service as a gas storage field.  The city of Lafayette Louisiana has a gas condensate field under about 1/2 of it.  The city of midland Texas is smack dab in the middle of a large field.  Nearly every square foot of Bakersfield California has producing oil and gas wells under it.  The city of Beverly Hills is built on top of the Beverly Hills oil field.  Oklahoma City is on the Oklahoma City field, including producing wells across the street from the state capital.  I could go on - there are dozens of other cases off the top of my head.  Cases outside the US are just as numerous.  

[Eric Gagen + 713]

3 hours ago, Starschy said:

The french region around Montpellier is in my opinion no option for Shale Gas. That Region is on a very high Tourismus Scale. There are multiple large Rivers.

Cities like Carcassonne, Nimes or Montpellier have enough Fans to block Shale Gas ideas.

Directional drilling from central pads solves the problem.  You put large volumes of surface wells and equipment all in one spot, then drill out in all directions as needed.  
 

I grew up in Long Beach California, a densely populated urban portion of Los Angeles.  Most of the residents are unaware that it sits over the top of the 3 billion barrel Wilmington oil field, as well as parts of the Seal Beach and Torrance fields. This despite the fact that it was producing ~ 300,000 bbls a day (it’s much less now as it’s deep in decline now) If there is value in doing so, it’s surprisingly easy to hide/camouflage oil and gas equipment, and the wells are so easy to hide that you could walk past one and be unaware.  Colorado is doing similar stuff in suburban and settled rural areas. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

Meanwhile in the real world we can take a look at strike prices for the big offshore developments in UK waters. Strike prices for offshore wind by Mwh are half that of natural gas traded on the Dutch market that sets european gas prices. 

 

Dogger Bank A P1 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 1 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	47.20£/MWh
Dogger Bank A P2 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 1 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	47.20£/MWh
Dogger Bank A P3 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 1 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	47.20£/MWh
Dogger Bank B P1 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 2 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	49.47£/MWh
Dogger Bank B P2 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 2 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	49.47£/MWh
Dogger Bank B P3 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 2 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	49.47£/MWh
Dogger Bank C P1 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 3 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	49.47£/MWh
Dogger Bank C P2 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 3 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	49.47£/MWh
Dogger Bank C P3 Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 3 Projco Limited	Offshore Wind	Phased (Single Metering)	1 December 2021	49.47£/MWh

I don't hear much about the speed of development of wind in Great Britain but that they are as short of affordable energy as mainland Europe. Is that correct? 

I am all for wind at sea, versus in scenic areas on land. My preference is that they be beyond the horizon, but that is up to the people and the government. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

If gas prices remain anywhere near where they are now nuclear is very cheap even when compared to the Hinkley C agreed strike price. 

I meant to say it is very expensive to put in place. It is very prone to extreme cost over runs and takes forever to get all the permitting needed in western nations. The Wyoming plant under construction is of advanced design and is no exception. It is backed by Bill Gates, our federal government, and now Mitsubishi.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/japan-help-build-bill-gates-042607474.html

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I meant to say it is very expensive to put in place. It is very prone to extreme cost over runs and takes forever to get all the permitting needed in western nations. The Wyoming plant under construction is of advanced design and is no exception. It is backed by Bill Gates, our federal government, and now Mitsubishi.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/japan-help-build-bill-gates-042607474.html

Upfront costs are higher than gas but at current prices new nuclear electricity is half the price of CCGT sourced leccy. 

[NickW + 2,714]

21 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I don't hear much about the speed of development of wind in Great Britain but that they are as short of affordable energy as mainland Europe. Is that correct? 

I am all for wind at sea, versus in scenic areas on land. My preference is that they be beyond the horizon, but that is up to the people and the government. 

For the UK

5.8GW under construction (commissioning between now and 2023)

15,1GW in planning pipeline (commissioning throughout 20's). 

List of offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Strike prices per Mwh are less than  half that of current gas prices (which ar elower than int he last month) . At current prices and taking into account turbine efficiency the price of gas sourced leccy is almost 4x that of wind. Obviously the dispatchable nature of gas gives it a premium but at that cost differential storage becomes more viable In a matter of months the UK will have 1400MW direct connection with Norwegian pumped Hydro and another 1400MW via Denmark. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Upfront costs are higher than gas but at current prices new nuclear electricity is half the price of CCGT sourced leccy. 

Long term is where the big hurt comes in. Most nuclear plants need expensive maintenance , decommissioning, tax support when old, radioactive waste care forever, uranium prices and environmental damages, public concerns etc. Wyoming is a good place for them as it is barren like much of the West.

For now, I am supporting all of the above energy to save our economy from the Green extremists. For me, natural gas is the first choice, but possibly the new reactors and better handling of the waste materials will change my mind. 

6 hours ago, NickW said:

The areas where they did test bores in the UK are near or under heavily populated areas. RonW thinks we should carry on frack regardless but I am not aware that the US allows fracking underneath cities and towns. 

The area that would be interesting are the Southern North Sea coal measures which are very thick and very gassy. Would be interesting to see if anyone can develop an economic method offshore method to frack these areas. 

Natural gas can be developed very near towns, but I do not support fracking under towns. I do not like people misrepresenting me, so please do not put words in my mouth.  

  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

For the UK

5.8GW under construction (commissioning between now and 2023)

15,1GW in planning pipeline (commissioning throughout 20's). 

List of offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Strike prices per Mwh are less than  half that of current gas prices (which ar elower than int he last month) . At current prices and taking into account turbine efficiency the price of gas sourced leccy is almost 4x that of wind. Obviously the dispatchable nature of gas gives it a premium but at that cost differential storage becomes more viable In a matter of months the UK will have 1400MW direct connection with Norwegian pumped Hydro and another 1400MW via Denmark. 

Not using their own natural gas is their choice, so I hope they do well with their wind turbines. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Not using their own natural gas is their choice, so I hope they do well with their wind turbines. 

The geology in the UK is much more complex with a lot of the resource under densely populated areas. 

Even if the UK went full bore exploiting its gas it wouldn't bridge the gap by several country miles so home produced gas isn't an alternative to wind, nuclear or other renewables. 

That said I do believe more areas of offshore waters should be opened up to O&G exploration. 

[NickW + 2,714]

46 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Long term is where the big hurt comes in. Most nuclear plants need expensive maintenance , decommissioning, tax support when old, radioactive waste care forever, uranium prices and environmental damages, public concerns etc. Wyoming is a good place for them as it is barren like much of the West.

For now, I am supporting all of the above energy to save our economy from the Green extremists. For me, natural gas is the first choice, but possibly the new reactors and better handling of the waste materials will change my mind. 

Natural gas can be developed very near towns, but I do not support fracking under towns. I do not like people misrepresenting me, so please do not put words in my mouth.  

  

Thats the issue in the UK - the viable resources identified are underneath heavily populated areas. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 minutes ago, NickW said:

Thats the issue in the UK - the viable resources identified are underneath heavily populated areas. 

My information is that there were complaints over minor temblors that were claimed to be earthquakes by the Greenies. You would have to offer some references.

 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/29/discovery-of-biggest-uk-gas-field-in-a-decade-glengorm-north-sea

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-7693317/Biggest-oil-gas-Britain-40-years-East-Yorkshire.html

Edited January 1, 2022 by ronwagn
reference

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

My information is that there were complaints over minor temblors that were claimed to be earthquakes by the Greenies. You would have to offer some references. 

One test bore sets off a couple minor earthquakes. Now multiple that up. Hundreds of wells over much wider areas in geology that is much more complex than the areas fracking is down in the US. The ground is folded & heavily faulted. 

Anyway at 95 euros / Mwh wind and nuclear is a much better investment

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I don't hear much about the speed of development of wind in Great Britain but that they are as short of affordable energy as mainland Europe. Is that correct? 

I am all for wind at sea, versus in scenic areas on land. My preference is that they be beyond the horizon, but that is up to the people and the government. 

We are not physically short of energy but completely over reliant on gas and as prices have skyrocketed we are now paying that price. 

The UK should never have privatised its energy sector and maintained a diverse supply from different sources

The UK should have continued building another PWR every 2-3 years since 1995

Around 2010 it should built another 2-3 2GW supercritical coal plants to provide some diverse flexible baseload

A sane energy policy might have resulted in something like this:

30% nuclear

20% wind

20% coal

10% other renewables

20% gas

[ronwagn + 6,290]

23 minutes ago, NickW said:

One test bore sets off a couple minor earthquakes. Now multiple that up. Hundreds of wells over much wider areas in geology that is much more complex than the areas fracking is down in the US. The ground is folded & heavily faulted. 

Anyway at 95 euros / Mwh wind and nuclear is a much better investment

Well they sure need something NOW, so they will be suffering for their procrastination. Winter in Britain is not as bad as Europe, but they are cool to cold all year. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

29 minutes ago, NickW said:

One test bore sets off a couple minor earthquakes. Now multiple that up. Hundreds of wells over much wider areas in geology that is much more complex than the areas fracking is down in the US. The ground is folded & heavily faulted. 

Anyway at 95 euros / Mwh wind and nuclear is a much better investment

Well how about offshore?