IMAGES - "Brimming European LNG terminals have limited space for more gas" - Reuters

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Let's be honest that the whole problem is that the USA would like to sell all its LNG to its vassals in Europe.

The real problem is that vassals are good at their accounts and see that just the cost of gasification transport and regasification alone is almost $ 200 per 1,000 m3.

In recent years, this has been the final total price of Russian gas in Europe.

That is why the USA has to force its expensive gas because it is in no way competitively priced.

 Europe simply does not need such expensive gas, having wide access to cheap raw material.

[notsonice + 1,069]

On 2/17/2022 at 10:18 PM, ronwagn said:

Natural gas tanks have many varieties. They are probably just natural gas tanks and not LNG tanks though. There used to be a natural gas tank right near to the city hall in Los Angeles. It was the second most visible item downtown. I could see it from my house. 

People who post pictures are not that accurate all the time. Big deal. Gas is gas whether LNG or regasified. 

I know a lot about LNG tanks and their many variations and history. 

Natural gas tanks have many varieties. They are probably just natural gas tanks and not LNG tanks though.??????

  A Natural gas storage tank (compressed) does not have the shape as shown in the photo. What you had near your house was low pressure gasometer that is used for pressure regulation into a local distribution network to homes and businesses, these are not used for storage. You obviously have never been around a LNG tank or even a compressed nat gas tank.

Who ever wrote the article has no clue about nat gas storage and distribution. 

 

here is what a natural gas (compressed) tank farm looks like that has real storage capacity that you will see after LNG is gassified

Edited February 22, 2022 by notsonice

[notsonice + 1,069]

37 minutes ago, Tomasz said:

Let's be honest that the whole problem is that the USA would like to sell all its LNG to its vassals in Europe.

The real problem is that vassals are good at their accounts and see that just the cost of gasification transport and regasification alone is almost $ 200 per 1,000 m3.

In recent years, this has been the final total price of Russian gas in Europe.

That is why the USA has to force its expensive gas because it is in no way competitively priced.

 Europe simply does not need such expensive gas, having wide access to cheap raw material.

USA has to force its expensive gas??? it is being sold at the world price, do not buy any in Poland and freeze in the dark. Putin could care less on how he is impacting the price. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, notsonice said:

Natural gas tanks have many varieties. They are probably just natural gas tanks and not LNG tanks though.??????

  A Natural gas storage tank (compressed) does not have the shape as shown in the photo. What you had near your house was low pressure gasometer that is used for pressure regulation into a local distribution network to homes and businesses, these are not used for storage. You obviously have never been around a LNG tank or even a compressed nat gas tank.

Who ever wrote the article has no clue about nat gas storage and distribution. 

 

here is what a natural gas (compressed) tank farm looks like that has real storage capacity that you will see after LNG is gassified

That is only one shape. You should know that. Check out what kinds of tanks are used on ships or those used for smaller scale LNG. There are also small tanks used for many purposes including trucks. They have greatly evolved from steel tanks, to fiberglass or other resin tanks that are tightly spun even stronger and much lighter. I think I might know a lot more about them. There are also tanks that use charcoal in them to hold more compressed tanks. 

A tank that could  supply much of Los Angeles in my youth was definitely a storage tank. It was big enough for me to see from ten miles away. I lived at a slightly higher elevation. It was a prominent feature. 

Have a  look:

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=APq-WBuMG1S3oU1GOK5L86PHmP-5q9R0kg:1645507128456&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=natural+gas+tank+images&fir=NXXbYjHIjnJQrM%2CTZfDI86MhsvH8M%2C_%3B-J-NDvZlZV_nqM%2C0XcI1SNraVaSnM%2C_%3BhYSJ3qjtrFsJ7M%2CsYujaCg_jB23wM%2C_%3BLUB65baU2ME48M%2CUFFyOeGH1HYWmM%2C_%3BBr0ZKXP4bwgCZM%2CmqkXMNTMpcb9kM%2C_%3BRi4H0EvaH74UmM%2CVOzZcFprDVDbpM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kTKpdCnvwt1j9362zD1su3pazIuew&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjsffex5L2AhWSlokEHbYXADEQjJkEegQIAhAC&biw=1600&bih=793&dpr=1

Edited February 22, 2022 by ronwagn

[Starschy + 211]

The whole LNG concept is flawed. The Brunsbüttel Germany plan is for 5 Bio m3 a year.

That is more or less a testing size. worse is storage only around 150000 Mio m3 meaning not even a full load of one Ship. And it gets worse the load from Ship to Railway or Trucks which is completely nonsense. Trucks and Railway should load from Storage. And Storage should be at least 750000 Mio m3 Split to at least 2 or 3 Storage Centers.

[El Gato + 251]

On 2/20/2022 at 4:33 AM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Russia (as a part of so-called USSR) did not "partner with Hitler" It made a nonaggression pact with Hitler. This was the last one, when everybody else already had one. Bummer.

Lend lease made out 11% of material used by USSR by value. Sure, a great help. USSR lost some 27 mln people in WWII.  The D-Day was in 1944, when it was already clear, who won. That was kinda late for the Second Front, but I suppose it counts. B for effort.

Stop saying Russia when you mean the USSR, please? USSR actually did not want to fight Japan at all. US and the British made Stalin commit to it. See the proceeding of Yalta and Potsdam conferences. This is because you had no slightest clue how to clear the Japanese Empire from the Asian mainland. On paper, it looked like another Germany. 6 million personnel, up to 10% of them air force. USSR with help of local Commies, cleared the space of the Japanese within days. All the way from Manchuria to the tip of Korea. The Japanese Kwantung Army surrendering was the largest sacking operation ever, over twice the size of Stalingrad. No American set his foot on the Asian part of the continent, except for a few Rangers embedded with the KMT.  The day the Japanese surrender, the Soviet troops were on the Kurils in plain sight of Hokkaido. How did they get there without having any amphibious ships of your own?

Uh, No!

 

Most famously, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin raised a toast to the Lend-Lease program at the November 1943 Tehran conference with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt.

"I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war," Stalin said. "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."

Nikita Khrushchev offered the same opinion.

"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoirs. "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."

The Lend-Lease act was enacted in March 1941 and authorized the United States to provide weapons, provisions, and raw materials to strategically important countries fighting Germany and Japan -- primarily, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China. In all, the United States shipped $50 billion ($608 billion in 2020 money) worth of materiel under the program, including $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union. In addition, much of the $31 billion worth of aid sent to the United Kingdom was also passed on to the Soviet Union via convoys through the Barents Sea to Murmansk.

Most visibly, the United States provided the Soviet Union with more than 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, and 13,000 battle tanks.

However, the real significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet war effort was that it covered the "sensitive points" of Soviet production -- gasoline, explosives, aluminum, nonferrous metals, radio communications, and so on, says historian Boris Sokolov.

"In a hypothetical battle one-on-one between the U.S.S.R and Germany, without the help of Lend-Lease and without the diversion of significant forces of the Luftwaffe and the German Navy and the diversion of more than one-quarter of its land forces in the fight against Britain and the United States, Stalin could hardly have beaten Hitler," Sokolov wrote in an essay for RFE/RL's Russian Service.

And yes, the US fought on mainland Asia in the Malay peninsula and China. Look up Merrill's Marauders and Vinegar Joe Stillwells exploits in SE Asia. Our pilots flew many missions over the "Hump" in the Himilayas to supply and fight in China, and we took a lot of China that we launched bombing missions on mainland Japan from China.

Read your History

[notsonice + 1,069]

21 hours ago, ronwagn said:

That is only one shape. You should know that. Check out what kinds of tanks are used on ships or those used for smaller scale LNG. There are also small tanks used for many purposes including trucks. They have greatly evolved from steel tanks, to fiberglass or other resin tanks that are tightly spun even stronger and much lighter. I think I might know a lot more about them. There are also tanks that use charcoal in them to hold more compressed tanks. 

A tank that could  supply much of Los Angeles in my youth was definitely a storage tank. It was big enough for me to see from ten miles away. I lived at a slightly higher elevation. It was a prominent feature. 

Have a  look:

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=APq-WBuMG1S3oU1GOK5L86PHmP-5q9R0kg:1645507128456&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=natural+gas+tank+images&fir=NXXbYjHIjnJQrM%2CTZfDI86MhsvH8M%2C_%3B-J-NDvZlZV_nqM%2C0XcI1SNraVaSnM%2C_%3BhYSJ3qjtrFsJ7M%2CsYujaCg_jB23wM%2C_%3BLUB65baU2ME48M%2CUFFyOeGH1HYWmM%2C_%3BBr0ZKXP4bwgCZM%2CmqkXMNTMpcb9kM%2C_%3BRi4H0EvaH74UmM%2CVOzZcFprDVDbpM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kTKpdCnvwt1j9362zD1su3pazIuew&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjsffex5L2AhWSlokEHbYXADEQjJkEegQIAhAC&biw=1600&bih=793&dpr=1

A tank that could  supply much of Los Angeles in my youth was definitely a storage tank??? what you saw was a low pressure ( a few psi) gasometer. These are essentially expansion tanks. They first built them when coal gas was being made in the from the 1820's to  1960's in the US . They were used to store (small qualities of Carbon Monoxide that was burned for lighting and stoves) Last one I saw was at a Coal Gas plant that was in use making both coke and coal gas which went out of production in the 60's. The gasometers had very limited storage ...they were rubber lined expanding balloons with hooks on the side that attached to a metal matrix that could go up and down.

they were never intended for storage....these days storage in tanks is done at high compression or at low pressure (a few psi) in underground (old coal mines or  in depleted gas fields. You might have thought all of the gas for LA was stored there, in reality just a few hours worth at best. The gasometer was used for helping regulate pressure in the 50's and 60's and stayed in use after coal gas plants ceased into the 50's. Once they got going with high pressure tanks (3000 psi /with high compression pumps for nat gas the gasometers where demolished as the high pressure tanks can store 500 time the volume than a gasometer are used.

 

ps there are 3 different gas tanks....LNG (very distinct and have insulated side walls....Compressed (usually spheres or elongated (like a propane tank) and low pressure Gasometers (like you saw in LA) ...In the article they show an oil tank (you can tell by the top vents (the inverted J pipes) ) as seen in the photo

Edited February 23, 2022 by notsonice

[Rob Plant + 2,618]

On 2/18/2022 at 12:20 PM, NickW said:

Not surprised really - these continuous arrival of storms means Europe isn't using much gas. Yesterday 28% of Europes (inc UK) electricity needs were met by wind

Also relatively mild weather

it seems that Aeolus and Zephyrus are keeping the Putin gas price monster at bay for now!

 

Actaully Nick over the past month the UK has had 38.9% from renewables of which 35.6% was wind!

https://grid.iamkate.com/

[Rob Plant + 2,618]

On 2/18/2022 at 10:35 PM, ronwagn said:

Yes, they have been very stupid in trusting Putin to play fair. They need to get their act together and prepare for the worst. They need to pay with Euros for their security rather than be blackmailed by Russia. Meanwhile they need to burn coal, advance renewables, and consider nuclear as well. Whatever makes sense. The Greens need to be overruled or voted out. They are the chief reason for this situation along with the cronies dealing with Nordstream 2 and Angela Merkel. 

Ron renewables are the key contributor to powergen in Germany making up over 45% in 2020

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/climate-energy/renewable-energies/renewable-energies-in-figures#:~:text=Electricity generation from renewable energy sources&text=In 2020 renewable energy sources,percent of German electricity demand.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

8 hours ago, El Gato said:

Uh, No!

 

Most famously, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin raised a toast to the Lend-Lease program at the November 1943 Tehran conference with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt.

"I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war," Stalin said. "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."

Nikita Khrushchev offered the same opinion.

"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoirs. "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."

The Lend-Lease act was enacted in March 1941 and authorized the United States to provide weapons, provisions, and raw materials to strategically important countries fighting Germany and Japan -- primarily, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China. In all, the United States shipped $50 billion ($608 billion in 2020 money) worth of materiel under the program, including $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union. In addition, much of the $31 billion worth of aid sent to the United Kingdom was also passed on to the Soviet Union via convoys through the Barents Sea to Murmansk.

Most visibly, the United States provided the Soviet Union with more than 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, and 13,000 battle tanks.

However, the real significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet war effort was that it covered the "sensitive points" of Soviet production -- gasoline, explosives, aluminum, nonferrous metals, radio communications, and so on, says historian Boris Sokolov.

"In a hypothetical battle one-on-one between the U.S.S.R and Germany, without the help of Lend-Lease and without the diversion of significant forces of the Luftwaffe and the German Navy and the diversion of more than one-quarter of its land forces in the fight against Britain and the United States, Stalin could hardly have beaten Hitler," Sokolov wrote in an essay for RFE/RL's Russian Service.

And yes, the US fought on mainland Asia in the Malay peninsula and China. Look up Merrill's Marauders and Vinegar Joe Stillwells exploits in SE Asia. Our pilots flew many missions over the "Hump" in the Himilayas to supply and fight in China, and we took a lot of China that we launched bombing missions on mainland Japan from China.

Read your History

Which part of 11% by value did you not understand? It was great help.

Merrill's Marauders and Vinegar Joe Stillwell are covered by "a few Rangers embedded with the KMT".  Japanese Kwantung Army which surrounded to the USSR in Manchuria was 700,000-1mln men strong.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

On 2/21/2022 at 11:20 PM, ronwagn said:

That is only one shape. You should know that. Check out what kinds of tanks are used on ships or those used for smaller scale LNG. There are also small tanks used for many purposes including trucks. They have greatly evolved from steel tanks, to fiberglass or other resin tanks that are tightly spun even stronger and much lighter. I think I might know a lot more about them. There are also tanks that use charcoal in them to hold more compressed tanks. 

A tank that could  supply much of Los Angeles in my youth was definitely a storage tank. It was big enough for me to see from ten miles away. I lived at a slightly higher elevation. It was a prominent feature. 

Have a  look:

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=APq-WBuMG1S3oU1GOK5L86PHmP-5q9R0kg:1645507128456&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=natural+gas+tank+images&fir=NXXbYjHIjnJQrM%2CTZfDI86MhsvH8M%2C_%3B-J-NDvZlZV_nqM%2C0XcI1SNraVaSnM%2C_%3BhYSJ3qjtrFsJ7M%2CsYujaCg_jB23wM%2C_%3BLUB65baU2ME48M%2CUFFyOeGH1HYWmM%2C_%3BBr0ZKXP4bwgCZM%2CmqkXMNTMpcb9kM%2C_%3BRi4H0EvaH74UmM%2CVOzZcFprDVDbpM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kTKpdCnvwt1j9362zD1su3pazIuew&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjsffex5L2AhWSlokEHbYXADEQjJkEegQIAhAC&biw=1600&bih=793&dpr=1

Ron - I grew up in the LA area too, and those tanks you are describing are well known to me also.  However I had a neighbor who worked for the gas company, and he was able to explain to me exactly what they are and how they work.  As several others have pointed out,  those were temporary buffer tanks for gas at retail customer delivery pressures (several hundred psi) to ensure relatively consistent pressure to local consumers.  They were not LNG tanks (LNG hadn't been invented yet on a commercial scale) nor were they what are referred to as CNG.  CNG for storage or transport is at several thousand psi of pressure and you can NOT keep them in a floating top tank like that.  The one by my house, you could see rising and falling during the day.  Typically it would start the day low,  slowly fill during the day, then drop during the evening when people got home from work and started cooking with gas stoves, and in winter turning the heat on.  At other times it would be relatively constant in level at ~ 2/3rds full presumably because total demand was being kept up with by line deliveries and there was no need to use the intraday flex storage.  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

On 2/20/2022 at 1:33 AM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Russia (as a part of so-called USSR) did not "partner with Hitler" It made a nonaggression pact with Hitler. This was the last one, when everybody else already had one. Bummer.

Lend lease made out 11% of material used by USSR by value. Sure, a great help. USSR lost some 27 mln people in WWII.  The D-Day was in 1944, when it was already clear, who won. That was kinda late for the Second Front, but I suppose it counts. B for effort.

Stop saying Russia when you mean the USSR, please? USSR actually did not want to fight Japan at all. US and the British made Stalin commit to it. See the proceeding of Yalta and Potsdam conferences. This is because you had no slightest clue how to clear the Japanese Empire from the Asian mainland. On paper, it looked like another Germany. 6 million personnel, up to 10% of them air force. USSR with help of local Commies, cleared the space of the Japanese within days. All the way from Manchuria to the tip of Korea. The Japanese Kwantung Army surrendering was the largest sacking operation ever, over twice the size of Stalingrad. No American set his foot on the Asian part of the continent, except for a few Rangers embedded with the KMT.  The day the Japanese surrender, the Soviet troops were on the Kurils in plain sight of Hokkaido. How did they get there without having any amphibious ships of their own?

Russia absolutely partnered with Hitler to start the war. WW2 in Europe began with the invasion of Poland. Hitler invaded on Sept. 1 and Russia on Sept. 17. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Non-aggression Pact, signed in August, had eliminated any hope Poland had of a Russian ally in a war against Germany. Little did Poles know that a secret clause of that pact, the details of which would not become public until 1990, gave the U.S.S.R. the right to mark off for itself a chunk of Poland’s eastern region.https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviet-union-invades-poland#:~:text=On September 17%2C 1939%2C Soviet,and occupation of eastern Poland.

Lend lease was more than a great help, it was the difference between winning and losing.

No I will not stop saying Russia just because it controlled a larger empire at the time. The Russians did not take South Korea nor southern China that was full of Japanese soldiers and they didn't attack until after we dropped the first atomic bomb and as you admit, they didn't even want to attack Japan. F for effort. 

France was a third front. The US engaged in a second front against the Germans in 1942 in Africa while Russia was still trying to retake Stalingrad.Operation Torch in November 1942 was a compromise operation that met the British objective of securing victory in North Africa while allowing American armed forces the opportunity to engage in the fight against Nazi Germany.^[55] In addition, as Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, had long been pleading for a second front to be opened to engage the Wehrmacht and relieve pressure on the Red Army, it provided some degree of relief for the Red Army on the Eastern Front by diverting Axis forces to the North African theatre. Over half the German Ju 52 transport planes that were needed to supply the encircled Axis forces at Stalingrad were tied up supplying Axis forces in North Africa.^{[56] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_campaign}

Edited February 23, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Russia absolutely partnered with Hitler to start the war. WW2 in Europe began with the invasion of Poland. Hitler invaded on Sept. 1 and Russia on Sept. 17. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Non-aggression Pact, signed in August, had eliminated any hope Poland had of a Russian ally in a war against Germany. Little did Poles know that a secret clause of that pact, the details of which would not become public until 1990, gave the U.S.S.R. the right to mark off for itself a chunk of Poland’s eastern region.https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviet-union-invades-poland#:~:text=On September 17%2C 1939%2C Soviet,and occupation of eastern Poland.

Lend lease was more than a great help, it was the difference between winning and losing.

No I will not stop saying Russia just because it controlled a larger empire at the time. The Russians did not take South Korea nor all the rest of Asia that was full of Japanese soldiers and they didn't attack until after we dropped the first atomic bomb and as you admit, they didn't even want to attack Japan. F for effort. 

France was a third front. The US engaged in a second front against the Germans in 1942 in Africa while Russia was still trying to retake Stalingrad.Operation Torch in November 1942 was a compromise operation that met the British objective of securing victory in North Africa while allowing American armed forces the opportunity to engage in the fight against Nazi Germany.^[55] In addition, as Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, had long been pleading for a second front to be opened to engage the Wehrmacht and relieve pressure on the Red Army, it provided some degree of relief for the Red Army on the Eastern Front by diverting Axis forces to the North African theatre. Over half the German Ju 52 transport planes that were needed to supply the encircled Axis forces at Stalingrad were tied up supplying Axis forces in North Africa.^{[56] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_campaign}

It was not Poland, but areas Poland occupied from Russia first, in 1920. See

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

This line defines the border Poland was supposed to have according to Versailles Treaty.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

7 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

It was not Poland, but areas Poland occupied from Russia first, in 1920. See

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

This line defines the border Poland was supposed to have according to Versailles Treaty.

No, it was Poland:

At the March 1921 Treaty of Riga the Soviets conceded^[20] a frontier well to the east of the Curzon Line, where Poland had conquered a great part of the Vilna Governorate (1920/1922), including the town of Wilno (Vilnius), and East Galicia (1919), including the city of Lwów, as well as most of the region of Volhynia (1921). The treaty provided Poland with almost 135,000 square kilometres (52,000 sq mi) of land that was, on average, about 250 kilometres (160 mi) east of the Curzon line.^[21][22] The Polish-Soviet border was recognised by the League of Nations in 1923^{[citation needed]} and confirmed by various Polish-Soviet agreements.

The terms of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 provided for the partition of Poland along the line of the San, Vistula and Narew rivers which did not go along Curzon Line but reached far beyond it and awarded the Soviet Union with territories of Lublin and near Warsaw. From your wiki link.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No, it was Poland:

At the March 1921 Treaty of Riga the Soviets conceded^[20] a frontier well to the east of the Curzon Line, where Poland had conquered a great part of the Vilna Governorate (1920/1922), including the town of Wilno (Vilnius), and East Galicia (1919), including the city of Lwów, as well as most of the region of Volhynia (1921). The treaty provided Poland with almost 135,000 square kilometres (52,000 sq mi) of land that was, on average, about 250 kilometres (160 mi) east of the Curzon line.^[21][22] The Polish-Soviet border was recognised by the League of Nations in 1923^{[citation needed]} and confirmed by various Polish-Soviet agreements.

The terms of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 provided for the partition of Poland along the line of the San, Vistula and Narew rivers which did not go along Curzon Line but reached far beyond it and awarded the Soviet Union with territories of Lublin and near Warsaw. From your wiki link.

Poland denounced Versailles in front of the League of Nations in 1934, right after signing its own nonaggression pact with the Nazis. This document is what gave it the very reason to exist as an independent nation.

Polish Catholics were only a minority in the area (except in Lwow) No reason for it to be Polish-ruled.

You are effectively saying that it is OK for Poland to redraw the map by military conquest, but not OK for Russia to redraw it back. How come?

Effectively, the Soviets stopped at the Curzon line.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

25 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Poland denounced Versailles in front of the League of Nations in 1934, right after signing its own nonaggression pact with the Nazis. This document is what gave it the very reason to exist as an independent nation.

Polish Catholics were only a minority in the area (except in Lwow) No reason for it to be Polish-ruled.

You are effectively saying that it is OK for Poland to redraw the map by military conquest, but not OK for Russia to redraw it back. How come?

No, I am saying that Russia colluded with Hitler to start WW2 in Europe. Then they got suckered by Hitler and we had to bail them out.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Ron - I grew up in the LA area too, and those tanks you are describing are well known to me also.  However I had a neighbor who worked for the gas company, and he was able to explain to me exactly what they are and how they work.  As several others have pointed out,  those were temporary buffer tanks for gas at retail customer delivery pressures (several hundred psi) to ensure relatively consistent pressure to local consumers.  They were not LNG tanks (LNG hadn't been invented yet on a commercial scale) nor were they what are referred to as CNG.  CNG for storage or transport is at several thousand psi of pressure and you can NOT keep them in a floating top tank like that.  The one by my house, you could see rising and falling during the day.  Typically it would start the day low,  slowly fill during the day, then drop during the evening when people got home from work and started cooking with gas stoves, and in winter turning the heat on.  At other times it would be relatively constant in level at ~ 2/3rds full presumably because total demand was being kept up with by line deliveries and there was no need to use the intraday flex storage.  

I never meant to say they were LNG tanks, I don't know how that idea got started. I might

have misspoke. There was no LNG in my childhood. At least not what I was aware of! I did show natural gas tanks of all kinds. You do realize that LNG IS natural gas and CNG is natural gas and all natural gas is under some pressure while in pipelines or in any form of storage. 

Thank you for your detailed description of how the system worked. I did need that. I did realize how the gas was compressed a bit by the cover though. I assume that is the purpose of it rising and falling. 

Nostalgia: http://www.gastorical.com/history-southern-california/

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by ronwagn
add

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Actaully Nick over the past month the UK has had 38.9% from renewables of which 35.6% was wind!

https://grid.iamkate.com/

The Europe figure includes countries like Italy and central European ones which have relatively small wind resources which brings the overall figure down.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 hours ago, notsonice said:

A tank that could  supply much of Los Angeles in my youth was definitely a storage tank??? what you saw was a low pressure ( a few psi) gasometer. These are essentially expansion tanks. They first built them when coal gas was being made in the from the 1820's to  1960's in the US . They were used to store (small qualities of Carbon Monoxide that was burned for lighting and stoves) Last one I saw was at a Coal Gas plant that was in use making both coke and coal gas which went out of production in the 60's. The gasometers had very limited storage ...they were rubber lined expanding balloons with hooks on the side that attached to a metal matrix that could go up and down.

they were never intended for storage....these days storage in tanks is done at high compression or at low pressure (a few psi) in underground (old coal mines or  in depleted gas fields. You might have thought all of the gas for LA was stored there, in reality just a few hours worth at best. The gasometer was used for helping regulate pressure in the 50's and 60's and stayed in use after coal gas plants ceased into the 50's. Once they got going with high pressure tanks (3000 psi /with high compression pumps for nat gas the gasometers where demolished as the high pressure tanks can store 500 time the volume than a gasometer are used.

 

ps there are 3 different gas tanks....LNG (very distinct and have insulated side walls....Compressed (usually spheres or elongated (like a propane tank) and low pressure Gasometers (like you saw in LA) ...In the article they show an oil tank (you can tell by the top vents (the inverted J pipes) ) as seen in the photo

Nostalgia http://www.gastorical.com/history-southern-california/

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Ron - I grew up in the LA area too, and those tanks you are describing are well known to me also.  However I had a neighbor who worked for the gas company, and he was able to explain to me exactly what they are and how they work.  As several others have pointed out,  those were temporary buffer tanks for gas at retail customer delivery pressures (several hundred psi) to ensure relatively consistent pressure to local consumers.  They were not LNG tanks (LNG hadn't been invented yet on a commercial scale) nor were they what are referred to as CNG.  CNG for storage or transport is at several thousand psi of pressure and you can NOT keep them in a floating top tank like that.  The one by my house, you could see rising and falling during the day.  Typically it would start the day low,  slowly fill during the day, then drop during the evening when people got home from work and started cooking with gas stoves, and in winter turning the heat on.  At other times it would be relatively constant in level at ~ 2/3rds full presumably because total demand was being kept up with by line deliveries and there was no need to use the intraday flex storage.  

The non-spherical LNG tanks could also be of the new "membrane" type. It is this way for the LNG carrier ships. The gas insides is in an inflatable sack inside, similar to a trash bag.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

The non-spherical LNG tanks could also be of the new "membrane" type. It is this way for the LNG carrier ships. The gas insides is in an inflatable sack inside, similar to a trash bag.

Would that be inside of a spun fiberglass tank or some other tank?

[notsonice + 1,069]

5 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Nostalgia http://www.gastorical.com/history-southern-california/

Ron thanks, your comments when they stick to the topic of Nat gas are from my end more than well intended and usually very accurate. All I know is there is a lot of misinformation in the mineral resource world .... oil, gas, fracking, coal, mining, refining... (which I have worked my entire life on) and when the author of the article starts out calling oil tanks as LNG storage tanks as pictured that they usually have no clue whatsoever on the topic at hand.

 

Keep up the attack on Putin.........He really is an evil man.

 

 

 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

8 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Would that be inside of a spun fiberglass tank or some other tank?

http://www.liquefiedgascarrier.com/LNG-vessel-construction.html

It is inside a box with mirrored walls, but is not a proper Dewar. The ones they build in Korea actually use wooden planks and aluminum foil, real cheap. It is safe to assume that the plastic they use for the bag is the cheapest elastomer they found, which could handle the cold. It is not spun. You are thinking spacecraft fuel tanks, way too fancy-ass.

[notsonice + 1,069]

12 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

The non-spherical LNG tanks could also be of the new "membrane" type. It is this way for the LNG carrier ships. The gas insides is in an inflatable sack inside, similar to a trash bag.

The inner liner of the tanks are never made of an inflatable sack.....Super cooled LNG would render any polymer membrane brittle at -260° Fahrenheit,.....The tanks are lined with either a solid, none movable, aluminum or a nickel-steel alloy. Ever Hear of the Charpy-v test????

Rubber at -260 degrees is very brittle........ as brittle as glass

 

[notsonice + 1,069]

19 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

http://www.liquefiedgascarrier.com/LNG-vessel-construction.html

It is inside a box with mirrored walls, but is not a proper Dewar. The ones they build in Korea actually use wooden planks and aluminum foil, real cheap. It is safe to assume that the plastic they use for the bag is the cheapest elastomer they found, which could handle the cold. It is not spun. You are thinking spacecraft fuel tanks, way too fancy-ass.

what are you babbling about ???wood and aluminum foil????

INVAR is typically used....it is a steel alloy-specially it is a stainless steel

http://www.liquefiedgascarrier.com/LNG-membrane-design.JPG

the thickness of the INVAR alone is around 50 times thicker than typical aluminum foil

nothing cheap about INVAR linings....35 percent Nickel. Maybe in North Korea they make fake LNG vessels with your real cheap aluminum foil or plastic????

 

That is what an INVAR lined tank looks like

Edited February 23, 2022 by notsonice