|
|
Post by bsutrack on Oct 1, 2022 16:12:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Oct 5, 2022 19:30:23 GMT -6
European Gas Moves from Bad to Ugly ![]() European gas has moved decisively into BofA Global Research’s “ugly” scenario following the NS1 and NS2 pipeline explosions, a new report from the company has outlined. “After the war broke out in March, we set out three scenarios for European TTF natural gas prices that we labelled ‘good’ (€75/MWh), ‘bad’ (€100/MWh) and ‘ugly’ (€200/MWh),” the report noted. “During the first half of 2022, the European TTF natural gas market traded mostly along the ‘bad’ scenario as pipeline flows from the east continued, despite some friction loss,” the report added. “But as Russian pipeline natural gas flows into North West Europe collapsed this summer after Nord Stream 1 maintenance, day ahead TTF prices quickly moved into the ugly scenario, averaging exactly €200/MWh in the past three months, a level that we now expect to hold over the next 4 to 6 months under normal weather,” the report continued. www.rigzone.com/news/european_gas_moves_from_bad_to_ugly-05-oct-2022-170588-article/Here's what natural gas prices looked like in the UK before the Nord Stream Pipeline bombing: ![]() ![]() ![]()  Note the blue curve, the price we are fortunately still paying in the US for natural gas vs. what the Brits were paying even before the Nord Stream Pipeline bombing (red curve). ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 5, 2022 19:52:33 GMT -6
But they will not suffer from the cold this winter due to the warm, tingly, superior feelings they have from adopting all those wonderful, stylish "green" energy initiatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Oct 6, 2022 6:34:00 GMT -6
Yikes. Sucks to be European right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 6, 2022 7:04:12 GMT -6
Relying on Russia sucks, plus lack of domestic sources natural gas, cutting back nuclear.
Staying on coal as an energy source wasn't a choice that was going to be without problems. They have increased efficiency in energy use, not nearly enough to match those problems.
We're lucky, we have domestic natural gas, and more reliable import sources. Have done passably well on efficiency and getting renewables started. And, we probably should think about our policy on nuclear energy.
Whatever, there is no cost free alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Oct 6, 2022 8:04:35 GMT -6
And, we probably should think about our policy on nuclear energy. Any energy plan that doesn't include nuclear isn't a serious plan. If we're going to eliminate the use of fossil fuels (at some point we'll have to), that loss can't be replaced without fission. Wind, solar, tidal, hydroelectric, and solar are all fine as supplemental energy sources, but they just can't match the amperage created by nuclear. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 6, 2022 9:30:01 GMT -6
And, we probably should think about our policy on nuclear energy. Any energy plan that doesn't include nuclear isn't a serious plan. If we're going to eliminate the use of fossil fuels (at some point we'll have to), that loss can't be replaced without fission. Wind, solar, tidal, hydroelectric, and solar are all fine as supplemental energy sources, but they just can't match the amperage created by nuclear. 100% agree. With a big question mark being improving what we do with waste, and what we do to make plants secure. That's a thorny problem right up there with re-engineering the power grid.
There is always going to be a large component of fossil fuel use, especially natural gas. In the rosiest environmental fantasies without nuclear it is going to be at least 25-50% fossil fuel, and just mean cutting back from current reliance not really replacing all of it.
At least nuclear could help bridge the gap toward improved conservation, and new alternative sources. That would make meeting those goals less science fiction.
Energy efficiency based on existing and future technologies can take care of as much as a 1/4 of our demand, but it has costs, and is not a quick fix. It's a long term replacement in architecture and construction and in changing technology of goods that consume energy. We're not really close on things, like EV, and long term it is about replacing buildings as they become otherwise obsolete.
Solar and other renewables don't seem likely to be a replacement for more than 1/4 to 1/2 of our needs. That's at best, and requires a lot of investment.
In the best of all worlds the naswer is we transition to the possibility of nuclear fusion. That's potentially a 75-80% solution, a real dream, especially since it is without so much downside as any other alternative. But. The science is not there yet, and every time it seems close, new problems seem to arise. Even assuming the new engineering technologies it will need, it is decades away from coming on line.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 6, 2022 10:03:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Nov 3, 2022 20:37:41 GMT -6
Europe May See Forced De-Industrialization As Result Of Energy CrisisEuropean industries including ferroalloys, fertilizer plants and specialty chemicals are shutting down as a result of the ongoing energy crisis. Certain industries may not come back, even if the energy crisis eases. An increasingly tight regulatory environment is another reason for de-industrialization in Europe. oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Europe-May-See-Forced-De-Industrialization-As-Result-Of-Energy-Crisis.html" A tenth of Europe’s crude steel production capacity has already been idled, according to estimates from Jefferies. All zinc smelters have curbed production, and some have shut down. Half of the primary aluminum production has shut down as well. And in fertilizers, 70 percent of factories have been idled because of the energy shortage.
Chemical plants are also curbing their activities, ferroalloy furnaces are going cold, and plastics and ceramics manufacturing is shrinking as well.
Some of these businesses might choose to eventually relocate to a place with cheaper and more widely available sources of energy, contributing to the deindustrialization process in Europe."
Remember most Democrats want the US to emulate Western Europe. I guess the amount of CO2 in our air might be a little less if US loses it industrial base too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Nov 4, 2022 6:34:24 GMT -6
Good thing China doesn't care about the environment. Or its workers. Or people in general.
I'm sure they can step in and supply everything we need. What could go wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 5, 2022 11:01:31 GMT -6
Good thing China doesn't care about the environment. Or its workers. Or people in general. I'm sure they can step in and supply everything we need. What could go wrong? Never fear. There must be easy answers to this problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by jburton on Nov 6, 2022 7:08:33 GMT -6
Good thing China doesn't care about the environment. Or its workers. Or people in general. I'm sure they can step in and supply everything we need. What could go wrong? Never fear. There must be easy answers to this problem.
Not very articulate, not very smart, not the best candidate but he has a message that seems to resonate. Common sense for the masses? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 6, 2022 8:52:31 GMT -6
Never fear. There must be easy answers to this problem.
Not very articulate, not very smart, not the best candidate but he has a message that seems to resonate. Common sense for the masses? Common sense, I get the appeal. But, I haven't really seen much of that. He seems remarkably ignorant rather than having common sense. This claim that he has answers to all the questions, but just isn't going to go public so the Democrats get them is very strange. All in the context of claiming his opponent isn't giving the answers, and must not have them, that is not much of a retort when accused of not responding to substantive questions.
Dishonesty, exaggeration, and misrepresentation of his life is part of politics, to some extent par for the course, but he is in the outer limits there by any standard. If he knows anything about policy, business, the economy, government and is informed on national issues or knows squat about the rest of the nation or the world outside Georgia, I have not seen it.
His qualification is name recognition in Georgia, a Trump endorsement, which might get him elected, but very little else in his life except football shows much ability, or accomplishment. He'd be a candidate for Georgia state legislature and I'd understand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jburton on Nov 6, 2022 9:57:19 GMT -6
youtu.be/iVEV1Not3AANot very articulate, not very smart, not the best candidate but he has a message that seems to resonate. Common sense for the masses? Common sense, I get the appeal. But, I haven't really seen much of that. He seems remarkably ignorant rather than having common sense. This claim that he has answers to all the questions, but just isn't going to go public so the Democrats get them is very strange. All in the context of claiming his opponent isn't giving the answers, and must not have them, that is not much of a retort when accused of not responding to substantive questions.
Dishonesty, exaggeration, and misrepresentation of his life is part of politics, to some extent par for the course, but he is in the outer limits there by any standard. If he knows anything about policy, business, the economy, government and is informed on national issues or knows squat about the rest of the nation or the world outside Georgia, I have not seen it.
His qualification is name recognition in Georgia, a Trump endorsement, which might get him elected, but very little else in his life except football shows much ability, or accomplishment. He'd be a candidate for Georgia state legislature and I'd understand it.
I'm not really interested in arguing about political candidates in a state that neither of us can vote in. I just wanted to note how I can see how his message seems to resonate with common people. Besides,you were the person who posted a link to the Pravda smear article, not me. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 6, 2022 10:13:23 GMT -6
A good point about Georgia politics...
|
|
