Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
I watch the Duran a lot and they point out that Russia in general has contempt for the EU. That Russia sees them as rather pathetic. And I think they are right. Peskov and Lavrov are less likely to day something positive about EU compared to USA.
+37
mavaff
Krepost
TMA1
Rasisuki Nebia
nero
Cowboy's daughter
Autodestruct
Karl Haushofer
Arrow
par far
George1
GarryB
Azi
SeigSoloyvov
higurashihougi
lyle6
limb
ALAMO
auslander
calripson
Yugo90
lancelot
PhSt
PapaDragon
slasher
Scorpius
flamming_python
Kiko
Big_Gazza
medo
LMFS
miketheterrible
owais.usmani
franco
JohninMK
Hole
kvs
41 posters
Russian Oil and Gas Industry: News #3
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-06
owais.usmani- Posts : 1794
Points : 1790
Join date : 2019-03-27
Age : 38
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/novatek-says-it-reconfigures-obsky-lng-project-produce-hydrogen-ammonia-2021-06-23/
MOSCOW, June 23 (Reuters) - Russian non-state natural gas producer Novatek (NVTK.MM) has decided to reconfigure its Obsky LNG project to produce ammonia, hydrogen and methanol, the company's Chief Financial Officer Mark Gyetvay said on Wednesday.
Novatek had initially planned to use a Russian technology, called Arctic Cascade, to produce the sea-borne super-cooled liquefied natural gas at the project in a broader drive for the domestic producers to shield themselves from potential risks of international sanctions.
"One of the announcements we've made recently was to move away from Obsky LNG to Obsky Gas Chemistry, which will be... producing clean fuel like ammonia, hydrogen and methanol," Gyetvay said at an online conference, set up by Renaissance Capital.
Novatek delayed a final investment decision last year for Obsky LNG project, which was expected to come onstream in 2024-2025 and produce almost 5 million tonnes of LNG per year.
owais.usmani- Posts : 1794
Points : 1790
Join date : 2019-03-27
Age : 38
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2021/06/22/10654960/nord-stream-2-gas-pipe-first-flows-and-alternative-supply-routes-in-case-of-delays
Nord Stream 2 gas pipe: first flows and alternative supply routes in case of delays
LONDON (ICIS)--Pre-commissioning activities might delay the commissioning of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which might prompt Russia’s state-controlled company Gazprom to book additional capacity via Ukraine, experts told ICIS.
The first of the two lines forming the Nord Stream 2 link was finished earlier in June and pre-commissioning activities are underway. ICIS outlines how the next steps may delay commercial flows, and which are the potential alternative delivery routes for Russian gas this winter.
Nord Stream 2 is a pipeline owned by Gazprom with a capacity of 55 billion cubic metres (bcm)/year, or around 12% of total gas demand in 2020 in the EU and Britain.
FIRST LINE START
The finished line could technically start flowing gas before winter.
Igor Yushkov, an expert of the National Energy Security Fund and the Financial University under the government of the Russian Federation, told ICIS that pre-commissioning would last 1.5-2 months, which would mean an August commissioning.
The other line might be finished by the end of September and before German elections, although the project certification process will not be finished for sure by then, a German industry source said.
Gazprom aims to have both lines fully operational by the start of heating season in Europe (typically late October, early November), but they will try to reach this stage faster, Yushkov said.
Meanwhile, Jonathan Lagarde, risk manager at a UK-based energy company, and Thierry Bros, energy professor at Paris-based Science Po university, argued that no gas will flow in Nord Stream 2 this year. Even if there was any, the ramping up is likely to be as slow as on the Power of Siberia pipeline , Bros said. This pipeline connects Russia to China and came online in December 2019. It delivered 4.1bcm in 2020 and is expected to reach the full contracted 38bcm/year in 2024. Nord Stream 2 may be tested in 2021, but not started, Bros said.
CERTIFICATIONS
The commissioning depends on an independent third-party certification company certifying the project.
DNV GL, the certifier initially contracted, is not working on the project and said on 11 June that this will not change.
Even if they rejoined, DNV GL might not be able to issue a certificate as they stopped monitoring the construction of the pipeline when they left the project in January 2021.
Certifying the pipes are safe to use is the first step. After that, the German regulator will decide if the project complies with EU rules mandating the separation of the pipe’s owner from the gas supplier and third-party access to the pipe’s capacity. This step may be lengthy, especially as currently Gazprom fully owns the pipe and the gas that will flow in it.
VOLUMES
The complexity of EU rules leaves room for a lot of loopholes, and with good lawyers Gazprom could still find a way to use all of Nord Stream 2’s 55bcm/year capacity, Bros opined.
But if Nord Stream 2 does not start delivering this year, Gazprom will likely need additional transit capacity via Ukraine.
In 2020, Gazprom had booked 65bcm of Ukrainian transit capacity, but only sent 50.7bcm via Ukraine to the Hungarian and Slovak borders. As of 1 June 2020 it had sent 19.1bcm.
In 2021, Gazprom booked 40bcm and sent 19.5bcm as of 1 June.
But this year demand rose 15% above 2016-2020 average in the eleven largest European gas markets between January-May and European stocks excluding Ukraine are at an eight-year low.
“I would expect Gazprom to book extra transit capacity firstly in Poland, which is cheaper and where Gazprom controls the Belarussian section, and then also in Ukraine,” senior fellow at the Centre for Eastern Studies Agata Loskot-Strachota said. Booking monthly or shorter-term capacity is more expensive but it gives Gazprom flexibility and helps maintain uncertainty regarding supply volumes which may create additional pressure to get Nord Stream 2 ready by winter time, she added.
In May, Gazprom did not book the additional 63.mcm/day auctioned at the Russian-Ukrainian border for delivery in June, despite European hub prices reaching some of the highest levels since 2018.
By not booking additional transit capacity via Ukraine, Gazprom “dries” the market so that European players wish to see additional supply capacity like Nord Stream 2 faster, Yushkov said.
GERMAN SUPPORT
Germany has been supporting the Nord Stream 2 project so far despite the strong disapproval of some EU member states in east Europe. However, the position of the German government may shift once Angela Merkel leaves office after the elections in late September.
The Greens are very likely to be an important part of the next governing coalition after the elections and they are strongly opposed to Nord Stream 2, a German Parliament source told ICIS. It is possible that a new government might politically in one form or the other intervene against using an already-built Nord Stream 2, the source added.
But Ernst Klaus, German left MP and chairman of the economic and energy committee, argued that “it does not matter who will lead the new federal government, because ultimately, this is about the reliability of government decisions in Germany, which were the prerequisite for investments worth billions. Overturning such decisions after the fact would result in high recourse claims.”
lancelot- Posts : 2872
Points : 2870
Join date : 2020-10-18
owais.usmani wrote:Meanwhile, Jonathan Lagarde, risk manager at a UK-based energy company, and Thierry Bros, energy professor at Paris-based Science Po university, argued that no gas will flow in Nord Stream 2 this year. Even if there was any, the ramping up is likely to be as slow as on the Power of Siberia pipeline , Bros said. This pipeline connects Russia to China and came online in December 2019. It delivered 4.1bcm in 2020 and is expected to reach the full contracted 38bcm/year in 2024. Nord Stream 2 may be tested in 2021, but not started, Bros said.
These talking heads are retarded. Power of Siberia depends on gas fields which are still being ramped up. The Chinese client also does not have enough pipeline capacity to send the gas to the major population centers which will be the main consumers yet. Those pipelines inside China namely to Shanghai are still under construction. This is not the case for Nord Stream 2. Sure it might not start pumping this year. Sure it might take some time to ramp up. But certainly not 3 years.
owais.usmani wrote:Certifying the pipes are safe to use is the first step. After that, the German regulator will decide if the project complies with EU rules mandating the separation of the pipe’s owner from the gas supplier and third-party access to the pipe’s capacity. This step may be lengthy, especially as currently Gazprom fully owns the pipe and the gas that will flow in it.
The complexity of EU rules leaves room for a lot of loopholes, and with good lawyers Gazprom could still find a way to use all of Nord Stream 2’s 55bcm/year capacity, Bros opined.
The Russian state can just create a new corporation for gas export pipelines independent from Gazprom, directly owned by the Russian government, and transfer the asset to that. Then that corporation can pay back the loans. It just makes for a more complicated shell game of corporations all around but it would dismiss the argument. Then they can provide "third-party access" as long as the other party has a connection to the pipeline in the Russian side. Then just not grant a license for anyone else to connect to the pipeline but Gazprom. If they don't shut up, then just make another shell game. Like sell 5% of the Gazprom gas on the pipe to a corporation like Novatek which then resell it back to the destination. i.e. make some "virtual flow" bullshit like what the EU likes to do all the time.
GarryB, Big_Gazza, kvs, slasher and Hole like this post
kvs- Posts : 15480
Points : 15617
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
The west has a high similarity to rodents in its compulsion to poop into its own food. All this spew at Russia over the lucrative gas supply
which benefits the west takes the take for verminous behaviour.
which benefits the west takes the take for verminous behaviour.
Big_Gazza and slasher like this post
GarryB- Posts : 39672
Points : 40168
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Well remember the ALAMO.... post 275 on page 11 of this thread...
Russia has the energy and this BS is all about stifling their ability to deliver it.
If it has to go through the Ukraine then that is fine but it is Germany and other EU customers that get the privilege of paying transit fees, so if they want to pay more for their energy then that is probably fine with Russia.
If they want to triple the price and get LNG after perfectly good pipelines have been built to deliver it much much cheaper and faster and easier then that is OK too because ultimately it is the Germans and other customers that will pay the extra too.
As mentioned these pipes predate the cold war... in fact there was a James Bond movie were the pipes were misused to smuggle secret agents out of the Iron Curtain using those pipelines so the only side that has misused them is the west and they continue to do so today...
High recourse claims, which essentially means the penalties for Europe will be significant if they actually do manage to block this pipeline.
Personally I would love to see it stopped... they can complete it to Kaliningrad and that is where europe can get its gas from and the people of Kaliningrad can get cheap gas and not worry about any transit fees to get it there.
The recourse claims should cover most of the cost for building the lines so essentially they get gas energy to an outlying Russian area for next to nothing and think of all those people from neighbouring countries travelling to Kaliningrad to buy their bottled gas at 50c a 9kg bottle....
Russia has the energy and this BS is all about stifling their ability to deliver it.
If it has to go through the Ukraine then that is fine but it is Germany and other EU customers that get the privilege of paying transit fees, so if they want to pay more for their energy then that is probably fine with Russia.
If they want to triple the price and get LNG after perfectly good pipelines have been built to deliver it much much cheaper and faster and easier then that is OK too because ultimately it is the Germans and other customers that will pay the extra too.
As mentioned these pipes predate the cold war... in fact there was a James Bond movie were the pipes were misused to smuggle secret agents out of the Iron Curtain using those pipelines so the only side that has misused them is the west and they continue to do so today...
But Ernst Klaus, German left MP and chairman of the economic and energy committee, argued that “it does not matter who will lead the new federal government, because ultimately, this is about the reliability of government decisions in Germany, which were the prerequisite for investments worth billions. Overturning such decisions after the fact would result in high recourse claims.”
High recourse claims, which essentially means the penalties for Europe will be significant if they actually do manage to block this pipeline.
Personally I would love to see it stopped... they can complete it to Kaliningrad and that is where europe can get its gas from and the people of Kaliningrad can get cheap gas and not worry about any transit fees to get it there.
The recourse claims should cover most of the cost for building the lines so essentially they get gas energy to an outlying Russian area for next to nothing and think of all those people from neighbouring countries travelling to Kaliningrad to buy their bottled gas at 50c a 9kg bottle....
ALAMO- Posts : 7075
Points : 7165
Join date : 2014-11-25
GarryB wrote:Well remember the ALAMO.... post 275 on page 11 of this thread...
Russia has the energy and this BS is all about stifling their ability to deliver it.
If it has to go through the Ukraine then that is fine but it is Germany and other EU customers that get the privilege of paying transit fees, so if they want to pay more for their energy then that is probably fine with Russia.
If they want to triple the price and get LNG after perfectly good pipelines have been built to deliver it much much cheaper and faster and easier then that is OK too because ultimately it is the Germans and other customers that will pay the extra too.
As mentioned these pipes predate the cold war... in fact there was a James Bond movie were the pipes were misused to smuggle secret agents out of the Iron Curtain using those pipelines so the only side that has misused them is the west and they continue to do so today...
The situation is even better.
Ukraine used to steal gas from the pipes on a daily basis.
It is not a claim or a rumor, it was officially stated by then-CEO of Naftohaz. Can't remember his name now, but the clue of what he said was "we need gas, and as we can't afford it, we will take it from a direct flow, and if there will be problems with that, we will empty the storage tanks".
He has not even hidden that fact
Everyone knows that. I mean, everyone who can read with understanding, that makes about 25% of the population, still ...
Each and any fucking time when they were stealing the gas, and Russia has undertaken the measures, the same hysteria appeared in Poland. When the pipe pressure was down, it already began with yapping about "ze evil Russkies are switching off our precious gas supply".
On the other hand, when Russia proposed an alternative pipe through Poland, considering it as more stable than Ukraine, there was another yapping in the air. About eternal Polish-Ukrainian friendship, and "Ukrainian interests". This was done on the highest levels, including then-president Kwasniewski. Now a board member of Burisma, how interesting, isn't it?
When Nord Stream appeared on the scene, Poland was invited to join. There was even a discussion to connect the giant gas consumer, chemical plant in Police, directly to this supply. Ended up with the same "the Ukrainian interest" bullshit.
The point is, that Germany is at the end of that line, and what used to be in the middle, are unstable regimes. Can be used to hinder the economy of Germany, and other EU industrial-based members, at any given moment. And Germany is perfectly aware of that, that is why NS2 was created.
GarryB wrote:But Ernst Klaus, German left MP and chairman of the economic and energy committee, argued that “it does not matter who will lead the new federal government, because ultimately, this is about the reliability of government decisions in Germany, which were the prerequisite for investments worth billions. Overturning such decisions after the fact would result in high recourse claims.”
This is a common narrative, not so long time ago a German energy minister Peter Altermeier stated officially, that it has never been Russia who used energy supply as a tool of inflicting political pressure.
GarryB wrote:
High recourse claims, which essentially means the penalties for Europe will be significant if they actually do manage to block this pipeline.
Personally I would love to see it stopped... they can complete it to Kaliningrad and that is where europe can get its gas from and the people of Kaliningrad can get cheap gas and not worry about any transit fees to get it there.
The recourse claims should cover most of the cost for building the lines so essentially they get gas energy to an outlying Russian area for next to nothing and think of all those people from neighbouring countries travelling to Kaliningrad to buy their bottled gas at 50c a 9kg bottle....
They would resolve that by a complication of border passing for citizens, just like they did now in Poland. It was hard to persuade people about Ze Evil Russkies, as long as they travelled across the border daily basis, enjoying cheap gas, buzz and cigarettes. Russians used to travel for the same purposes, only buying food products that were less expensive in Poland for instance.
As for NS2, your love will not be answered
- they will connect this pipe. I saw this construction when visiting Rugia Island a while ago. Sassnitz was the main harbour to operate, the stock of pipes stored there was mindblowing. kvs, JohninMK and slasher like this post
lancelot- Posts : 2872
Points : 2870
Join date : 2020-10-18
They already built the pipeline on the German side. If Nord Stream 2 isn't connected not only will they have to pay massive fees to the consortium but have a huge expensive empty pipe.
PapaDragon likes this post
kvs- Posts : 15480
Points : 15617
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
Beggars cannot be choosers. All of this anti-Russian posturing is vapid BS. Biden's capitulation on sanctions demonstrates that
at the end of the day, EU-tardia needs Russian gas. With their few thinking cells they even understand enough that paying
a huge markup for LNG is against their interests. The last few years have been nothing but propaganda theater.
at the end of the day, EU-tardia needs Russian gas. With their few thinking cells they even understand enough that paying
a huge markup for LNG is against their interests. The last few years have been nothing but propaganda theater.
ALAMO- Posts : 7075
Points : 7165
Join date : 2014-11-25
Add one more factor.
A pipeline produces hundreds of highly paid jobs there.
One must operate the pumping stations, maintain them, check it etc.
Mecklemburg-Vorpommern is the poorest Land in Germany. To have those jobs generated there or not, does make a difference.
A pipeline produces hundreds of highly paid jobs there.
One must operate the pumping stations, maintain them, check it etc.
Mecklemburg-Vorpommern is the poorest Land in Germany. To have those jobs generated there or not, does make a difference.
GarryB, PapaDragon, JohninMK and slasher like this post
GarryB- Posts : 39672
Points : 40168
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
My main point was that everyone thinks this is a problem for Russia, but really it is a problem for Germany and ultimately for Europe...
There are no bad outcomes for Russia because they have the gas that the EU needs... whether NSII is completed or cancelled after it starts pumping gas means nothing because the US does not have enough gas to supply Europes needs now let alone in the future... they don't even have enough for their own needs let alone in the future...
Personally I hope they end up with liquification plants and exporting to the world using LNG powered ships... the loss of reliability and increases in energy costs will make industry in Germany rather less competitive against Russian and Chinese industry.... China should offer to buy shipped gas from Russia too and so there is none left to sell to the Europeans.
There are no bad outcomes for Russia because they have the gas that the EU needs... whether NSII is completed or cancelled after it starts pumping gas means nothing because the US does not have enough gas to supply Europes needs now let alone in the future... they don't even have enough for their own needs let alone in the future...
Personally I hope they end up with liquification plants and exporting to the world using LNG powered ships... the loss of reliability and increases in energy costs will make industry in Germany rather less competitive against Russian and Chinese industry.... China should offer to buy shipped gas from Russia too and so there is none left to sell to the Europeans.
ALAMO- Posts : 7075
Points : 7165
Join date : 2014-11-25
GarryB wrote:My main point was that everyone thinks this is a problem for Russia, but really it is a problem for Germany and ultimately for Europe...
There are no bad outcomes for Russia because they have the gas that the EU needs... whether NSII is completed or cancelled after it starts pumping gas means nothing because the US does not have enough gas to supply Europes needs now let alone in the future... they don't even have enough for their own needs let alone in the future...
Personally I hope they end up with liquification plants and exporting to the world using LNG powered ships... the loss of reliability and increases in energy costs will make industry in Germany rather less competitive against Russian and Chinese industry.... China should offer to buy shipped gas from Russia too and so there is none left to sell to the Europeans.
Europe has another idea, however, it is talked about silently.
There is something in the air, and this discussion is seemed to heat up.
Hydrogen.
Some leaks across UE suggest, that Europe might be interested in general switching to hydrogen as an energy factor.
Of course, it is not something that can be done in 5 or even 10 years and requires a political decision to push it forward.
There will be a demand for new technological solutions, a new push forward for the European car industry, etc.
To me, this looks like a lesson learned from the Chinese.
They stopped following the competitors and trying to catch up with fossil driven car industry and focused on electricity. The effect after a decade is absolute dominance in the electric car business and absolute dominance in battery production.
It would be hard for European car producers to catch up on equal terms, so they think about a jump forward.
This is another factor extremely interesting from the Russian perspective because mass hydrogen production requires several things.
One of the most effective methods now is based on extracting hydrogen from water.
Who has the longest coastline?
There is a huge amount of energy needed for that, and the only option to produce it at the moment is atomic energy.
Who is a generation ahead with nuclear energy?
Hydrogen requires a huge storage capacity and distribution lines.
Who has the biggest underground storage now? And longest working pipelines net?
And last but not least - connected to the EU existing system?
As VVP would have said, there is a hydrogen in Siberia, too
GarryB, JohninMK and slasher like this post
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-06
That also probably explains why Russia is also moving to Hydrogen as well.
flamming_python- Posts : 9284
Points : 9346
Join date : 2012-01-30
miketheterrible wrote:That also probably explains why Russia is also moving to Hydrogen as well.
Indeed
Current plans call for petrol-based buses to be steadily replaced by hydrogen-powered models
lancelot- Posts : 2872
Points : 2870
Join date : 2020-10-18
Hydrogen is a complete non starter. Electrolysis wastes half the energy. Cheapest form is cracking natural gas. You are then supposed to sequester the CO2 underground to conform with Kyoto Protocol. Hydrogen fuel cells used to generate electricity from hydrogen are still massively expensive also and use platinum group metals. You need to find some way to store it and transport it. Liquid hydrogen pipelines are much more expensive than natural gas pipelines because liquid hydrogen it is much less dense than liquid methane. Plus you need to cool it down a lot more, close to absolute zero to liquefy it. Battery cost keep getting down and there is massive industry around developing better batteries for things like smartphones and laptops. For cold countries like Russia where batteries are not that effective you are better off using the natural gas directly.
kvs, ALAMO, JohninMK, lyle6 and Kiko like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7075
Points : 7165
Join date : 2014-11-25
Well, you know, technology evolves 
It won't happen overnight, in a decade either.
The first factor for today is inexpensive energy.
It can be achieved with nuclear power only at the moment, that is one of the variables for a quotation.
When Russkies will put into operation this no-waste reactor they are building now, and technology will be mastered, the energy will be even less expensive.
It won't happen overnight, in a decade either.
The first factor for today is inexpensive energy.
It can be achieved with nuclear power only at the moment, that is one of the variables for a quotation.
When Russkies will put into operation this no-waste reactor they are building now, and technology will be mastered, the energy will be even less expensive.
kvs- Posts : 15480
Points : 15617
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
Hydrogen is a total crock "energy source". Storage and transport of this gas is a nightmare. It diffuses into metal and makes it brittle.
All commercially available hydrogen storage devices leak and substantially. This is not a matter of technology but a matter of physics.
They idea of cars equipped with a compressed hydrogen vessel instead of a gasoline tank is insane. Ammonia is vastly easier to handle
than hydrogen. Ammonia is a fuel that can be burned in regular car engines but the downside is NOx production. NOx and the ozone
it generates in the troposphere are greenhouse gases and pollutants. But there is no free lunch and the pimping of hydrogen smells of
"too good to be true".
All commercially available hydrogen storage devices leak and substantially. This is not a matter of technology but a matter of physics.
They idea of cars equipped with a compressed hydrogen vessel instead of a gasoline tank is insane. Ammonia is vastly easier to handle
than hydrogen. Ammonia is a fuel that can be burned in regular car engines but the downside is NOx production. NOx and the ozone
it generates in the troposphere are greenhouse gases and pollutants. But there is no free lunch and the pimping of hydrogen smells of
"too good to be true".
Big_Gazza and lancelot like this post
PapaDragon- Posts : 13372
Points : 13414
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
Hydrogen can be exchanged for money
Money can be used to buy gold
Ergo, hydrogen is nice
GarryB and slasher like this post
GarryB- Posts : 39672
Points : 40168
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
They already have a business to produce and distribute hydrocarbons and they have been working on technology that uses a fuel cell type method of generating electrical current using hydrocarbons where combustion does not happen so the byproduct is solid carbon... which is the best of every world because the infrastructure for producing hydrocarbons and transporting it easily and efficiently is already in place, and using that fuel leads to solid carbon being produced rather than it being released in gas form during a combustion process... the solid carbon on its own would be useful for producing various products like carbon nanotubes, carbon fibre, etc etc...
As PD points out Russia can produce Hydrogen and pipe it to Germany via existing pipes... what they do with it is their business.
The main problem with solar and wind power generation is its variability and the fact that it might not be shining or blowing respectively when you need it, so solutions like just having a water tower where when the sun shines and the wind blows water is pumped electrically up to the top of the tower/reservoir. And when the energy is needed then it can flow down and turn generators... or batteries or hydrogen or hydrogen peroxide or whatever...
As PD points out Russia can produce Hydrogen and pipe it to Germany via existing pipes... what they do with it is their business.
The main problem with solar and wind power generation is its variability and the fact that it might not be shining or blowing respectively when you need it, so solutions like just having a water tower where when the sun shines and the wind blows water is pumped electrically up to the top of the tower/reservoir. And when the energy is needed then it can flow down and turn generators... or batteries or hydrogen or hydrogen peroxide or whatever...
kvs- Posts : 15480
Points : 15617
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
GarryB wrote:They already have a business to produce and distribute hydrocarbons and they have been working on technology that uses a fuel cell type method of generating electrical current using hydrocarbons where combustion does not happen so the byproduct is solid carbon... which is the best of every world because the infrastructure for producing hydrocarbons and transporting it easily and efficiently is already in place, and using that fuel leads to solid carbon being produced rather than it being released in gas form during a combustion process... the solid carbon on its own would be useful for producing various products like carbon nanotubes, carbon fibre, etc etc...
Fuel cells consuming CH4 directly and producing C instead of CO2 or CO are clearly the "best" approach. For some reason hydrogen is touted as the cleanest
fuel because it produces H2O when "burned". But burning H2 in regular internal combustion engines is stupid since it will not produce pure H2O. Recall that
80% of the air is nitrogen (N2). So inside the engine cylinders it will form NOx thanks to the heat put out by the 2 H2 + O2 reaction. So H2 is associated
with fuel cells for "true clean" performance. Well, then, use fuel cells that burn CH4 or NH3 leaving solid C or N2 instead of CO2 or NOx. Ammonia is superior
to CH4 for fuel cell operation because forming C in solid form is a tall order. It is much easier to produce N2 gas. There is no free lunch.
GarryB likes this post
JohninMK- Posts : 15132
Points : 15273
Join date : 2015-06-16
Location : England
Earlier, after meeting with US State Secretary Antony Blinken, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas underscored Berlin’s determination to ensure that the 745-mile-long pipeline, set to bring Russian gas to Germany under the Baltic Sea, is not used to undermine the interests of Ukraine.
The US and Germany are exploring ways to shore up support for Ukraine to alleviate the feared fallout from Moscow’s perceived geopolitical gains after the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is finished, Bloomberg reports.
It is purported that the US State Department and Germany’s foreign ministry have been considering a deal envisaging a number of options, with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s foreign and security adviser, Jan Hecker, involved.
https://sputniknews.com/world/202106261083246095-us-germany-reportedly-devising-option-riddled-plan-to-offset-fallout-from-nord-stream-2-pipeline/
The US and Germany are exploring ways to shore up support for Ukraine to alleviate the feared fallout from Moscow’s perceived geopolitical gains after the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is finished, Bloomberg reports.
It is purported that the US State Department and Germany’s foreign ministry have been considering a deal envisaging a number of options, with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s foreign and security adviser, Jan Hecker, involved.
https://sputniknews.com/world/202106261083246095-us-germany-reportedly-devising-option-riddled-plan-to-offset-fallout-from-nord-stream-2-pipeline/
GarryB- Posts : 39672
Points : 40168
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Ukraines future is in its own hands... if their pipes collapse from neglect, or they steal transit gas from other customers then of course Russia would stop using them... and you would be an idiot to demand they kept pumping gas through their country and paying them transit fees if they are stealing.
If they don't steal gas then Russia will of course continue to make money sending gas through their pipes.... it is the customers that pay the transit fees, Russia just collects them up and pays them.
If they don't steal gas then Russia will of course continue to make money sending gas through their pipes.... it is the customers that pay the transit fees, Russia just collects them up and pays them.
flamming_python likes this post
flamming_python- Posts : 9284
Points : 9346
Join date : 2012-01-30
GarryB wrote:Ukraines future is in its own hands... if their pipes collapse from neglect, or they steal transit gas from other customers then of course Russia would stop using them... and you would be an idiot to demand they kept pumping gas through their country and paying them transit fees if they are stealing.
If they don't steal gas then Russia will of course continue to make money sending gas through their pipes.... it is the customers that pay the transit fees, Russia just collects them up and pays them.
For the sake of Gazprom's customers, I do hope then that the Ukrainians will offer competitive transit fees. Especially now there is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline coming online, and the Turkish stream which has expanded into the Balkans with a pipeline from Serbia to Hungary now on the cards.
Let's not forget the LNG terminals either, which can also receive Russian compressed gas.
There are an increasing amount of alternatives, to gas transited through the Ukraine.. even if they do refrain from stealing and siphoning off gas.
ALAMO- Posts : 7075
Points : 7165
Join date : 2014-11-25
GarryB wrote:and you would be an idiot to demand they kept pumping gas through their country and paying them transit fees if they are stealing.
You are saying that in a way like it never going to happen.
Well, you are totally and perfectly wrong my friend, it used to happen several times in the past.
As I have said earlier, "ze evil Russkies gas" saga is played here in Europe for functionally 20+ years now.
There were times when Polish brave farmers used to dig out the optical fiber along the Yamal pipeline, in a bright light of Polish MSM encouraging them to do so.
Every single fucking time when Ukraine was stealing the gas, it was just the same bullshit story told to the people of Poland or Germany. It was presented not as a Ukrainian stealing operation, but as Russians switching the flow off, decreasing the pressure etc.
This idiocy decreased for a while once NS was put into operation, but increased severely with a different narrative as soon as NS2 was out there.
kvs- Posts : 15480
Points : 15617
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
Now that gas spot prices are hitting around $400 per thousand cubic meters while in the last two years they fell as low as $40,
the EU is demanding that Gazprom ship more volumes through Ukraine. The chutzpah. These clowns have been economically
and politically sabotaging Russia and Gazprom for years. The Ukrainian route is by far the most expensive for Gazprom. Also,
Gazprom is fulfilling all its contract obligations and is not required to supply extra volumes to the spot market. Eat it, U-rope.
Big_Gazza, miketheterrible and lancelot like this post