Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gazprom is not a market player, it's a weapon: Times online.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 11:13 PM
Original message
Gazprom is not a market player, it's a weapon: Times online.
Edited on Thu Jan-08-09 11:14 PM by NNadir
The bust-up between Russia and Ukraine that threatens to gum up the gas supplies of much of Southern and Eastern Europe hardly comes as a surprise. It is almost part of the new year ritual and somehow always seems to strike during a cold spell. Across the Continent, radiators run cold.

So why hasnt the European Union devised some kind of strategy to deal with the threat by now? Years of talk about energy security have generated nothing but hot air.

The fundamental problem is that Western Europeans, and in particular the Germans, have bought into the myth that Gazprom is a normal commercial concern struggling to succeed in the marketplace. The European Commission pretends that it is behaving in an even-handed way in the row between Kiev and Moscow. Scratch the skin of a Euro-bureaucrat, however, and you see soon enough that Brussels is in sympathy with the Gazprom line. Ukraine, you will hear, is chaotically governed, is not a reliable friend to the EU; a gas thief, no less...

...Instead, it co-operates enthusiastically with Gazprom in building a Baltic gas pipeline that bypasses Poland. The former Chancellor Gerhard Schrder has taken the Gazprom shilling and is quick to defend Kremlin policies. His post on the supervisory board of a company building an underwater gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea is reported to be highly lucrative. Germans regarded the move so soon after he left office in 2005 with deep suspicion, his friendship with Mr Putin adding to doubts on whether the former Chancellor was acting in the best interests of the country. Gazprom, keen to buy friendship in Germany, sponsors the football team Schalke. All of this helps to dilute the EU aim of energy security. As long as Germanys supplies are guaranteed, why should it worry about the small fry, the Central Europeans currently shivering in the Big Chill?





http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/arti...

I have my own corollary about anti-nukes by the way, the most famous one in Europe being Gazprom's own Gerhard Schroeder: Scratch the skin of an anti-nuke and you will always find a dangerous fossil fuel apologist.

There is NOT ONE who is otherwise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Do you not read the replies to your own posts? Plenty of examples to choose from there.
I have my own corollary about anti-nukes by the wayScratch the skin of an anti-nuke and you will always find a dangerous fossil fuel apologist.

There is NOT ONE who is otherwise.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I WRITE my own posts.
I think I am aware of their contents.

I have written many posts here noting that the architect of the pro-fossil fuels German nuclear phaseout wasn't a month out of office as Chancellor before signing up for Gazprom paychecks.

Is your contention that this is untrue?

If the German Chancellor believed that Germany had a dangerous fossil fuel policy when he was selling Germany to the Russians, how come he was signing on for the Baltic Pipeline in his last months in office?

However, I have observed that there is a subset of people who cannot read all that well. I haven't spoken with any of them, but I am sure that were I to do so, I would observe a group that hears only what it wants to hear, but is incapable of comprehending what a wise citizen needs to hear.

The internet is a place where one states their opinions. My unalterable opinion after some years of reading stuff here and elsewhere is that 100% of anti-nukes are apologists for dangerous fossil fuels. The prima facie evidence for this is broad, especially when you read how many of them talk about cars.

And now, how about the front page of the Danish Energy Agency, where they discuss new oil and gas leases:

http://www.ens.dk/sw11492.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. You Seem to be Proving My Point
You do not read the replies to your own posts.

Most of us who post replies that disagree with your posts are pushing renewables, including me, so it can't very well be 100% fossil-fuel apologists, can it?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Renewable intermittency is typically addressed with NG backup.
Renewable development has been known to actually increase NG usage, as intermittency on the grid increases.

Renewable advocates generally respond by saying that this is not the end-game, but it is definitely the opening and the middle-game, and what the end-game really will be is a subject of debate. Vanadium redox, NaS, hydrogen, subterranean pumped-hydro, massive redundancy, etc. None of these has yet been deployed on a terawatt-hour scale. My personal favorite axe to grind is wondering just what the environmental impact of these storage technologies will look like. And the economic cost.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. You Think We Can (and Should) Do It All With Nukes?
Consider the environmental impact of just one nuclear power plant that blows:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I think we could do such a thing. It's not the only possible solution.
In fact, given that people are always implementing different energy technologies, there's pretty much no chance that one kind of technology will ever be used exclusively.

Tell me, what exactly does your map show about environmental impact?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Systematic Chaos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-10-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. You mean, you don't KNOW?
Must I explain everything?

:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-12-09 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Thanks for that! (n/t)
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-12-09 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. you are the wind beneath my wings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. And precisely how do you propose accomplishing load following
And precisely how do you propose accomplishing load following if we were to dedicate our resources to nuclear?

One of the most deceptive arguments of nuclear proponents is to base the amount of infrastructure needed on a gross yearly watthour aggregate. They then extrapolate the needed nuclear capacity buildout based on a 90%+ capacity factor. However, in the real world where peaking power requires massive excess generating capacity, there would be only two choices - use natural gas for peaking power or build a very large number of nuclear plants that only run at perhaps 10-20% of their rated capacity.

Considering the all in cost of building nuclear is now around $10,500/kw, this is simply an unacceptable way to maximize our financial resources.

When the environmental, proliferation and safety issues are factored in, there isn't even room for discussion; going the nuclear route is jumping from the fossil fuel frying pan into the atomic fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Nukes don't load-follow very well.
I think if I was proposing some hypothetical all-nuke solution, I would build enough nukes for peak load, and use the energy for other activities off peak. Shunt the heat from generators to chemical plants, for instance. I think NNadir figured that about 4000 nukes would do it, world-wide. About 1000 of those would be American.

With respect to load-following approaches, I think I would prefer grid storage approaches to burning NG. My qualms about external and internal costs of storage notwithstanding. Burning fossil carbon into the atmosphere is going to kill us all, and NG is no exception.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. What "other activities off peak".
If there were effective ways to more equitably distribute the load with in-place technologies we would already be doing it.

Natural gas plants cost about $500/kw installed, nuclear costs are NOW about $10,500/kw installed and rising. So if you are going to propose grid storage for load following with nuclear how can you justify attacking renewables for needing storage? In the worst case renewables with storage will come in cheaper (as economy of scale savings become manifest during global adoption) than nuclear without storage.

The fact is careful analysis demonstrates nuclear isn't the best use of resources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-10-09 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. That scenario would for sure require changes to industry...
building infrastructure like chemical plants next to reactors, to take advantage of the heat energy. It would be far from a business-as-usual situation. But a fairly straightforward implementation of CHP.

One thing I haven't seen, that would be informative, is a consolidated report on what has been happening to cost-per-kilowatt-hour (over lifetime, etc) of various energy sources. The increases will be across the board, but I assume not all increases will be the same. For that matter, maybe deflation is causing some price decreases now. I bet it isn't any fun to predict the cost of energy build-out in this economic climate.

Clearly, that would be a moving target, and it's probably moving pretty quickly these days with economic upheaval in full swing. But if I was President, that would be a chart I would want to keep track of.

As far as NG, the infrastructure might be cheap, but what about the fuel? The EU seems to be having some issues with that these days, getting back to the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-10-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Combined cycle is well on its way to being a standard part of development
Edited on Sat Jan-10-09 05:57 PM by kristopher
The paper you propose would be interesting, but as you point out, it would be a perpetual work-in-progress. However, general trends are clear and there is little reason to question their direction, leaving us primarily dealing with questions related to the slope of the trend lines.

NG fuel supply is primarily a distribution problem at this point. Although it is somewhat counter intuitive, a distributed, multi-source (storage, wind, solar, wave/current/tidal, and geothermal) grid will go a long way towards addressing the NG fuel problem. Remember that the goal is to eliminate carbon emissions. Initially we can expect greater reliance on NG as we achieve carbon reductions via elimination of coal. As the new infrastructure takes shape the demand on the natural gas facilities can be expected to decrease because of supplemental sources coming online and the greater *fuel* efficiencies achieved through Compressed Air Energy Storage. And bear in mind that part of the new infrastructure should be regional facilities to produce methane from wastes, which would make the gas turbine sector carbon neutral and also address the distribution problems. Since as diesel generation is as dispatchable as NG, this CAES niche would also able to be served by biofuels such as oil derived from algae.

This was posted on EE recently but I'll post it again for anyone that might have missed it. I know of at least two other similar modeling efforts underway at this time, so we should be seeing more published data giving us a clearer view of the balance among carbon free/neutral resources that works best in various regions.

Renewable Energy
Information
Campaign

Stralauer Platz 34
D-10243 Berlin

Tel: 030-200535-3
Fax: 030-200535-51

Contact :
unendlich-viel-energie.de

www.
unendlich-viel-energie.de

The Combined Power Plant the first
stage in providing 100% power from
renewable energy

Berlin, 9 October 2007
The companies Enercon GmbH, SolarWorld AG and Schmack
Biogas AG today presented the Combined Power Plant. Together
with the Institute for Solar Energy Supply Systems (ISET) at the
University of Kassel, these three companies have proved with this
project that renewable energy can secure 100 per cent of energy
supplies in accordance with demand. The Combined Power Plant
shows that renewable energy sources can supply sufficient
electricity, can be controlled at any time, function in combination
and can be balanced out across the grid, says Ulrich Schmack,
Board Spokesman of Schmack Biogas AG.
The joint project from Schmack Biogas, SolarWorld and Enercon
links 36 decentralized power plants based on wind, hydropower,
solar and biogas energy so that they can supply electricity around
the clock regardless of weather conditions and electricity demand.
It takes advantage of the unequally distributed energy potential
across Germany.
The Combined Power Plant is scaled to meet 1/10,000th of the
electricity demand in Germany using renewable energy. This scale
corresponds to the annual electricity requirements of a small town
with around 12,000 households, such as Stade. The Combined
Power Plant therefore shows in miniature what is also possible on
a large scale: 100 per cent electricity provision using renewable
energy sources, emphasises Frank H. Asbeck, CEO of SolarWorld
AG.
The wind and sun cannot be influenced, which places particular
importance to the linkage of wind, solar and biogas plants. The
decentralised network enables wind, solar and biogas installations
to be controlled like a conventional large-scale power station and
thus meet Germanys fluctuating energy requirements, says Kurt
Rohrig from ISET, explaining the Combined Power Plants central
control unit.
Further information on the Combined Power Plant can be found at
www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/kombikraftwerk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-11-09 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. The price of building nuclear is at most $1800 per KW, not $10,500. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-11-09 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. You can't support that, and I can support $10500
Edited on Sun Jan-11-09 02:49 AM by kristopher
All-In Cost Estimate for New Nuclear Power Cost to Build (Most Likely Case)
As noted previously, an Overnight cost estimate is not intended to be an indication of total costs to
build a nuclear plant. Since construction takes place over a long period, annual cost escalations and
the Cost of Capital each become major components of the total capital costs33:
Overnight Cost Estimate (in 2007 Dollars): $ 4,070/KW
Construction Cost Escalations $ 3,370/KW
Cost of Capital Used During Construction: $ 3,114/KW
Total Estimated All In Capital Costs: $10,553/KW


Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power
Craig A. Severance (pg 18)

You can download the analysis here. http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-11-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Of course I can, because I deal in facts.
Westinghouse just contracted with China to build 4 of their AP1000 1100 megawatt reactors there for a total of $8 billion. Net price, $1733 per kilowatt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-11-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Severance...
Severance provides clear and explicit analysis of a wide array of completed and ongoing projects.

Against that you provide one speculative contract in a country with a command and control economy and vastly lower wage scale. You're dealing in speculation, incomplete data, and a nonrepresentative sample; frankly it is an overtly dishonest assertion.

The Climate Progress link at my last post includes a discussion between Severan and several proponents of nuclear, including lay people and two representatives from the Nuclear Energy Institute. While there is much criticism of Severan, none of it is based on careful analysis of his data or methods. Instead, like you, all that is offered is crap.

For example, what exactly is included in the $1733/kw you assert? Does it include provisions for the probable price escalations and cost overruns that are a given in long term projects? (Severan P.15) Does it include the cost of capital? (P.17)

Given that you were provided the analysis by Severan, you knew (or should have known) that the China example is a gross attempt at deception.

However, let's not just depend on Severan. Here is another cost analysis of two planned reactors with a total combined capacity of 2.7GW:

Assessing Nuclear Plant Capital Costs for the Two Proposed NRG Reactors at the South Texas Project Site
Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.1 March 24, 2008

The overall finding of this report is that NRGs range of $6 billion to $7 billion is obsolete.
The best available estimates indicate that capital costs would likely be about a factor of two
or more higher, even without taking into account the potential for real cost escalations
during construction, delays, and other risks. The risks to CPS, as a municipal utility and to
its ratepayers as well as to the taxpayers of San Antonio are great. Due diligence demands
that CPS participation in the project should not be pursued until an independent, detailed
study with current cost estimates of the plants and alternatives to it are complete and have
been publicly disclosed and discussed.

without taking into account the potential for real cost escalations during construction, delays, and other risks

See Severan (P. 15 & 18) for the impact and probability of such cost escalations being a part of the final cost.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. K+R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. This story keeps making me think of the old Niven short story...
Don't worry, captain, that human ship doesn't have any weaponry, just a communications laz--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
excess_3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-10-09 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. Eurofools, put your trust in Gerhard Gazprom .n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC