Topic: Who will Replace Russian Gas Supplies to Europe? - page 24. (Read 5523 times)

Oh, but we can.
We used them for 50 years before replacing them with nuclear and gas, Germany alone not counting Norway has coal reserves for all of Europe for decades.
How about we do this, the rest of the world will try to mimic at least 10% of what we Europeans have done for green energy and then we talk?
We are banning everything left and right while others just dump tons of garbage directly into rivers, how about we find an equilibrium here and we won't be the only countries that pay inside prices for everything for saving the planet?



It's not that hard to continue operating most of those nuclear powerplants, they weren't decommissioned, most of them were just put on hold waiting for, guess what, money for that, as we as always pour money in everything wrong.
For coal powerplants, it's even easier, look at Riot and Mara how they bought a coal power plant and a smelter, both out of operation and they have got it up and running in under a year, for a country the size of Germany if it really wants it this will be a joke.



CO2 targets are crap, it's not CO2 that kills the planet there are other gases and heavy metals far more damaging than CO2, besides, CO2 capture works best in ways some poeple think is impossible. Trees get it from the air and release O2, all that carbon is stored in the tree when it decomposes it releases both co2 and methane, as that's what rotting is, the only thing you have to do to trap enormous amounts of carbon which is far easier than building up solar panels in a country that barely gets sun. One ha of forets contains around 160 tons of carbon, just burying those old trees trapping the carbon like in the Carboniferous and letting new trees grow would be far more efficient than any half-ass eco-green strategy.
Just as a head's up trapping all the wood in Canada will result in trapping more carbon that would turn via decay in CO2 than the entire world release from all its activities in 8 years.

The chances for that to happen are not so big, since it means to stop very long term contracts and pay damages.
The discussion over the Russian gas is a bit strange. Somehow I feel that neither of the parts (basically Russia and Germany) don't want that flow to stop.

But older coal and nuclear plants will make electricity again instead of gas, GPL is being transported on a big scale, and maybe, just maybe, the other producing countries can chip in, in time.
After all, it's a resource they'll sell for good money.
Yes, more pipelines need to be built, more nuclear power plants need to be also built, it's a long term thing... which should have been done long ago, really, to allow competition and free market.

Until now, no one has been able to claim that they can replace Russia as a gas supplier in Europe, but the solutions that are given for the future if Russia really stops gas supply are using steam and coal.

As things stand now, maybe the EU will continue to do business with Russia when it comes to gas - if nothing has changed in such conditions (gas is still delivered), by next winter the whole situation will calm down, because this war can not last longer of several months. The EU has already opted for renewable energy sources in the long run, so that at some point in the relatively near future the whole gas and oil thing will be irrelevant.

---

Iran is still under sanctions (if nothing has changed), and is there any gas pipeline that would bring gas to the EU? And when you mention the US, in that case the EU would have to build a number of LNG terminals and pay a much higher price for gas, which is certainly one of the options, but I'm not sure what EU bureaucrats think about it.

Maybe now's the time to finally move away from gas and oil in general. They're not eco-friendly, and reducing dependence on them has been a goal for a while. In the meantime, let's look at potential allies in this situation. Based on top-5 countries by natural gas reserves, Iran is a good option, and the US has fair reserves itself. Also, the matter is not urgent because the winter's basically over, so it'll become more relevant for the next winter. As for oil, there's Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada. I think the Western world can pull this off, aiding one another and looking for alternative suppliers, as well as reducing general dependence on oil and gas.

It is not an easy task to unlink such a strategic asset. As you say, my take is that carbon, oil, extended nuclear centrals life may be the short terms solutions then giving way to liquefaction facilities (around 2yr to build) and contract for methane tankers, possibly new nuclear reactors, etc..

All this would need to be progressively passed to renewable and more distributed generation grids to meet CO2 targets on top of making energy supply strategically resilient to attacks.

Spain gets most of its gas from Argelia, even if the gas pipelines are cut, the methane tankers do the job quite well. Making gas supply more resilient for Europe may imply having more of these ships, which take a while to build and there are only two companies that hold the patents for the systems - hint hint .

A possible strategic alternative would be to increase the interconnection of the Spanish network to the north (France mostly). That is a politically sensible matter, but it would certainly allow Europe to have three means (tankers, south and north) of getting gas. Before anyone says it, this is much easier said than done commercially and politically, is just a possible strategy.

There are already oil firms in Africa that might be able to do some extra exploration/extraction if given more resources or if they have to (oil pumps probably bring up oil on demand rather than them needing to be at a constant flow).

The alternative to all these could also be planted oil (rapeseed oil can apparently be used as a diesel replacement and olive oil was originally used for heating in most of Europe anyway - I think rapeseed oil is about £1.50/litre which is about 10p above what diesel got up to last time.

German politicians also confirmed a move in the immediate term towards coal and nuclear (I don't know why they'd mention the two together as one is much better).

Europe gets almost 40% of its gas from Russia. If you just look at the sheer volume, this means that in the short term no one can replace Russia as a supplier. And in the medium or long term, it is not easy to find alternatives. If Russia stops supplying gas, the lights will go out in many parts of Europe. For me, this topic is getting far too little attention in the media at the moment.

Nobody can replace Russia in the short term.
The only solution is a mixture of lowering the natural gas consumption in Europe(by implementing new technologies) and finding smaller alternative gas suppliers(like Azerbaijan). Returning to coal as a substitute of the natural gas in the power plants is a temporary solution,but it might work.
Unfortunately,the Europeans will have to deal with the fact,that the energy prices will be going up for sure,even in case of a peaceful agreement between Russia and Ukraine.
I was hearing rumors,that the increasing oil prices might boost the natural gas production in the USA.
I don't know if this true,though.

Now the issue of imposing an embargo on oil and gas from Russia is being discussed. Yesterday I heard the news on television that Iran announced the possibility of providing the whole world with oil and gas. So there are no irreplaceable people in this world.
Now the civilized world has united in the determination to help Ukraine defend its independence, and they are already ready to strike a sanctions blow against Russia, even to the detriment of their economic interests.

Whatever the solution, what seems clear is that energy will be more expensive for Europe, something that was already happening before the war, and even more so with this. Until the alternative is implemented and the matter is stabilized, prices will tend to rise. There is also the possibility of liquefied gas from the USA, which is more expensive, but what is clear is that the war, apart from the human drama, will also have a negative economic component for the great majority of the population.

It's gonna be a double-edged sword. That's a lot of money to lose. But, if they are willing to sacrifice in the name of a countersanction or countermeasure against all the sanctions imposed on them, it will definitely be a devastating blow.

That's the primary consideration by the Germans on why they didn't impose the strictest measures against Russia. But now it seems Chancellor Olaf has already taken a full U-turn against the Russians notwithstanding its gas dependence on the latter. So I surmise they must have already found an alternative source/s.

But I guess by this time, western countries have already communicated with middle eastern oil producing countries and gas producing countries like Canada and Norway to increase their production to make up for the loss of supplies coming from Russia.

Digging underground would be taking a long time and if they've started already then we should've seen it on the news since it should've been reported already because it's a big project. I think that Russia will be able to hold on their own in terms of oil supply, don't they have their state owned petrol company and aren't there oil rigs in their country?

If they do reopen the coal plants then it will have to be temporarily, they can’t use it long term. Think of all the work that was put in recently to protect the environment and now they will open up the coal plants? I guess it’s better than shortages and a cold winter however there needs to be a better alternative.

This war only went on for 1 week. Who knows, maybe by the end of next week or next month some agreement can be made and all of this will be reversed. At least for next Winter.

Like the poster said above, those countries just won’t have enough supply to meet all the demand in the middle of winter.

Coal!

Italy and Germany both have clearly stated that there is only one short-term solution if the gas flow stops, reopen the coal powerplants, for Germany it comes with keeping the nuclear powerplants in function beyond the previously agreed terms and one can hope the plan also includes getting all those green politicians to give them a hk33 and then them to fight global warming in Kyiv.

Western Europe was doing just fine without Russian gas before 93, it can still do if they are not stupid, it will simply mean stop spending billions on solar panels that work 2 hours a day and build some damn nuclear reactors that work 24/7.



Oh, what a surprise, the Algerian president, who is a former military and admirer of Putin has blocked the Maghreb pipeline last year in October, the pipeline would have been needed to carry extra gas from Nigeria to Spain through the now in construction TransSahara line. And guess what Russian company has started bribing left and right to be part of the project?
Weird, right? Azerbaijan wants to sell gas to Europe suddenly Russia is there and war starts.
Ukraine finds gas in the Black sea and wants to sell it to Europe, suddenly they are nazis and must be liberated.
See the pattern?

If Africa do have a lot of oil reserves then it'll probably come from them. There were rumours of building a rail way under the sea between Gibraltar and Morocco a while ago, pipes for carrying gas would be easier to place and if the EU are serious on sanctioning Russia then it'd probably be worthwhile to sponsor those countries and provide them infrastructure.

There might also be attempts to increase the number of rigs there are for companies like bp and Shell to be able to extract more oil (the UK government has a habit of nationalising/buying things when the private sector makes them too expensive too which might be another thing that happens).

There are suspicions that Russia might fight back by shutting gas supply to the West. Some sources confirmed that the US is already in talks with Qatar to become Russia’s substitute.  
 
But Qatar and other oil and gas producing nations confirmed that they will not be able to provide substantial amounts of gas to replace Russia’s supply.
 
African countries have been tipped as the best option because the continent has some of the world’s deepest gas reserves. But Africa might not replace Russia because of insecurity and lack of infrastructures.

Who will replace Russia?

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/3/1/analysis-can-african-gas-replace-russian-supplies-to-europe