European energy situation

[SecondAttempt]

I have not seen a thread on this so apologies if there already is one. I also don't want this to turn into a political discussion of climate change and so forth. I believe climate chaneg is real and needs to be addressed over the medium to long term. But I am talking about the short term problem pending this winter.

Europe is facing an energy emergency in the short term by Russia potentially shutting off their supply of natural gas and other fuels.

So my question is, why are we (as in the civilized world not just the US) not comtemplating a "Berlin airlift" to supply Europe with fuel, natural gas, and coal? Yes, I know climate change and all that make this a political topic but I am focused on the next few years here. The US has plenty of coal and the world has so much excess natural gas that it has to be burned off from oil wells.

The US Navy is under order to remove something like half a billion gallons of diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline as quickly as possible from its Red Hill fuel storage facility in Hawaii.

Why is the world not organizing an operation like the Berlin airlift to supply Europe with the fossil fuels it needs in the short term to make up for Russian shortfalls? It most likely would be a sealift of course but I think you get the idea. The Berlin airlift was as much about showing the Soviets that we had the capability to overcome their blockade as it was about actually supplying Berliners. Let's show Putin that the world can overcome his threats and keep Europe warm and lighted this winter.

Solar, wind, and nuclear plants cannot be built quickly. But power plants can be converted to another fuel in weeks or months. Months is normal, weeks is probably achievable.

I guess this is why our grandparents were the greatest generation. They mustered up to solve big problems.

 

[eytonxav]

Hasn't the US already released from our strategic petroleum reserves and sent product to europe, and even China. The later of which blows my mind. I also assume that exports are continuing through the normal sales channels of oil and gas companies.

 

[The Cosmic Avenger]

The current level of reserves is about 29 days of fuel...just for the US. I haven't looked up foreign consumption rates, but we likely wouldn't have enough to get ourselves and all NATO/EU countries through more than a couple of weeks, especially during the Northern hemisphere winter months, and then Russia could probably charge whatever they wanted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States)

 

[Car-Guy]

Hasn't the US already released from our strategic petroleum reserves and sent product to europe, and even China. The later of which blows my mind.

+1 I keep hearing that from a number of sources... Doesn't seem to make any sense to me either, but what do I know.

 

[VanWinkle]

In before the lock!!!!!

 

[Bamaman]

I hear so many complaints about the current price of gasoline here. I think I saw gasoline yesterday at less than $3.80 a gallon.

When we were in London last month, a cabbie said gasoline was over $8.50 a U.S. gallon equivalent--more than double what we pay.

Now the English and Europeans have always had reasons to complain about fuel prices. They've always been taxed to death, and had autobahns galore--going from nowhere to nowhere.

But when the Europeans, and especially the Germans, got in bed with Putin it bordered on economic suicide. It's up to the EU to get out of their mess, and it's up to us to take care of American needs. That's about as political as I dare go on this retirement website.

 

[Car-Guy]

I hear so many complaints about the current price of gasoline here. I think I saw gasoline yesterday at less than $3.80 a gallon.

When we were in London last month, a cabbie said gasoline was over $8.50 a U.S. gallon equivalent--more than double what we pay.

Now the English and Europeans have always had reasons to complain about fuel prices. They've always been taxed to death, and had autobahns galore--going from nowhere to nowhere.

But when the Europeans, and especially the Germans, got in bed with Putin it bordered on economic suicide. It's up to the EU to get out of their mess, and it's up to us to take care of American needs. That's about as political as I dare go on this retirement website.

Highlighted above by me... I personally have no problem with the US helping the EU (or UK ) with their energy problems after the US needs are satisfied and at reasonable prices.

 

[NW-Bound]

Europe is facing an energy emergency in the short term by Russia potentially shutting off their supply of natural gas and other fuels.

So my question is, why are we (as in the civilized world not just the US) not comtemplating a "Berlin airlift" to supply Europe with fuel, natural gas, and coal? Yes, I know climate change and all that make this a political topic but I am focused on the next few years here. The US has plenty of coal and the world has so much excess natural gas that it has to be burned off from oil wells.

I have not worked in the energy industry and have no direct knowledge of the intricacies of energy transport, but don't think it is so easily done.

First, there's the problem of increasing supply so we have extra to export. Yes, the US has a lot of coal, but one does not simply restart old coal mines to get more, given the opposition to this fossil fuel. Plus, where do we get more coal miners so quick?

For Europe to receive LNG (liquified natural gas), they need LNG ship terminals, and these are not built overnight. Germany is scrambling to build another floating terminal, and hopes to have it done later this year. In the past, talk about building LNG terminals got people all riled up, because they believed the money should be spent on RE.

As I said before, it's very hard to rely on RE to stay warm in the winter. You can drive EVs, and cook with electricity, but for heating most of the time, people need to burn something. Unless you have nuclear power, it's much better to burn nat gas than heating oil or, gasp, coal.

Makes me wonder how the world is going to survive when fossil fuel runs out. Russia keeps Siberian livable in the winter through the use of copious natural gas. And they still have tons of it to export to China.

 

[Telly]

A new LNG export terminal came online in the last year or so in LA on the Gulf Coast. There may be two new ones. They are a major investment, and as mentioned, take a long time to build. Natural Gas in large volumes needs to be piped to them. Some of the gas is used to run turbines that run the compressors, and cooling systems to dump the large amount of heat created in the process (think of a gigantic super-pressure Air Conditioning condenser unit!). And LNG IS being shipped to Europe.

About oil from the Strategic Reserve being shipped overseas - Oil is fungible. When the old restriction on shipping crude from the US was lifted, oil's fungibility increased.

The US has a refining problem... a major east coast refinery was shut down, never to run again. Other units were turned down that were old and needed maintenance. Investors do NOT want oil companies to invest in production or refining increases, as that uses $$ that won't go to shareholders, and would lower the price of oil/refined products, which lowers the companies profitability. So in some respects, "we have seen the enemy, and they is us".

 

[frayne]

The situation in Europe proves the importance of having a balanced energy portfolio of gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, tide, solar, etc., etc. Having each to the scale needed to offset outages of the other is the problem and not always cost effective but sure beats freezing to death or trashing your economies because you pretty much sole sourced the majority of your energy needs from an geopolitically unreliable partner. On the other hand I can't see Russia cutting off its nose to spite its face this winter either. It needs to sell gas for revenue for its economy and war effort. All that said, hopefully the situation in Ukraine will be resolved before winter sets in and then, problem solved at least for the short term, or next time.

 

[Closet_Gamer]

The europeans have mis-managed their strategic situation for a couple of generations on both energy and the military. They are now scrambling to find tactical solutions to strategic problems that will take a generation to sort out.

When WWII started it took years for both the UK and the US to rearm. The lack of military manufacturing infrastructure weighed very much on the minds of both Churchill and Roosevelt as they formulated their plans. Both knew that even if their countries were fully mobilized it would take years to build the necessary infrastructure. When we hear about building a bomber in an hour or a Liberty boat in four days, that was the end product of years of manic infrastructure development. As a result, the allied plans by necessity included waiting years to retake Europe and to put the Pacific on the back-burner, even though that meant all those occupied and besieged countries could not be liberated during those years. Meanwhile Russia was taking it on the chin because Hitler's western flank was relatively secure. Stalin was constantly agitating for the allies to move in the west in order to take the pressure off of Russia, but Churchill and Roosevelt stood fast and were unwilling to commit to a major engagement until the military was actually ready.

The European energy problem cannot be assuaged by rowing the boat real hard for six months. They are in for a rough road and Putin will have significant leverage for several years.

My $0.02.

 

[Chuckanut]

Highlighted above by me... I personally have no problem with the US helping the EU (or UK ) with their energy problems after the US needs are satisfied and at reasonable prices.

Perhaps the US can help Europe with their energy cost issues, and they can help us with our medical care cost issues?

 

[Car-Guy]

Perhaps the US can help Europe with their energy cost issues, and they can help us with our medical care cost issues?

I'm afraid the "medical" lobby in the US is far to strong now to let that happen.

 

[Music Lover]

I have not seen a thread on this so apologies if there already is one. I also don't want this to turn into a political discussion of climate change and so forth. I believe climate chaneg is real and needs to be addressed over the medium to long term. But I am talking about the short term problem pending this winter.

Europe is facing an energy emergency in the short term by Russia potentially shutting off their supply of natural gas and other fuels.

So my question is, why are we (as in the civilized world not just the US) not comtemplating a "Berlin airlift" to supply Europe with fuel, natural gas, and coal? Yes, I know climate change and all that make this a political topic but I am focused on the next few years here. The US has plenty of coal and the world has so much excess natural gas that it has to be burned off from oil wells.

The US Navy is under order to remove something like half a billion gallons of diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline as quickly as possible from its Red Hill fuel storage facility in Hawaii.

Why is the world not organizing an operation like the Berlin airlift to supply Europe with the fossil fuels it needs in the short term to make up for Russian shortfalls? It most likely would be a sealift of course but I think you get the idea. The Berlin airlift was as much about showing the Soviets that we had the capability to overcome their blockade as it was about actually supplying Berliners. Let's show Putin that the world can overcome his threats and keep Europe warm and lighted this winter.

Solar, wind, and nuclear plants cannot be built quickly. But power plants can be converted to another fuel in weeks or months. Months is normal, weeks is probably achievable.

I guess this is why our grandparents were the greatest generation. They mustered up to solve big problems.

If you don't want to make a topic about climate change, don't mention it twice and then say no one should talk about it.

 

[NW-Bound]

Perhaps the US can help Europe with their energy cost issues, and they can help us with our medical care cost issues?

I don't see how they can help us with our medical costs. The difference is in how to provide healthcare, not in miraculous drugs or surgical techniques. We could apply their philosophy, but we don't wanna.

And speaking of energy costs, we may have problems of our own brewing, and nobody wants to admit to it yet.

 

[eytonxav]

When I think of new energy initiatives, things like this ring my bell vs solar/windmills:
https://www.techworm.net/2022/07/us-regulators-certify-small-nuclear-reactor-design.html

 

[Spock]

* Europe has been decommissioning viable (nuke and coal) power plants before their useful life is up just to go "green" with LNG imported from Russia. They put themselves in this mess. It's the same as California refusing to allow desalination as a water source and draining reservoirs into the ocean but still demanding water from farmers and other states.
The European energy shortage is a choice, not a crisis for the world to pay for.

* NatGas prices in the US were surging in early June due to exports to Europe until there was an explosion at an LNG export terminal in Texas that prevented exports of 2billion cubic feet per day. Since that gas was now "trapped" in the US markets, US NatGas prices leveled off.

* There was an article yesterday where the last boat load of coal has been delivered to Hawaii... After Sept Hawaii is shutting down a perfectly useful coal plant that produces something like 16% of Oahu's electricity. There is nothing coming on line in the foreseeable future to backfill the generating capacity (except possibly and oil burner that I can't find a commissioning schedule for...)

* Heads-up: The next appendage being cut off after energy is food. Nitrogen (primary crop fertilizer) has been declared both a green house gas (via NO) and a pollutant. Google what that policy is going to do to farmers in the Netherlands (30% to 90% reduction in farming depending on location). The Ukraine isn't even in the top 10 of food exporters... The Netherlands is #6.
**Last week Canada announced 30% reductions in fertilizer emissions over the next 7 years.
**In April one of the major rail companies halted shipments of fertilizer out of Louisiana. The fertilizer manufacturer requested the feds broker a shipping deal. The federal governments response was "This is an opportunity for farmers to go organic".
**LNG is the primary feedstock for making fertilizer.

These shortages are all by choice and these are the choices being made for you.

 

[NW-Bound]

Ugh!

I guess the world will have to learn to be hotter in the summer, colder in the winter, drive less, travel less, and also eat less.

With such gloomy outlook, how do countries help each other? Everybody for himself, there's nothing to share. Bleak!

 

[Music Lover]

These shortages are all by choice and these are the choices being made for you.

Yup.

 

[Spock]

Ugh!

I guess the world will have to learn to be hotter in the summer, colder in the winter, drive less, travel less, and also eat less.

With such gloomy outlook, how do countries help each other? Everybody for himself, there's nothing to share. Bleak!

Countries could help each other if they acted independently and thus got different results.
Somebody up could provide to somebody down.
But when they are all following the same playbook (ex. farming with no fertilizer or livestock) with the same goals at the same time, everybody goes down until a new lower standard of living/population equilibrium is established. Like investing, diversity is essential.

 

[marko]

Who in Congress would dare to suggest we send COAL to Europe!? The green dream is crashing up against energy/technical realities, yet I have green friends who still believe that $12 heating oil this winter is the only way to accelerate the transformation.

 

[NW-Bound]

Who in Congress would dare to suggest we send COAL to Europe!? The green dream is crashing up against energy/technical realities, yet I have green friends who still believe that $12 heating oil this winter is the only way to accelerate the transformation.

I love my DIY solar system, but trying to get solar/wind power in a dark calm winter night is like squeezing blood from a turnip.

People can try, but we already know the result.

 

[Spock]

I love my DIY solar system, but trying to get solar/wind power in a dark calm winter night is like squeezing blood from a turnip.

People can try, but we already know the result.

Can I claim a $80K Ford F150 Lightning as a home battery for a 30% tax credit (somebody said it was cheaper per KwH than a Tesla Powerwall).

 

[NW-Bound]

A single Tesla Powerwall is $10,500 before installation. It stores 13.5 kWh. You can get a discount if you buy multiple units.

The standard F-150 Lightning has a 98-kWh battery. That's the capacity of 7 Tesla Powerwalls. But after various tax incentives and discounts, who knows?

 

[NW-Bound]

Back on Europe energy situation, China will have no problem buying all the nat gas that Russia has to sell.

Siberia has a lot of nat gas production. There's a project called Power of Siberia to build a natural gas pipeline to take it to China.