Енергетска криза во Европа

INDIJANEC123

Женкар, Илуватар
Член од
17 март 2014
Мислења
3.815
Поени од реакции
6.373
Неиздавањето на дозвола за работа на Северен поток 2 ќе им испадне најголемиот автогол на швабиве кој си го дале од почетокот на деценијава.

https://off.net.mk/vesti/svet/kinesko-dobredojde-za-saudiska-arabija-vo-briks

Кинеско добредојде за Саудиска Арабија во БРИКС

21 октомври 2022 - 11:07

Кинеското министерство за надворешни работи даде поддрша за проширување на БРИКС (алијанса на Бразил, Русијa, Индија и Јужна Африка) откако Кралството Саудиска Арабија изрази желба за придружување на оваа сè повлијателна групација. Иран и Алжир се на пат да се приклучат.



„ Како овогодишен претседавач со БРИКС, Народна Република Кина активно го поддржува проширувањето на членството и меѓусебната соработка на БРИКС+ “, соопшти портпаролот на кинеското МНР.

Претходно, јужноафриканскиот претседател Кирил Рамафоса, обелодени дека Мохамед бин Салман изразил желба кралството да биде дел од БРИКС.

Саудиска Арабија е еден од најголемите светски извозници на сурова нафта, поседува 15 отсто од светските резерви на нафта и е основачка членка на ОПЕК.

Во септември и Алжир покажа интерес за приклучување кон алијансата БРИКС, пишувајќи му за тоа на Путин. Иран веќе објави дека поднел официјална апликација за членство во групата БРИКС а потенцијални членки се и Египет и Обединетите Арапски емирати.

Во споредба со Г7 кои опфаќаат 10%, земјите од БРИКС сочинуваат 40% од светското население и нешто повеќе од една четвртина од глобалниот БДП.
БРИКС за брзо изгледа ќе сочинуваат и 90% од светските енергенси и минерали. Ќе останат во Г7 само безвредните ФИАТ кои ги покриваат со шетање на носачи на авиони низ светов.
Автоматски споено мислење:

Natural Gas Reserves by Country
Search:

#CountryGas Reserves
(MMcf)
World
Share
1Russia1,688,228,00024.3%
2Iran1,201,382,00017.3%
3Qatar871,585,00012.5%
4United States368,704,0005.3%
5Saudi Arabia294,205,0004.2%
6Turkmenistan265,000,0003.8%
7United Arab Emirates215,098,0003.1%
8Venezuela197,087,0002.8%
9Nigeria180,490,0002.6%
10China163,959,0002.4%

O
Автоматски споено мислење:

Oil Reserves by Country
Search:

#CountryOil Reserves
(barrels) in 2016
World
Share
1Venezuela299,953,000,00018.2%
2Saudi Arabia266,578,000,00016.2%
3Canada170,863,000,00010.4%
4Iran157,530,000,0009.5%
5Iraq143,069,000,0008.7%
6Kuwait101,500,000,0006.1%
7United Arab Emirates97,800,000,0005.9%
8Russia80,000,000,0004.8%
9Libya48,363,000,0002.9%
10Nigeria37,070,000,0002.2%
11United States35,230,000,0002.1%
 
Последно уредено:

kano

Farang
Член од
27 ноември 2014
Мислења
13.561
Поени од реакции
24.921
БРИКС за брзо изгледа ќе сочинуваат и 90% од светските енергенси и минерали. Ќе останат во Г7 само безвредните ФИАТ кои ги покриваат со шетање на носачи на авиони низ светов.
Автоматски споено мислење:

Natural Gas Reserves by Country
Search:

#CountryGas Reserves
(MMcf)
World
Share
1Russia1,688,228,00024.3%
2Iran1,201,382,00017.3%
3Qatar871,585,00012.5%
4United States368,704,0005.3%
5Saudi Arabia294,205,0004.2%
6Turkmenistan265,000,0003.8%
7United Arab Emirates215,098,0003.1%
8Venezuela197,087,0002.8%
9Nigeria180,490,0002.6%
10China163,959,0002.4%

O
najjako ke bide ako BRICS im opne edno embargo ponataka... onaka da ne trguva so ovie G7. japoncite tolku kurcenje ovie nekolku godini a osven sol nisto nemaat tamu... ke treba da ziveat od turizam sto bi bilo nokna mora za niv lol...
 

INDIJANEC123

Женкар, Илуватар
Член од
17 март 2014
Мислења
3.815
Поени од реакции
6.373
najjako ke bide ako BRICS im opne edno embargo ponataka... onaka da ne trguva so ovie G7. japoncite tolku kurcenje ovie nekolku godini a osven sol nisto nemaat tamu... ke treba da ziveat od turizam sto bi bilo nokna mora za niv lol...
Види пред 30 години само западот и Јапан беа развиени и трошаџии на енергенси, но тоа се смени и сега внатре во БРИКС си имат трошаџии и се повеќе и повеќе се развиваат.
Така да неможат веќе да ги дупат да им продаваат ефтин енергенс за они да живеат лагодно дека се многу "паметни".
Може нема да има ембарго ама ќе ги молзат со високи цени. Низ нос ќе им го извадат тоа што ги дупеа многу години уназад.
Автоматски споено мислење:

Indonesia may fully join BRICS, says envoy to Moscow
Jakarta has to discuss the country’s future role in the integration, weighing everything, after which the government would take its decision, Jose Tavares stressed
Автоматски споено мислење:

Саудиска Арбаија како предводник на арапскиот свет одма со неа ги повлекува сите земји од Северна Африка до Блиски Исток, Иран влегува, Индонезија е исто така значаен играч што може да ги повлече комшиите. Војнава во Украина ќе има огромни промени низ светов, не за џабе Столтенберг плаче.
 
Последно уредено:

Vanlok

deus ex machina
Член од
30 мај 2009
Мислења
26.148
Поени од реакции
34.677
UK Grid Operator Offers Households Money To Stop Using Appliances Amid Energy Crisis

National Grid's scheme pays households up to £20 per day if they don't use energy-intensive appliances, such as electric ovens and stoves, washing machines, tumble dryers, televisions, microwaves, and even video game consoles, between 4 pm and 7 pm or 2 pm until 9 pm over the next five months.
They will be advised to use washing machines, tumble dryers, ovens, dishwashers and other appliances outside those periods so boffins can measure how much energy is saved on the grid when it is at its busiest. If the entire proposed £3 per kwh rebate if passed on to Britons by their supplier, over five months this could mean around £240 off their bills in total. --Daily Mail
The grid operator hopes the 'demand flexibility service' will save 2GW of electricity -- equivalent to powering 1 million homes -- during peak demand hours to thwart supply and demand imbalances that could result in power rationing.
"But the scheme relies on users having a controversial smart meter, a device which automatically transmits your energy usage to your provider," Daily Mail said.



 

Staufer

Драган Богдановски
Член од
17 јануари 2008
Мислења
16.562
Поени од реакции
22.255
Како е цената на гасот?
 

Vanlok

deus ex machina
Член од
30 мај 2009
Мислења
26.148
Поени од реакции
34.677
Уфф, некои работи за кои јас барем не бев свесен. Резервите на природен гас што ги имаат во Германија/ЕУ наводно не се предвидени да функционираат како резерви сами по себе, туку како додаток на протокот на гас од гасоводите. Без доток на гас од гасоводот има куп варијабли кои влијаат и долгиот текст (долу) скратен: Без доток на гас по гасоводите прашање е дали третина или барем четвртина од постојните резервите на гас ќе можат да бидат искористени.

Екстракцијата ќе се успорува како што ќе опаѓа притисокот во резервоарите, но и онака не смее да се брза за „метанот да не замрзне, и да не се создадат метан хидрати и да се затнат цевките“. Има куп моменти кои не ги разбирам целосно, ама од она што го разбирам - ако навистина сметале на овие резерви не ќе е на арно зимава таму во ЕУ (а со тоа следствено ниту овде кај нас).
Невозможно е ваквите работи тие горе да не ги знаеле, ама од една страна јавноста не смее да се вознемирува (и не дај боже да протестира) и од друга страна ваљда се надевале на некаква разврска со Русија до сега (пораз/победа/примирје, обоена револуција, некоја од љубовниците конечно да го умре Путин, било што освен продолжување на судирите и долга војна, итн итн).

Како и да е, еве кој сака да прочита: https://thesaker.is/germanys-failing-stored-nat-gas-lng-experiment/

Вториот дел подолу го цитирам во цитат рамка, а ни тоа не е целиот текст што е достепен на линкот еден ред погоре.

So two (2) driving forces are required to extract / produce the EU underground ´stored´ nat-gas. Both are needed. Driving force No.1 is sub-surface pressure so that the stored nat-gas is barely allowed to emerge to surface veeeeery slowly just timidly bubbling on to surface where it would meet and ride along with the King Kong express absorbed onto its thermally stable mass. This is known as pressure differential between the under-ground nat-gas and the King Kong flow on surface. If operators were careless enough to allow for a larger than required pressure differential all hell would break lose and we would have a very short-lived disaster with everything frozen. The reason is that nat-gas sudden and abundant expansion because of large pressure differentials means temperature drop – let alone in European mid-winter — to the point of forming one of the most feared problems in the business known as “methane hydrates” which would mean that everything breaks down seized bloody frozen. More on that later, including “solutions” found for Alaskan and Arctic reservoirs but NOT applicable to these European underground stored nat-gas facilities which are many different funny animals just put together, like in a zoo. There is no need to explain the danger of methane hydrates, just google it.

Now driving force No.2 is precisely the King Kong pipeline bull-dozing flow as already explained. What driving force No. 1 does is to get the nat-gas bubbling barely on to surface under the lowest possible pressure differential so as not to freeze everything up just “presenting” the nat-gas on surface for it to be “blown away” or “moved along” or “pushed along” or “displaced ” thru the surface pipeworks to final destination… or whichever wording suits everyone´s fancy (mission impossible, trust me). The soccer equivalent would be Neymar passing the ball on to Messi – at full speed and on the run of course — for the Argentine genius to score just by shoving the ball past the goalposts with his chest.


So it seems that European leadership is unexplainably calm after both NS1 & NS2 have been blown up and now relying on timely LNG supplies (not) and /or European nat-gas “stored reserves”…(double not)

use-LESS European supposedly stored nat-gas ´reserves´ (not)

Europeans know bloody well a rough winter is coming, but no one has warned them that the supposed 90% “reserves” that would sorta get them through okay will not be available as announced. There are 2 main reasons for this which were already explained to boring death and intricate depth at Ref #5 https://thesaker.is/the-euthanized-european-nat-gas-reserves/

The first reason #1 is the impossibility of constant RE-pressurization of such “stored” nat-gas reserves in order to maintain the required sub-surface driving force push to produce it onto surface. Now, along broad areas of Germany and Northern Europe the lack of pipeline nat-gas flow will not allow to comply this requirement. Without pipeline nat-gas, at the very best only 25% to 30% of the “supposed” 90% reserves could possibly ever be timely recovered and only very slowly through a period of time stretched out in months. The culprit is the mandatory DE-pressurization whenever such underground reserves are produced onto surface (plus sub-surface losses) with the consequent geometrical drawdown of pressure. With a decreasing sub-surface pressure as driving force, ever smaller and slower nat-gas volumes can be produced onto surface or even none at all per circumstances and operational requirements.

The second reason #2 is the current impossibility in many areas of now having the much required constant massive King Kong pipeline surface flow to adequately push along and warm up the underground reserves that could be produced onto surface by pressure differential when RE-pressurized enough and if all the other requirements are met. This has never ever been tried out by anyone before anywhere near at this scale and without prior notice as later explained. Now suffice to say that the impact will be enormously negative and that Europeans are not anywhere close to being aware of this. All they get to hear is that “our 90% stored nat-gas reserves will get us through this winter if we just save up consumption a bit ”. No they won´t and below it is proven with hard figures. Read my lips ugly “methane hydrates” nightmares will be the new name of the game and it will not be fun, trust me. More later, just bear with me.

high school physics

The problem starts when bureaucratic ignoramuses (politicians et al) dream up the stupid idea that nat-gas reserves can be used as a 100% substitute for nat-gas flowing feedstocks such as thru surface pipelines. They simply cannot, period. Actually, God invented nat-gas reserves as a supplement to – never a substitute of (NOT) – flowing nat-gas feedstocks so that in high demand season (winter) the cheaper nat-gas reserves piled up during the low consumption season (summer) could be added to the main pipeline flow by 10% approx. This would help to satisfy the higher winter demand and also to lower the average yearly cost. Nat-gas reserves are good for nothing more than that and definetly not a substitute of surface flowing feedstocks. No matter how hard they try or how frequently they model their brand new dark colored turtle necks, politicians both sides of the Atlantic will not change that, I promise. Nat-gas sub-surface reserves can never ever be adequately produced onto surface by themselves and can only be ´lightly´ and slowly ADDED onto pre-existing actively flowing surface feedstocks such as pipeline flows nothing more. Anything else is a dream ready to become a very ugly nightmare.

misnomer

Something certainly widespread and that may be misleading — for which I am not responsible of — is using the term “storage” for such ´reserves´ as “storage” in a warehouse or closet. It is not anywhere near that. A better term would be “lung” but then we get the ambiguity derived from the organ that living beings breathe with. But at any rate such nat-gas reserves are not kept like you and I — and our wives — would keep dishes in a cupboard shelf. It´s not easy to explain it just with words, but still allow me to try. Water plays a role of course and that is why before injecting down to underground storage caverns the nat-gas MUST be thoroughly and intensively dehydrated as much as technically possible which is difficult to do and very expensive. Furthermore, during underground storage such nat-gas picks up even additional water content from subsurface structures which could be coped with (maybe, yet again it depends) if they had readily available a surface super King Kong flow — as later explained — to thermically cushion it and incorporate it into its MASSIVE mass. But then, by not having such driving force No. 2, means being able to produce such undergound stored nat-gas onto surface only with driving force No.1, namely pressure differential.

Then, with only No.1 driving force available to extract such underground nat-gas reserves… well (a) the consequent pressure drop taking place as the first nat-gas sub-surface “reserves” get to surface will mean that the process has to be very slow and (b) lots of nat-gas will be left behind underground because of gradual pressure drawdown will reduce and weaken the upward push required and (c) you better be VERY carefull with veeeery sloooow production (meaning not enough when most needed) because a sudden methane DE-compression will FREEZE up everything and also producing methane hydrates a well-known nightmare of operational engineers which would clog the pipeworks forever

Furthermore this has never ever been attempted (what for ?) and the variations of the different animals in the storage facilities “zoo” I describe below do not allow for any standardized procedure for simultaneous input from different sources also managed differently with no training, no coordination, nor awareness of the nature of the problem.

But it gets to be MUCH worse…

not yours

Any underground stored nat-gas that may possibly be recovered — not much, as we shall see right below — will be sold not to the local community of nearby consumers but rather to the wholesale market through the pipeworks grid described later in greater detail. So that if Germans living in, say, Frankfurt for whatever reason feel they´ll sorta be okay by having such and such large volume nat-gas storage facility close-by, well… they are freezing wrong because the nat-gas to be potentially produced from such large size Frankfurt storage will be very democratically distributed thru the grid (at market prices) and not thru a direct connection to nearby Frankfurt homes.

Jinglemerkel Santakaputt

In 2021 Germany spent 100 bcm of nat-gas (approx.) with a maximum storage volume capacity of 24 bcm which German officials now say is filled up to 90% meaning that they have 22 bcm of nat-gas available throughout Germany. BTW, no specific distribution breakdown is ever given just total values for all of Germany which could eventually mean a very UN-even problematic distribution. Furthermore, saying and repeating that is fully misleading as you could have your car´s gas tank 90% filled but you would still require MANY gas tanks for you to get to destination. Be that as it may, total 2021 consumption from October to February in Germany was 52 bcm with an estimated breakdown of 26 bcm for the October, November and December period and an additional 13 bcm during January plus yet another 13 bcm for February. Total = 52 bcm. Now then, out of the 22 bcm supposedly already ´stored´ approximately a minimum 30% cannot ever be recovered (probably even more) so that means that only 15 bcm maximum are available to cover consumption only for the months of October and November… as by mid-December (Christmas comes to mind) even in the best scenario under current circumstances Germany would run out of available nat-gas, stop. Sorry it´s math.

Some EU countries such as Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, and Slovenia have ZERO nat-gas storage capacity of their own and basically depend upon solidarity from other EU countries…

Ref #5 https://youtu.be/gplfrKT627k Ref #6 https://www.reuters.com/article/europe-gas-kemp-idAFL1N2Z81RA

Yet more on the use-LESS European nat-gas “reserves” (not)

In practice — per Yogi Berra – today´s underground European “stored” nat-gas reserves cannot be conveniently extracted from sub-surface. The reason is, that in order to achieve it, these ´reserves´ would need to

(1) be constantly RE-pressurized as briefly explained before, which now without NS1 and NS2 cannot ever be done through large parts of Germany and throughout Northern Europe with the consequent enormous impact this implies

and

(2) have abundant Russian pipeline nat-gas constantly flowing thus allowing to add-on such pressurized stored underground reserves to a comparatively far larger surface flow. This is the only possible practical way to extract underground nat-gas and also to distribute such buried reserves through the surface distribution system pipeworks.

By themselves, without the help of flowing pipeline nat-gas, such stored nat-gas reserves can hardly be produced onto surface and still with lots of negative impact. To attempt it would be an experiment never ever tried out before in the history of physics — or politics for that matter. “A bloody unnecessary experiment” Sir Isaac Newton would have mumbled in a low-tone whisper. Without a surface pipeline full of massively abundant flowing nat-gas (now absent) the supposed European “reserves” will mostly just end up sitting pretty underground as they are today, period.


constant RE-pressurization

Constant RE-pressurization of subsurface stored nat-gas is required to maintain enough (large) volume and enough underground pressure as No.1 driving force to produce it onto surface. This is needed to compensate for the unavoidable and also constant DE-pressurization due to underground losses (thermal, friction, permeation, dissipation, fissures, cracks, porosity, etc.) and pressure drawdown (loss) produced every time that sub-surface reserves are brought onto surface. Without RE-pressurization, future required pressure would not be available and possible surface soil collapse or subsidence could lead to seismographic activity nobody wants such as with fracking. But furthermore this driving force No.1 also needs an active and fully operational surface pipeline to bring in nat-gas for re-injection of underground nat-gas reserves, namely driving force No.2. Besides, whenever the traditional surface pipeline inflow is interrupted or non-existant (such as today in Northern Germany and Northern Europe) storage nat-gas will also be depleted way earlier because it was not ever supposed to constitute the only winter load by itself… and as explained later no surface King Kong express bull-dozing effect would exist for surface pipeworks distribution.




Дури и горниве проблеми да не постојат, го имаме и ова:

the LNG cryogenic conundrum

  1. There is an extreme shortage of LNG tankers, so who would build them, per what specs and costs, by when?
  2. There are is an extreme shortage of LNG terminals at both ends. Europe is extremely bureaucratic, so it will require many years to have a single LNG terminal ready and running if not vetoed by the local council. Meanwhile, a pipeline must be connected from the terminal to the existing grid… with further complications at every level which take TIME. What capacity should these terminals have vis-á-vis the related new distribution pipelines? Nobody can know that today thus adding even more load to timing and technical demands.
  3. Transit times on the tankers change and existing EU southern pipelines are probably at full capacity already.
  4. Tankers are far more costly to operate as liquefied gas has to be kept liquefied re power-hungry refrigeration.
  5. Tankers have a more costly service life than all other bulk tankers, due to the regulation/inspection/cryogenic requirements which also take TIME. So therefore they are a higher risk with higher cost per cubic meter of gas transported vs. cheap, reliable, safe, environmentally friendlier pipelines to which Europe is used to.
  6. Europe needs dozens of new LNG terminals.The pre-feasibility and feasibility studies have not yet been planned for, let alone detailed engineering, plans & specs, manpower, contracting of engineering expertise,etc
  7. LNG terminal sites have to be carefully chosen, their expensive and cumbersome environmental impact assessments completed (which can take years) with engineering design that by itself can also take years with no room for direct carbon copy of other designs, plus ground preparation construction which would take 1-2 years + manufacturing of plant and modules (usually in Korea and China, but would they now agree ? ) all of which need contracts, schedules, materials, etc, lots of TIME and shipping + certification & commissioning.
  8. Funding: all LNG terminals are owned/built/operated by consortiums of gigantic multinational companies, not governments. They cost 10’s of billions to design and build, which need to be borrowed from banks. The borrower must prove that it has a solid plan with guarantees in place to repay the loan with interest. The owner/operator of the terminal has all sorts of other very important liabilities. This is a no nonsense business.
 

Harald

King of Norway
Член од
12 јули 2009
Мислења
3.472
Поени од реакции
9.953
Уфф, некои работи за кои јас барем не бев свесен. Резервите на природен гас што ги имаат во Германија/ЕУ наводно не се предвидени да функционираат како резерви сами по себе, туку како додаток на протокот на гас од гасоводите. Без доток на гас од гасоводот има куп варијабли кои влијаат и долгиот текст (долу) скратен: Без доток на гас по гасоводите прашање е дали третина или барем четвртина од постојните резервите на гас ќе можат да бидат искористени.

Екстракцијата ќе се успорува како што ќе опаѓа притисокот во резервоарите, но и онака не смее да се брза за „метанот да не замрзне, и да не се создадат метан хидрати и да се затнат цевките“. Има куп моменти кои не ги разбирам целосно, ама од она што го разбирам - ако навистина сметале на овие резерви не ќе е на арно зимава таму во ЕУ (а со тоа следствено ниту овде кај нас).
Невозможно е ваквите работи тие горе да не ги знаеле, ама од една страна јавноста не смее да се вознемирува (и не дај боже да протестира) и од друга страна ваљда се надевале на некаква разврска со Русија до сега (пораз/победа/примирје, обоена револуција, некоја од љубовниците конечно да го умре Путин, било што освен продолжување на судирите и долга војна, итн итн).

Како и да е, еве кој сака да прочита: https://thesaker.is/germanys-failing-stored-nat-gas-lng-experiment/

Вториот дел подолу го цитирам во цитат рамка, а ни тоа не е целиот текст што е достепен на линкот еден ред погоре.

So two (2) driving forces are required to extract / produce the EU underground ´stored´ nat-gas. Both are needed. Driving force No.1 is sub-surface pressure so that the stored nat-gas is barely allowed to emerge to surface veeeeery slowly just timidly bubbling on to surface where it would meet and ride along with the King Kong express absorbed onto its thermally stable mass. This is known as pressure differential between the under-ground nat-gas and the King Kong flow on surface. If operators were careless enough to allow for a larger than required pressure differential all hell would break lose and we would have a very short-lived disaster with everything frozen. The reason is that nat-gas sudden and abundant expansion because of large pressure differentials means temperature drop – let alone in European mid-winter — to the point of forming one of the most feared problems in the business known as “methane hydrates” which would mean that everything breaks down seized bloody frozen. More on that later, including “solutions” found for Alaskan and Arctic reservoirs but NOT applicable to these European underground stored nat-gas facilities which are many different funny animals just put together, like in a zoo. There is no need to explain the danger of methane hydrates, just google it.

Now driving force No.2 is precisely the King Kong pipeline bull-dozing flow as already explained. What driving force No. 1 does is to get the nat-gas bubbling barely on to surface under the lowest possible pressure differential so as not to freeze everything up just “presenting” the nat-gas on surface for it to be “blown away” or “moved along” or “pushed along” or “displaced ” thru the surface pipeworks to final destination… or whichever wording suits everyone´s fancy (mission impossible, trust me). The soccer equivalent would be Neymar passing the ball on to Messi – at full speed and on the run of course — for the Argentine genius to score just by shoving the ball past the goalposts with his chest.








Дури и горниве проблеми да не постојат, го имаме и ова:

the LNG cryogenic conundrum

  1. There is an extreme shortage of LNG tankers, so who would build them, per what specs and costs, by when?
  2. There are is an extreme shortage of LNG terminals at both ends. Europe is extremely bureaucratic, so it will require many years to have a single LNG terminal ready and running if not vetoed by the local council. Meanwhile, a pipeline must be connected from the terminal to the existing grid… with further complications at every level which take TIME. What capacity should these terminals have vis-á-vis the related new distribution pipelines? Nobody can know that today thus adding even more load to timing and technical demands.
  3. Transit times on the tankers change and existing EU southern pipelines are probably at full capacity already.
  4. Tankers are far more costly to operate as liquefied gas has to be kept liquefied re power-hungry refrigeration.
  5. Tankers have a more costly service life than all other bulk tankers, due to the regulation/inspection/cryogenic requirements which also take TIME. So therefore they are a higher risk with higher cost per cubic meter of gas transported vs. cheap, reliable, safe, environmentally friendlier pipelines to which Europe is used to.
  6. Europe needs dozens of new LNG terminals.The pre-feasibility and feasibility studies have not yet been planned for, let alone detailed engineering, plans & specs, manpower, contracting of engineering expertise,etc
  7. LNG terminal sites have to be carefully chosen, their expensive and cumbersome environmental impact assessments completed (which can take years) with engineering design that by itself can also take years with no room for direct carbon copy of other designs, plus ground preparation construction which would take 1-2 years + manufacturing of plant and modules (usually in Korea and China, but would they now agree ? ) all of which need contracts, schedules, materials, etc, lots of TIME and shipping + certification & commissioning.
  8. Funding: all LNG terminals are owned/built/operated by consortiums of gigantic multinational companies, not governments. They cost 10’s of billions to design and build, which need to be borrowed from banks. The borrower must prove that it has a solid plan with guarantees in place to repay the loan with interest. The owner/operator of the terminal has all sorts of other very important liabilities. This is a no nonsense business.
greska si druze. ne e taka za LNG terminalite.
primer na sim city, lev klik i vlecis do pristaniste i gotov e terminalot, klik i cista rabota.
kaki fisibiliti kakve pm, toa za mali deca muabeti.
 

Vanlok

deus ex machina
Член од
30 мај 2009
Мислења
26.148
Поени од реакции
34.677
После генераторите на струја кои работат на дизел или бензин, сега и портабл верзија на генератор на гас (плин).
Измислија топла вода, кола која се движи на фосилно гориво (со компликација на претварање во електрична енергија). Какво забегување... :unsure:

"This is the first version of the cordless Tesla which is burning gasoline to charge the car instead of the conventional plug-in charger,"

 

Vanlok

deus ex machina
Член од
30 мај 2009
Мислења
26.148
Поени од реакции
34.677

Europe cannot rely on American LNG to cover the growing shortage of Russian gas next year, Bloomberg.
American fuel currently accounts for 40% of LNG imports to Europe, but only partially compensates for the shortage of supplies from Russia. It will be more difficult to fill the UGS next year. To meet the demand in the future, the European market must remain attractive (ultra-expensive) for sellers and receive about 70% of the world's spot supplies, mainly from the United States, since the growth of LNG production in the next few years will remain limited. "The supply in the US is particularly price sensitive and will be directed to the premium market, which will remain Europe if demand in Asia does not increase," BNEF analyst Arun Tura said. However, this will not be enough to meet the needs of the EU. To do this, one branch of SP2 was not blown up? It was the second stream, not certified, so that this year the Europeans would not falter, and next year there was an option to launch at least one branch and somehow maintain the level of stocks in the vaults.
 

Vanlok

deus ex machina
Член од
30 мај 2009
Мислења
26.148
Поени од реакции
34.677
svabo gnasa, dodeka dremime ni tuka, on go digna terminalot, ic da ne mu cue. kaparisan za cela godina unapred, masina :bravobe:
Не го искоментира она за резервите природен гас, дека не можат да се експлоатираат без активен доток од активен гасовод. Како некој од брашата, што мислиш - на место е тезата?
 
Член од
16 октомври 2020
Мислења
2.626
Поени од реакции
5.558
Не го искоментира она за резервите природен гас, дека не можат да се експлоатираат без активен доток од активен гасовод. Како некој од брашата, што мислиш - на место е тезата?
И не само тоа. Не кажа колкава ќе биде цената.
 

Vanlok

deus ex machina
Член од
30 мај 2009
Мислења
26.148
Поени од реакции
34.677
И не само тоа. Не кажа колкава ќе биде цената.
Работата е дали воопшто се достапни тие резерви без активен доток од гасовод. Во линкот поназад има текст што детално ги опишува проблемите (притисок, вода во смесата, замрзнување, итн).
 

Kajgana Shop

На врв Bottom