The Energy Transition and technologies

[Azure]

I find it strange that coal is even still talked about considering how easy and efficient gas is as an energy source.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

I find it strange that coal is even still talked about considering how easy and efficient gas is as an energy source.

Places like Germany rely on gas from Russia, though. So it's that, or coal. If you were Germany, would you build a bunch of natural gas power plants, then be at the mercy of Russia?

Now, if they had thought this through they would have nurtured a bit more of an oil and gas industry there. But they've spent the last decade burning some of the most polluting coal around, and will do it for another decade.

Of course, the obvious solution is to bring back nuclear.

[Table 5]

Yeah, there's no way Germany gets rid of coal unless they do a hard reverse on nuclear, rely even more on Russia and outside sources for their energy, or are ok with a severe drop in their living standards. They are currently the 4th biggest coal consumer in the world right now, and it has been the country's main source of energy this year.

Grand promises are nice, but you can't just destroy energy supply without having no answer for demand.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, there's no way Germany gets rid of coal unless they do a hard reverse on nuclear, rely even more on Russia and outside sources for their energy, or are ok with a severe drop in their living standards. They are currently the 4th biggest coal consumer in the world right now, and it has been the country's main source of energy this year.

Grand promises are nice, but you can't just destroy energy supply without having no answer for demand.

There's also the fact that they generate a large portion of their "green energy" burning wood instead of fuel. Since they bring the wood in from other countries they don't have to claim the emissions from the wood harvesting.

Basically it's a fraud.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

.

Those in the O&G field would probably know better, but I wonder what happens to these plans once the inevitable oversupply happens. If the best cure for for high energy prices is high energy prices, then surely a supply glut of in the forecast. Europe made strong climate goals when energy costs were low, and are now looking at even stronger goals when process go higher. Could that change if prices go low again?

Can't speak to gas, but current capex in crude is not sufficient keep production flat. The rig count is going up, albeit much slower than in the past.

All of the companies seem much more disciplined when it comes to spending and their balance sheet in 2021.

[Table 5]

The idea of burning wood as a solution towards a cleaner environment always seemed like a sick joke.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The idea of burning wood as a solution towards a cleaner environment always seemed like a sick joke.

It is a sick, twisted joke.

We have a natural method of removing carbon from the atmosphere (growing wood), and burning it completely reverses that.

Wood usage should be maximized for everything as much as possible, except for burning.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Places like Germany rely on gas from Russia, though. So it's that, or coal. If you were Germany, would you build a bunch of natural gas power plants, then be at the mercy of Russia?

Now, if they had thought this through they would have nurtured a bit more of an oil and gas industry there. But they've spent the last decade burning some of the most polluting coal around, and will do it for another decade.

Of course, the obvious solution is to bring back nuclear.

Interesting.

And amazing how they have completely kicked themselves in the ass.

Too bad Canada can't offer up exports of some clean LNG.....

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Interesting.

And amazing how they have completely kicked themselves in the ass.

Too bad Canada can't offer up exports of some clean LNG.....

Probably wouldn't ever make sense to send our LNG to Europe(having to get it across Canada). It might for the US though, with all the shale basins in the NE.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

More and more I'm starting to think these high energy prices will make countries think harder about energy independence and every supply less linked to commodity price risks. It's a different equation for fossil fuel producing areas of course, but Europe for sure will want off the roller coaster.

Instead so Europe can be on the rollercoaster that is wind and solar?



Europe's problems isn't that it spent too little on wind and solar, it's that it spent too much on it when they are unreliable and allowed (forced) many of their reliable generators to retire without being replaced. It also didn't helped that they effectively gave up on natural gas exploration and content to let what they have die out.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Azure

I find it strange that coal is even still talked about considering how easy and efficient gas is as an energy source.

Coal is pretty plentiful almost everywhere, quite energy dense, easily stored and transported and doesn't require extremely advanced technology to start generating power. Almost every great industrial power built their development with coal generating significant amounts of their electricity.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Coal is pretty plentiful almost everywhere, quite energy dense, easily stored and transported and doesn't require extremely advanced technology to start generating power. Almost every great industrial power built their development with coal generating significant amounts of their electricity.

But it is dirty, and with proper pipeline access, or nuclear facilities, there are alternatives.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

But it is dirty, and with proper pipeline access, or nuclear facilities, there are alternatives.

I think the point is, coal is easy to deploy, and can be used to cover your ass when you realize green energy is intermittent, and extremely expensive to store. It's not a good plan, mind you, but I suspect we see lots of this happening over the next decade.

[Azure]

About bloody time.

UK ministers will put nuclear power at the heart of Britain’s strategy to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 in government documents expected as early as this week, the Financial Times reported.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is to unveil an overarching “Net Zero Strategy” paper as soon as Monday, along with a “Heat and Building Strategy” and a Treasury assessment of the cost of reaching the 2050 goal, the report said.

The main UK net zero strategy will have a heavy focus on Britain’s nuclear power program. Prime Minister Boris Johnson was expected to give the go-ahead to the documents on Friday, according to the report.

The creation of a “regulated asset base” model will be key to delivering future large atomic-power stations. Under the plan, households will be charged for the cost of a plant via an energy levy long before it begins generating electricity, the report said.

Ministers are also backing smaller modular reactors, or SMRs, which are being developed by a consortium led by Rolls-Royce. Supporters of SMRs say these could be built in factories and have lower costs and risks than large atomic plants, according to the report.

https://www.energyvoice.com/renewabl...ategy-nuclear/

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think the point is, coal is easy to deploy, and can be used to cover your ass when you realize green energy is intermittent, and extremely expensive to store. It's not a good plan, mind you, but I suspect we see lots of this happening over the next decade.

Very true. And there is a lot of ass covering going on right now.

[Azure]

More nuclear news from the last few days.

A group of ten EU countries, led by France, have asked the European Commission to recognise nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source that should be part of the bloc's decades-long transition towards climate neutrality.

Tapping into Europe's ongoing energy crunch, the countries make the case for nuclear energy as a "key affordable, stable and independent energy source" that could protect EU consumers from being "exposed to the volatility of prices".

The letter, which was initiated by France, has been sent to the Commission with the signature of nine other EU countries, most of which already count nuclear as part of their national energy mix: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.

Nuclear plants generate over 26% of the electricity produced in the European Union.

https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/11/...s-green-source

I guess we can all think those morons in Germany for shuttering nuclear and using their clout in the EU to screw it up for everyone else.

Now Germany is scrambling my implementing coal again, while France & others are able to handle the energy 'self made' crisis a lot better.

Why heads are not rolling for this stupidity is beyond me.

A great example of government incompetency and sheer stupidity.

Canada is not exempt from that either. Instead of being ahead of the curve with nuclear, hydro and gas, we bitch and moan about 'woke, green, clean, sexy' energy solutions without seeing the obvious.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Azure

But it is dirty, and with proper pipeline access, or nuclear facilities, there are alternatives.

Gas is quite difficult to store if you don't have the right geological formations to store it. For example the UK only has 10% of the storage capacity that Canada has.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Probably wouldn't ever make sense to send our LNG to Europe(having to get it across Canada). It might for the US though, with all the shale basins in the NE.

I think Pierdale cancelled their plans to export AB gas via LNG at their Goldboro project in Nova Scotia this summer, that would’ve been a good jump off point for Canadian exports to Europe.

[SeeGeeWhy]

It makes me so proud and happy to see so many pro nuclear messages here.

Save Pickering!

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Those in the O&G field would probably know better, but I wonder what happens to these plans once the inevitable oversupply happens. If the best cure for for high energy prices is high energy prices, then surely a supply glut of in the forecast. Europe made strong climate goals when energy costs were low, and are now looking at even stronger goals when process go higher. Could that change if prices go low again?

Institutional and major fund investors are really starting to demand ESG plans that include emission reduction plans, fossil fuel development has fewer dollars chasing it.

Frankly, I think commodity price volatility is more a sign of the struggle producers are having to maintain high enough costs to keep producing. We’d need solid $120/bbl and/or much higher carbon prices to keep the marginal barrel producing with carbon capture. There is a reason more investment is funnelling into producing “blue hydrogen” than unconventional plays or war spoil barrels (the marginal barrel).

You’re seeing that people can’t afford higher energy costs. When they can’t pay the Piper, the Piper stops playing.

We are in serious trouble and risk severe contractions if people don’t get their head out of their ass about fission.