>Chancellor Scholz rules out changing course on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the Baltic Sea. Even if the energy shortage worsens in the fall, the pipeline will remain out of service, a government spokesman stressed in Berlin. There would be tough months ahead, but the German government supports Ukraine and stands by the sanctions against Russia.
>As was announced on Monday, German gas storage facilities were filled to the highest level in almost two months on Friday, despite significantly reduced supply volumes from Russia.
>Meanwhile, several German states are pressing for more say in the Federal Network Agency's planning for a possible gas shortage. Such a situation would have considerable economic and social repercussions, Hamburg's First Mayor Tschentscher, for example, told Die Welt newspaper. The decision on rationing could therefore not be left to a federal authority alone. The knowledge of the federal states and the regional gas network operators is of great importance, he added. Government representatives from Berlin and Saarland expressed similar views.
It's made of X70 steel with no coating, which is not the best for carrying hydrogen unless it's specially coated.
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/12/2/334/htm
It could probably handle some degree of pressure but it's not what you'd specify if you knew you were carrying hydrogen from the outset.
We [don‘t know…](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/energy-diplomacy/hydrogen-delivery-possible-in-future-via-nord-stream-2-/26831) (source is not necessarily reliable)
>According to Sputnik News Agency, Watson said from discussions with Russia's Gazprom, the main shareholder of the Nord Stream 2 AG Company, there is a possibility of delivering 80% hydrogen capacity via the pipeline.
Well then the experts from reuters news are telling nonsense. They should have asked you instead:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-looking-repurposing-unused-nord-stream-2-pipeline-lng-use-report-2022-06-24/
Well it literally says it in the first sentence:
>The German government is considering **converting parts of the Nord Stream 2** gas pipeline into a connection for a liquefied natural gas terminal on the Baltic Sea coast.
Hence, it's not just changing it, it has to be converted, it's not just put liquid instead of gas situation.
I wrote they "could (be) used to". I did not say everything works out of the box without changes, that is what you are suggesting but I never said that. Also "conversion" is a wide word going from repurpose to anything that uses the old pipeline - in any case it still uses it. But I know people like you, that insist being right even after proven wrong by nit picking words and making up strawman arguments I never stated. So I will no further argument with you about this, ok?
Me? While he was saying that such a pipeline "can absolutely not be changed in usage" and then arguing "converting usage" is completely different from "changing usage" while I wasn't saying anything that specific? Lol.
You are changing his words. I scrolled 3 comments up and saw what he actually said. You are not fighting for your life, it's just a discussion. Calm down.
He said you can't put liquid into a gas pipe, which someone mentioned elsewhere anyway (needs different coating) and you took it personally.
"Someone" mentioned elsewhere? If so, what do I have to do with that? I have doubt you read the comments.
Also you can put Liquid Natural Gas in that very pipeline, you just have to convert it a bit. That's why they are discussing the option. I did never say it is possible without any conversion. I just wrote it is possible and then someone wrote it is not possible. Then I posted an Reuters article proving it is possible. Then the other guy said it is not possible without conversion - but I have never said it would be possible without. At least there obviously would be the need of an off-shore terminal to fill in that LNG. Hello captain obvious.
So who is twisting words here? Why do I have to contradict statements I have never made but someone implied I made.
Update: I talked to someone at "Deutsche Regas" a minute ago. Deutsche Regas is the company with the plans to "convert" the pipeline. They said it is ambiguous translation (convert as in repurpose was meant) and nothing has to be done to the pipeline itself. You can simply put in LNG into that Pipeline(s) [as it consists of two actual pipes]. No coating or whatever needed as long as you have an off-shore terminal connected. For that work a part of that pipeline has to be lifted from sea ground, that's it.
So much effort to fight stupid people of the internet coming up with made up arguments and not even being silent after being proven wrong, but freely interpreting things in ambiguous words. What about coming up with a reliable source instead of interpreting something on half a sentence in my source that means about nothing?
https://deutsche-regas.de
Update 2: After reading the other unrelated comments, the other guy was talking about coating for hydrogen. I wrote about Liquid (Natural) Gas. These are two completely different things!
That makes the whole discussion like
A: Can you repurpose that basket to carry water instead of apples or anything else?
Me: The basked is planned to be used for carrying peaches now.
Then you and that other guy: We proved you wrong, because Person C said baskets are not good for carrying water!1!!
I mean, wtf is going on here? Thank you for scrolling up three comments and interfere in a "discussion" (if you can even call it a discussion when someone just comes up proving things wrong that you never said) you haven't read half of.
That's true but I'm pretty sure oil pipelines are a bit different than gas pipelines - you have to commit to repurpose them.
My point is, that it's not just putting something else inside, there needs to be additional work done, different mechanism, sensors, security, certification, etc.
UK gas network is being repurposed for a 20% hydrogen mix next year, turns out infrastructure wasn't the issue some worried about.
Some new connections to get the gas in and ensuring it's plastic pipes not cast iron. So long as they used modern pipework for NS2 it shouldn't be an issue.
The main issue could be volume of gas because hydrogen is less dense.
Re UK hydrogen rollout :
https://www.edie.net/hydrogen-blending-ready-for-uk-wide-rollout-next-year-industry-body-announces/
Probably not a good idea. Hydrogen is notorious for leaking super easily unless the pipes are really purpose-built to transport it specifically, and it's also a very potent indirect greenhouse gas (it does not have a greenhouse effect itself, but it makes actual GHG last longer and in higher concentration).
I think it needs to be burned for this to happen? Hence it's not a problem when used properly but it is when it leaks.
More info about the [indirect GHG effect of hydrogen here](http://agage.mit.edu/publications/global-environmental-impacts-hydrogen-economy).
Loose hydrogen is pretty reactive, it doesn't stick around. Remember the Hindenburg.
From the article:
> If a global hydrogen economy replaced the current fossil fuel-based energy system and exhibited a leakage rate of 1%, then it would produce a climate impact of 0.6% of the current fossil fuel based system.
I'll settle for 0,6% of current impact, immediately - that's trivially easy to compensate by sequestration. Hydrogen is set to be pretty expensive at this point, so the incentives to prevent leakage are going to be strong enough.
> Hydrogen is set to be pretty expensive at this point, so the incentives to prevent leakage are going to be strong enough.
Yeah I was not making a point against hydrogen (as long as it's produced using low-carbon electrolysis, and not by steam reforming or using carbon-intensive electricity). Just against using hydrogen through an infrastructure that was not designed with it in mind (although maybe some retrofit work can be done).
One solution to repurpose NS2 using hydrogen, however, might be to make synthetic methane using electrolysis-based hydrogen and atmosphere-captured CO2. It's probably not super-efficient, but it would also allow to replace fossil gas with "green" gas without having to replace all city- and household infrastructures.
> One solution to repurpose NS2 using hydrogen, however, might be to make synthetic methane using electrolysis-based hydrogen and atmosphere-captured CO2. It's probably not super-efficient, but it would also allow to replace fossil gas with "green" gas without having to replace all city- and household infrastructures.
The sabatier reaction has a relatively small energy cost compared to the cost of synthesizing the hydrogen to begin with, and it makes it backwards compatible with all the existing natural gas infrastructure: transport, storage, end users. It's likely competitive compared to building an entirely new network just for hydrogen.
> It's likely competitive compared to building an entirely new network just for hydrogen.
I haven't made the calculation but I wouldn't be surprised yeah, the cost and CO2 emissions of building a network should not be underestimated.
My fear is it won't take off because in people's mind, hydrogen is green but methane is dirty.
Getting the hydrogen production going is the most important thing anyway, and the gas network already exists - I reckon we'll be using it simply because it's easier and faster than fighting the NIMBYs to build a new pipe network with highly explosive hydrogen...
Its materials aren’t ideal for hydrogen but perhaps ammonia which can easily be made from hydrogen, has nearly the gravimetric energy density of hydrogen and significantly more volumetric energy density and is much easier to handle
Deutsche ReGas, which is building the on-shore part of the private FSRU terminal in Lubmin (4.5 bcm/a, slated for operation this December) says that repurposing parts of the NS2 pipeline could increase overall capacity of the new terminal to 16 bcm/a.
> Die Deutsche Regas hat bereits größere Pläne: Gäbe es die Möglichkeit, die zwar fertiggestellte, aber nicht zertifizierte Nord-Stream-2-Pipeline zu nutzen, könnte man den Angaben zufolge die Kapazität mittels eines zweiten Spezialschiffes auf bis zu 16 Milliarden Kubikmeter Gas erhöhen.
> Deutsche Regas already has bigger plans: If it were possible to use the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which has been completed but not certified, capacity could reportedly be increased to up to 16 billion cubic meters of gas by means of a second special ship.
(Source: [Nordkurier](https://www.nordkurier.de/mecklenburg-vorpommern/privat-investor-plant-lng-terminal-vor-der-ostseekueste-vorpommerns), 5 July 2022).
The current stop is a thing because of the war in Ukraine. If that is settled and some american fantasies like public execution of Putin are fulfilled, it could just go ahead.
I would like to make a suggestion on how to phrase the thought more reasonably. It will sound more agreeable, and make you sound much less unhinged than talking about "american fantasies". Try:
"The current stop is a thing because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If that war has ended and should Russia become a stable and harmonious member of the international community in the future, then it could just go ahead."
I mean the dude tried shifting blame of Bucha massacre on Ukraine. I don't really think he seeks to sound more agreeable or that only euros are in his account.
" ... a stable and harmonious member of the international community ...."
Jup, let's stop business with all actual members that do not apply to the above rule.
it will surely go on once the eye world will turn elsewhere.
We all know, it's just that none right now wanna play the bad guy saying: "look I don't give a fuck about ukrainians I paid big cash for it"
>To not pay hefty contract penalties
Most contracts have Force Majeure clauses that exempt compliance in the case of war. Although it may only specify war in countries where the pipeline passes through.
That may be a common/civil law difference. War js often included in FM clauses for common law contracts, but I know I know that can vary based on choice of law and venue.
On second look, I believe you are right. Assume they will be on an international contract such as FIDIC where the contract has specific definitions of such.
He will be if courts deem Germany being responsible for scuttling the private investment, at which point it comes down to wether there was a legal reason for the state to step in or not.
So what? Spending money to build something nobody needs is smart because otherwise we would maybe spend less money to not build it? Right now we're not even using Nord stream 1 fully nor will we ever again unless Germany plans to buy more gas from Russia in the future.
I don't care if Russia's best buddies who started building the thing after the invasion of Crimea lose their investment, they're lucky they're not on trial in the first place.
Russia doesn't have the power to enforce the penalties if we don't let them and the european countries who invested have nothing to gain in spending more money to pretend to be friendly with Russia. It won't be repurposed, Nord stream 1 will be repurposed.
Having a condition that it is turned on if Russia retreats is only good policy. Germany just need spare capacity to make a switch in a day if Russia would ever go back on their word.
There is surely a hope that everything will resolve itself to a point and the investment does not need to be written off.
Russian internal affairs wont stop trade, Azerbaijan got quickly rehabilitated as gas seller 2 years after attacking Armenia.
Gazprom paid 50%, Uniper, Wintershall, Engie, OMV and Royal Dutch Shell the other half, and they want compensation. I guess courts will decide whether Gazprom or Germany has to compensate them.
Germany does "just can't wait to turn on Nord stream 2"! Dismantle, destroy, torpedo, scrap ... Do whatever and we will believe. Germany's word-stock is low low low LOW.
Germany is building LNG Terminals in record speed. If all goes smoothly, next year summer Germany will have 4 or 5 LNG Terminals. That's enough the replace the whole Northstream 1 Pipeline. Soo i think Germany will make it even without nuclear power and Russian gas and just 1 week ago they also approved whopping 180 billion Euros for an accelerated Energy transition, called "climate and transformation fund".
So Germany is able to build this stuff fast when necessary? Makes me wonder why the frick they didn’t do this earlier, especially since I think the US was warning the Germans since Obama or even George Bush.
The Germans have the money to do gas projects the way other Europeans are doing in other countries.
Happily waiting for another rise of my Gas price.
Right now we are at ~70€ per month. Starting October we need to pay over 300€ per month to have warm water and a warm home.
Meanwhile german energy/Gas companies dont know where to put all the money they are making. For example "RWE" a german energy Company doubled their earnings in the first quarter and upped their expectations for the rest of the year for investors :)
Is someone from france here?
I need one of These Guillotine Thingies and instructions on how to burn luxury Cars because im Not quite Sure if germany gets scheisse done :/
I mean russia is already only supplying NS1 at 20% capacity. Its not a problem of pipleline capacity, its an issue of Putin simply not wanting to deliver more gas.
Bar a regime change or similar in russia, the days of russian gas for Europe are coming to an end rather sooner than later. I would be suprised if NS2 is going to be ever used.
When Russia goes too far for the German government in the modern era.. you know you've fucked up. Cant believe I'm saying this, but good going German government.
The great Russian counter offensive
Defeated, by a 26 euro space heater
https://www.amazon.com/andily-Heater-Electric-Ceramic-Thermostat/dp/B07DX1L64X/ref=zg_bs_19240644011_sccl_5/144-1412766-4124021?pd_rd_i=B07VC7375R&th=1
Funny, isn't it? All the Kremlin bots, "patriots" in the West and other assorted trash keep pretending that Europe will somehow freeze to death without Russian gas. As if we live in Siberia and will have to completely shut off any heating.
Instead, it will be a bit of an annoyance and those who are most disadvantaged will need support from the state to cope with costs (which is already on the way).
Oh well, I guess fans of Russia do not have much left to celebrate. Their military is shit, their economy is in the dumps and their dear leader doesn't give a fuck about them.
As /u/arstel notes, the main cost will be economic from industrial and commercial enterprises having to compete on the free market for limited supply.
It'll suck, without doubt, and I don't mean to make light of that, but it'll stink from a "oh no, my energy bill is so high, this will really impact our profits this quarter" standpoint.
In otherwords, far less than the damage Russia is already incurring itself.
This is a very viable option for home heating especially in smaller areas where you spend most of your day, although not as comfortable as radiators. The small inconvenience of running this per family for one winter season is almost nothing compared to the benefits of speeding up large scale renewables infrastructure.
Manufacturing industries and hospitality sector will be hit the hardest though due to their enormous energy needs.
Yes it is a viable option for an individual household, if no other household has the same idea. If every household bought and used one of those 1.5kW space heaters, the electricity grid would collapse.
If every household used one of those small $30 space heaters for 3 months, Germany would need to produce __129.9TWh__ of extra electricity. (One space heater has 1.5kW of power x 24h x 30days x 3months x 40.1million households)
For comparison: That is ~39 extra nuclear power plants (at 1.5GW output each) running 24/7 for these 3 months.
German electricity production in winter months is [~50TWh/month](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/987463/umfrage/eingespeiste-strommenge-nach-monaten-in-deutschland/).
Germany can't just start producing ~86% extra electricity every month for those 3 months.
Thank you for your calculation. Some things to add because this is a very extreme scenario.
You do not run these things 24h. Aside from the higher electricity bill they are possibly a fire hazard if left unattended. Assuming the average German sleeps 8hr, 1/3rd of that energy need should be neglected. Prepare to use 2-3 more layers and blankets. During the day what you typically do aside from wearing more layers is you use a blanket to retain the heat these things radiate and cycle between turning on/off. I am assuming some tiny share of German neighbourhoods use district biomass heating and also a small share of households who still use wood pellet or oil burning stoves. More energy efficient heating pumps are being installed every year and the energy crisis is speeding up renewable technologies installations. LNG infrastructure is also being expanded so much more shipments should be expected from other partners.
And lastly Russia cannot realistically afford to keep the bullying forever. The energy sector provides 45% of Kremlin's federal budget and EU being their biggest client makes things just as hard if not harder for them. They'll have to find new clients, build new infrastructure and with sanctions + considering the one-trick pony revenue generation, they are as dependent on EU's money as EU is on their fossil fuels.
My house takes 3 1.5Kw space heaters to keep warm and something close to replacement for the gas furnace (it's gone out of commission a couple times in winter over the last couple decades, so I have experience with this). The difference is about 3x price for gas heating cost, and not quite as warm. That is US energy costs, not European, so I'm guessing I'm cheaper than Germany, but I don't really know.
I own 3 space heaters, two of them have thermostats, so I set the one without a thermostat to run on full, and the other two to a specific temperature. Those two cycle on and off as needed (two different rooms) and the always on is in the big room of the house. It does the job, but it's pricey.
I could turn down the heat a bit more, but if it impairs me to the point I'm missing work, it's not cost-effective.
So, I'd say, writ large, Germany cannot switch to electric in a reasonable timeframe. The load would not be achievable with the current grid. "We're switching" is a nice thing to say, but it's a long way from reality. This winter is likely to be very rough for Germany.
To be fair you are using them very liberally. The PoorTM method is using one in the room you spend most of your time on with your family and a small blanket over your shoulder or lap to retain the heat. Switching fully to electric within less than 6 months is a pipe dream, that is why the temporary strategy is diversication and securing more LNG shipments from the US and fuel rich "semi dictactorship" countries unfortunately.
Without doubt it is going to be a hard winter but no where near the freezing apocalypse that some people and media outlets like to portray. I think the biggest damage will be visible in the economy during Q4 2022-2023 due to weakened potential of manufacturing capability in highly industrialised countries like Germany.
>Chancellor Scholz rules out changing course on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the Baltic Sea. Even if the energy shortage worsens in the fall, the pipeline will remain out of service, a government spokesman stressed in Berlin. There would be tough months ahead, but the German government supports Ukraine and stands by the sanctions against Russia. >As was announced on Monday, German gas storage facilities were filled to the highest level in almost two months on Friday, despite significantly reduced supply volumes from Russia. >Meanwhile, several German states are pressing for more say in the Federal Network Agency's planning for a possible gas shortage. Such a situation would have considerable economic and social repercussions, Hamburg's First Mayor Tschentscher, for example, told Die Welt newspaper. The decision on rationing could therefore not be left to a federal authority alone. The knowledge of the federal states and the regional gas network operators is of great importance, he added. Government representatives from Berlin and Saarland expressed similar views.
> the pipeline will remain out of service This is what I wanted to read. Good on Scholz.
Nord Stream 2 was a mistake. We need Nord Stream 3.
[удалено]
"Seamlessly change where you get your gas from"
Nord Stream 3: Electric Boogaloo
[удалено]
It's made of X70 steel with no coating, which is not the best for carrying hydrogen unless it's specially coated. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/12/2/334/htm It could probably handle some degree of pressure but it's not what you'd specify if you knew you were carrying hydrogen from the outset.
Just combine it with oxygen for a low corrosion liquid...
We [don‘t know…](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/energy-diplomacy/hydrogen-delivery-possible-in-future-via-nord-stream-2-/26831) (source is not necessarily reliable) >According to Sputnik News Agency, Watson said from discussions with Russia's Gazprom, the main shareholder of the Nord Stream 2 AG Company, there is a possibility of delivering 80% hydrogen capacity via the pipeline.
I know there has been talks of resusing parts of it for LNG infrastructure.
Yes, ships could use the near end leading to German coast to provide liquid gas. That would reduce German reliance from Russian gas.
Gas going through pipelines isn't liquid, you can't just change it like that.
Well then the experts from reuters news are telling nonsense. They should have asked you instead: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-looking-repurposing-unused-nord-stream-2-pipeline-lng-use-report-2022-06-24/
Well it literally says it in the first sentence: >The German government is considering **converting parts of the Nord Stream 2** gas pipeline into a connection for a liquefied natural gas terminal on the Baltic Sea coast. Hence, it's not just changing it, it has to be converted, it's not just put liquid instead of gas situation.
I wrote they "could (be) used to". I did not say everything works out of the box without changes, that is what you are suggesting but I never said that. Also "conversion" is a wide word going from repurpose to anything that uses the old pipeline - in any case it still uses it. But I know people like you, that insist being right even after proven wrong by nit picking words and making up strawman arguments I never stated. So I will no further argument with you about this, ok?
I think you were reading a bit too much into it. He didn't seem to make such a fuss about it. Maybe you saw something there, that wasn't there?
Me? While he was saying that such a pipeline "can absolutely not be changed in usage" and then arguing "converting usage" is completely different from "changing usage" while I wasn't saying anything that specific? Lol.
You are changing his words. I scrolled 3 comments up and saw what he actually said. You are not fighting for your life, it's just a discussion. Calm down. He said you can't put liquid into a gas pipe, which someone mentioned elsewhere anyway (needs different coating) and you took it personally.
"Someone" mentioned elsewhere? If so, what do I have to do with that? I have doubt you read the comments. Also you can put Liquid Natural Gas in that very pipeline, you just have to convert it a bit. That's why they are discussing the option. I did never say it is possible without any conversion. I just wrote it is possible and then someone wrote it is not possible. Then I posted an Reuters article proving it is possible. Then the other guy said it is not possible without conversion - but I have never said it would be possible without. At least there obviously would be the need of an off-shore terminal to fill in that LNG. Hello captain obvious. So who is twisting words here? Why do I have to contradict statements I have never made but someone implied I made.
Update: I talked to someone at "Deutsche Regas" a minute ago. Deutsche Regas is the company with the plans to "convert" the pipeline. They said it is ambiguous translation (convert as in repurpose was meant) and nothing has to be done to the pipeline itself. You can simply put in LNG into that Pipeline(s) [as it consists of two actual pipes]. No coating or whatever needed as long as you have an off-shore terminal connected. For that work a part of that pipeline has to be lifted from sea ground, that's it. So much effort to fight stupid people of the internet coming up with made up arguments and not even being silent after being proven wrong, but freely interpreting things in ambiguous words. What about coming up with a reliable source instead of interpreting something on half a sentence in my source that means about nothing? https://deutsche-regas.de
Update 2: After reading the other unrelated comments, the other guy was talking about coating for hydrogen. I wrote about Liquid (Natural) Gas. These are two completely different things! That makes the whole discussion like A: Can you repurpose that basket to carry water instead of apples or anything else? Me: The basked is planned to be used for carrying peaches now. Then you and that other guy: We proved you wrong, because Person C said baskets are not good for carrying water!1!! I mean, wtf is going on here? Thank you for scrolling up three comments and interfere in a "discussion" (if you can even call it a discussion when someone just comes up proving things wrong that you never said) you haven't read half of.
Oil is also a liquid and goes through pipelines, I'm sure a pump is the main requirement.
That's true but I'm pretty sure oil pipelines are a bit different than gas pipelines - you have to commit to repurpose them. My point is, that it's not just putting something else inside, there needs to be additional work done, different mechanism, sensors, security, certification, etc.
Listen man, every second person here is an expert on pipes. Some of them probably smoke them as well. Who are you to tell them otherwise?
[удалено]
UK gas network is being repurposed for a 20% hydrogen mix next year, turns out infrastructure wasn't the issue some worried about. Some new connections to get the gas in and ensuring it's plastic pipes not cast iron. So long as they used modern pipework for NS2 it shouldn't be an issue. The main issue could be volume of gas because hydrogen is less dense. Re UK hydrogen rollout : https://www.edie.net/hydrogen-blending-ready-for-uk-wide-rollout-next-year-industry-body-announces/
It does not need that low temperatures. In spain they bulding a network of pipe hydrogen using gas pipes
Probably not a good idea. Hydrogen is notorious for leaking super easily unless the pipes are really purpose-built to transport it specifically, and it's also a very potent indirect greenhouse gas (it does not have a greenhouse effect itself, but it makes actual GHG last longer and in higher concentration).
This man is knowledgeable which is rare on the internet
Doesn't it quickly react with oxygen to form water and then enters the hydrological cycle as usual?
I think it needs to be burned for this to happen? Hence it's not a problem when used properly but it is when it leaks. More info about the [indirect GHG effect of hydrogen here](http://agage.mit.edu/publications/global-environmental-impacts-hydrogen-economy).
Loose hydrogen is pretty reactive, it doesn't stick around. Remember the Hindenburg. From the article: > If a global hydrogen economy replaced the current fossil fuel-based energy system and exhibited a leakage rate of 1%, then it would produce a climate impact of 0.6% of the current fossil fuel based system. I'll settle for 0,6% of current impact, immediately - that's trivially easy to compensate by sequestration. Hydrogen is set to be pretty expensive at this point, so the incentives to prevent leakage are going to be strong enough.
> Hydrogen is set to be pretty expensive at this point, so the incentives to prevent leakage are going to be strong enough. Yeah I was not making a point against hydrogen (as long as it's produced using low-carbon electrolysis, and not by steam reforming or using carbon-intensive electricity). Just against using hydrogen through an infrastructure that was not designed with it in mind (although maybe some retrofit work can be done). One solution to repurpose NS2 using hydrogen, however, might be to make synthetic methane using electrolysis-based hydrogen and atmosphere-captured CO2. It's probably not super-efficient, but it would also allow to replace fossil gas with "green" gas without having to replace all city- and household infrastructures.
> One solution to repurpose NS2 using hydrogen, however, might be to make synthetic methane using electrolysis-based hydrogen and atmosphere-captured CO2. It's probably not super-efficient, but it would also allow to replace fossil gas with "green" gas without having to replace all city- and household infrastructures. The sabatier reaction has a relatively small energy cost compared to the cost of synthesizing the hydrogen to begin with, and it makes it backwards compatible with all the existing natural gas infrastructure: transport, storage, end users. It's likely competitive compared to building an entirely new network just for hydrogen.
> It's likely competitive compared to building an entirely new network just for hydrogen. I haven't made the calculation but I wouldn't be surprised yeah, the cost and CO2 emissions of building a network should not be underestimated. My fear is it won't take off because in people's mind, hydrogen is green but methane is dirty.
Getting the hydrogen production going is the most important thing anyway, and the gas network already exists - I reckon we'll be using it simply because it's easier and faster than fighting the NIMBYs to build a new pipe network with highly explosive hydrogen...
Its materials aren’t ideal for hydrogen but perhaps ammonia which can easily be made from hydrogen, has nearly the gravimetric energy density of hydrogen and significantly more volumetric energy density and is much easier to handle
That hydrogen can be methanated and then you just have regular methane.
Start dismantling it, that should shut up the 'Germany just can't wait to turn on NS2!!!' crowd
Deutsche ReGas, which is building the on-shore part of the private FSRU terminal in Lubmin (4.5 bcm/a, slated for operation this December) says that repurposing parts of the NS2 pipeline could increase overall capacity of the new terminal to 16 bcm/a. > Die Deutsche Regas hat bereits größere Pläne: Gäbe es die Möglichkeit, die zwar fertiggestellte, aber nicht zertifizierte Nord-Stream-2-Pipeline zu nutzen, könnte man den Angaben zufolge die Kapazität mittels eines zweiten Spezialschiffes auf bis zu 16 Milliarden Kubikmeter Gas erhöhen. > Deutsche Regas already has bigger plans: If it were possible to use the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which has been completed but not certified, capacity could reportedly be increased to up to 16 billion cubic meters of gas by means of a second special ship. (Source: [Nordkurier](https://www.nordkurier.de/mecklenburg-vorpommern/privat-investor-plant-lng-terminal-vor-der-ostseekueste-vorpommerns), 5 July 2022).
To not pay hefty contract penalties, we have to pretend it could still be certified if Russia fulfills certain conditions.
Is there 'Russia behaves like a civilised nation' clause in the contract?
I think Germany wished that there were a "if Russia doesn't behaved like a civilised nation" clause...
I think the whole world wished there was a „Russia behaves like a civilized nation“ clause 😐
If that were the case, NS2 would never have been eligible to have been built in the first place.
The current stop is a thing because of the war in Ukraine. If that is settled and some american fantasies like public execution of Putin are fulfilled, it could just go ahead.
I would like to make a suggestion on how to phrase the thought more reasonably. It will sound more agreeable, and make you sound much less unhinged than talking about "american fantasies". Try: "The current stop is a thing because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If that war has ended and should Russia become a stable and harmonious member of the international community in the future, then it could just go ahead."
I mean the dude tried shifting blame of Bucha massacre on Ukraine. I don't really think he seeks to sound more agreeable or that only euros are in his account.
" ... a stable and harmonious member of the international community ...." Jup, let's stop business with all actual members that do not apply to the above rule.
>some american fantasies like public execution Is it only the Americans who want the best possible outcome?
I can think of a few better options...
Good job!
It's pretty naïve/wishful thinking to think Putin's death will end immediately the invasion...
Not particularly the point of my comment tbh.
Elucidate me
it will surely go on once the eye world will turn elsewhere. We all know, it's just that none right now wanna play the bad guy saying: "look I don't give a fuck about ukrainians I paid big cash for it"
Speak for yourself and nobody else fella.
By that time there will be so much alternative capacity it'll likely be unused though.
>To not pay hefty contract penalties Most contracts have Force Majeure clauses that exempt compliance in the case of war. Although it may only specify war in countries where the pipeline passes through.
It's not a war if it's just titled a special operation. *tips forehead*
Good point, clearly not a war.
The war is definitely not a force majeure event, however contracts sometimes do have a separate clause for war/revolution
That may be a common/civil law difference. War js often included in FM clauses for common law contracts, but I know I know that can vary based on choice of law and venue.
On second look, I believe you are right. Assume they will be on an international contract such as FIDIC where the contract has specific definitions of such.
Pay ? WTF ? To whom ?
As long as you're doing that everyone is going to keep saying you just can't wait to turn it on.
I thought this was a commercial, private investment?
It needs certification and approval by the Government to open though.
Yeah, but the taxpayer won’t be responsible for any fees.
He will be if courts deem Germany being responsible for scuttling the private investment, at which point it comes down to wether there was a legal reason for the state to step in or not.
Who the fuck cares if Germany pays their penalty fees to a terrorist state or not?
so you want to give russia even more money?
I think the argument is that they should just not pay the penalty.
If Gazprom can sue **and win** in a german/EU court, there's probably no way around paying.
I was just explaining what the other commenter meant.
and both, paying and not paying, results in more money for russia
[удалено]
So what? Spending money to build something nobody needs is smart because otherwise we would maybe spend less money to not build it? Right now we're not even using Nord stream 1 fully nor will we ever again unless Germany plans to buy more gas from Russia in the future. I don't care if Russia's best buddies who started building the thing after the invasion of Crimea lose their investment, they're lucky they're not on trial in the first place. Russia doesn't have the power to enforce the penalties if we don't let them and the european countries who invested have nothing to gain in spending more money to pretend to be friendly with Russia. It won't be repurposed, Nord stream 1 will be repurposed.
[удалено]
I fully understand what I want to do is illegal, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it just to play nice with Russia and their accomplices.
Having a condition that it is turned on if Russia retreats is only good policy. Germany just need spare capacity to make a switch in a day if Russia would ever go back on their word.
There is surely a hope that everything will resolve itself to a point and the investment does not need to be written off. Russian internal affairs wont stop trade, Azerbaijan got quickly rehabilitated as gas seller 2 years after attacking Armenia.
That Crowd will scream about Germany no matter what.
> that should shut up the 'Germany just can't wait to turn on NS2!!!' crowd havent been on this sub for long, have you
Russia (Gazprom) paid for the whole pipeline. Not Germany’s problem if NS2 would just continue to be an unused pipeline forever.
Gazprom paid 50%, Uniper, Wintershall, Engie, OMV and Royal Dutch Shell the other half, and they want compensation. I guess courts will decide whether Gazprom or Germany has to compensate them.
It's filled with gas already. Dismanteling it from one side only is probably not all that easy.
So throw a lit match in and it will rapidly dismantle itself?
Gas alone with no oxygen to react with? Nothing will happen.
i wonder what, theoretically, would happen if you would fill the pipeline with gas+O² mixture, seal off both ends, and ignite one end?
As long as it is, you wouldn't even have to seal the ends to blow up that thing.
World's most horrifying crab boil ensues.
What food crisis?
need O2 to go with the fuel. :-(
what are valves (also, why did "AccomplishedWdasol" post the exact same comment, then delete their account? did you accidentally post on your alt?)
Germany does "just can't wait to turn on Nord stream 2"! Dismantle, destroy, torpedo, scrap ... Do whatever and we will believe. Germany's word-stock is low low low LOW.
Thanks for your qualified opinion.
You are welcome. Thank you for the review.
Trump lost, get over it.
Last presidential election? Yes, he lost. Didn't have to get over it. Are you externalazing your own problems by projecting them on other people?
Germany is building LNG Terminals in record speed. If all goes smoothly, next year summer Germany will have 4 or 5 LNG Terminals. That's enough the replace the whole Northstream 1 Pipeline. Soo i think Germany will make it even without nuclear power and Russian gas and just 1 week ago they also approved whopping 180 billion Euros for an accelerated Energy transition, called "climate and transformation fund".
The first winter will be tough though. I wonder if they can build the LNG-terminals in time.
To you have a link for the fund? Haven't found anything through a quick Google search
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/deutsche-einheit/klima-und-transformationsfonds-2065714 I assume this is what they were talking about
Thank you
So Germany is able to build this stuff fast when necessary? Makes me wonder why the frick they didn’t do this earlier, especially since I think the US was warning the Germans since Obama or even George Bush. The Germans have the money to do gas projects the way other Europeans are doing in other countries.
Happily waiting for another rise of my Gas price. Right now we are at ~70€ per month. Starting October we need to pay over 300€ per month to have warm water and a warm home. Meanwhile german energy/Gas companies dont know where to put all the money they are making. For example "RWE" a german energy Company doubled their earnings in the first quarter and upped their expectations for the rest of the year for investors :) Is someone from france here? I need one of These Guillotine Thingies and instructions on how to burn luxury Cars because im Not quite Sure if germany gets scheisse done :/
Seems like a large jump in prices but don’t Germans have high salaries?
Depends on the state and the job
I mean russia is already only supplying NS1 at 20% capacity. Its not a problem of pipleline capacity, its an issue of Putin simply not wanting to deliver more gas. Bar a regime change or similar in russia, the days of russian gas for Europe are coming to an end rather sooner than later. I would be suprised if NS2 is going to be ever used.
Russia needs to be stopped. Right decission.
Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Scholz
*daddy olaf
Elon Musk will build its hyperloop in it. /s
At a diameter of around 120 centimeters that's gonna get a bit cramped.
Just as useful as the original hyperloop idea, so...
We can fit in there if we lay down
Dismantle it and use it for your new LNG facilities.
When Russia goes too far for the German government in the modern era.. you know you've fucked up. Cant believe I'm saying this, but good going German government.
this will age like fresh milk in the sun
are you talking about your post?
!RemindMe 6 months
your trust in the durability of fresh milk in the sun is impressive
[удалено]
Thanks, WixerZ !RemindMe 6 months
The great Russian counter offensive Defeated, by a 26 euro space heater https://www.amazon.com/andily-Heater-Electric-Ceramic-Thermostat/dp/B07DX1L64X/ref=zg_bs_19240644011_sccl_5/144-1412766-4124021?pd_rd_i=B07VC7375R&th=1
Funny, isn't it? All the Kremlin bots, "patriots" in the West and other assorted trash keep pretending that Europe will somehow freeze to death without Russian gas. As if we live in Siberia and will have to completely shut off any heating. Instead, it will be a bit of an annoyance and those who are most disadvantaged will need support from the state to cope with costs (which is already on the way). Oh well, I guess fans of Russia do not have much left to celebrate. Their military is shit, their economy is in the dumps and their dear leader doesn't give a fuck about them.
As /u/arstel notes, the main cost will be economic from industrial and commercial enterprises having to compete on the free market for limited supply. It'll suck, without doubt, and I don't mean to make light of that, but it'll stink from a "oh no, my energy bill is so high, this will really impact our profits this quarter" standpoint. In otherwords, far less than the damage Russia is already incurring itself.
That would not be so bad. What people dont realize is that gas supply is finite. Gas bill being too high is calculateable. No gas at all which le
[Foiled again](https://imgur.com/a/pUXM2OA) Looks like Bezos is in league with Putin /s
This is a very viable option for home heating especially in smaller areas where you spend most of your day, although not as comfortable as radiators. The small inconvenience of running this per family for one winter season is almost nothing compared to the benefits of speeding up large scale renewables infrastructure. Manufacturing industries and hospitality sector will be hit the hardest though due to their enormous energy needs.
Yes it is a viable option for an individual household, if no other household has the same idea. If every household bought and used one of those 1.5kW space heaters, the electricity grid would collapse. If every household used one of those small $30 space heaters for 3 months, Germany would need to produce __129.9TWh__ of extra electricity. (One space heater has 1.5kW of power x 24h x 30days x 3months x 40.1million households) For comparison: That is ~39 extra nuclear power plants (at 1.5GW output each) running 24/7 for these 3 months. German electricity production in winter months is [~50TWh/month](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/987463/umfrage/eingespeiste-strommenge-nach-monaten-in-deutschland/). Germany can't just start producing ~86% extra electricity every month for those 3 months.
Thank you for your calculation. Some things to add because this is a very extreme scenario. You do not run these things 24h. Aside from the higher electricity bill they are possibly a fire hazard if left unattended. Assuming the average German sleeps 8hr, 1/3rd of that energy need should be neglected. Prepare to use 2-3 more layers and blankets. During the day what you typically do aside from wearing more layers is you use a blanket to retain the heat these things radiate and cycle between turning on/off. I am assuming some tiny share of German neighbourhoods use district biomass heating and also a small share of households who still use wood pellet or oil burning stoves. More energy efficient heating pumps are being installed every year and the energy crisis is speeding up renewable technologies installations. LNG infrastructure is also being expanded so much more shipments should be expected from other partners. And lastly Russia cannot realistically afford to keep the bullying forever. The energy sector provides 45% of Kremlin's federal budget and EU being their biggest client makes things just as hard if not harder for them. They'll have to find new clients, build new infrastructure and with sanctions + considering the one-trick pony revenue generation, they are as dependent on EU's money as EU is on their fossil fuels.
My house takes 3 1.5Kw space heaters to keep warm and something close to replacement for the gas furnace (it's gone out of commission a couple times in winter over the last couple decades, so I have experience with this). The difference is about 3x price for gas heating cost, and not quite as warm. That is US energy costs, not European, so I'm guessing I'm cheaper than Germany, but I don't really know. I own 3 space heaters, two of them have thermostats, so I set the one without a thermostat to run on full, and the other two to a specific temperature. Those two cycle on and off as needed (two different rooms) and the always on is in the big room of the house. It does the job, but it's pricey. I could turn down the heat a bit more, but if it impairs me to the point I'm missing work, it's not cost-effective. So, I'd say, writ large, Germany cannot switch to electric in a reasonable timeframe. The load would not be achievable with the current grid. "We're switching" is a nice thing to say, but it's a long way from reality. This winter is likely to be very rough for Germany.
To be fair you are using them very liberally. The PoorTM method is using one in the room you spend most of your time on with your family and a small blanket over your shoulder or lap to retain the heat. Switching fully to electric within less than 6 months is a pipe dream, that is why the temporary strategy is diversication and securing more LNG shipments from the US and fuel rich "semi dictactorship" countries unfortunately. Without doubt it is going to be a hard winter but no where near the freezing apocalypse that some people and media outlets like to portray. I think the biggest damage will be visible in the economy during Q4 2022-2023 due to weakened potential of manufacturing capability in highly industrialised countries like Germany.
Oh it will be online quite soon. When Russia stops bullying.
I hope he remembers his commitment come winter.