11 ms·

That is not remotely pulling the plug. This is "thinking about it" again. They already stopped accreditation a few weeks ago, otherwise it would already transpo

That is not remotely pulling the plug. This is "thinking about it" again. They already stopped accreditation a few weeks ago, otherwise it would already transport gas as the pipeline is already filled. They just say that they have officially stopped the process which they more or less already did. I think in a year it might come online again if the news cycle is on another topic. Overall it will be much more expensive for Europe than for Russia. Who do you think will profit the most if gas prices hike?

bobthechef 5y ago
jquery 5y ago
> Overall it will be much more expensive for Europe than for Russia. Markets disagree here. The ruble tumbled as well as the main Russian index, 500% more than the USA/Europe did. Russia has a lot to lose.
gerikson 5y ago
<<Erst kommt das Gas, dann kommt die Moral>>
- xcambar 5y ago
  Good pun of Brecht's words, but how do you connect both here?
unchocked 5y ago
Recertification now goes through a Green energy minister. This is pretty much pulling the plug.
- jebronie 5y ago
  "green" in so far as having a history of helping the construction of LNG terminals to import american gas.
  - tjansen 5y ago
    Still much better than lignite...
  - oytis 5y ago
    The point is German Green party has the most anti-authoritarian external political stance of all, and have been opposed to Nord Stream II from the very beginning. They might exchange it for compromise on something else, sure, but will have to explain it to their own party members.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Not against shale gas which is worse than natural gas. They opposed it because of environmental concerns of fossil fuels. It would be much better to just get gas from Russia, which we did for several decades.
      - mcv 5y ago
        It would be much better to use less gas.
        ben_bai 5y ago
        Thanks Captain Obvious. Your deep understanding of western economy has enlightened me.
        nindalf 5y ago
        > Don’t be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  It is actually legally questionable that the government can influence that project in the first place. It is accepted in a way but perhaps government will have to pay billions for that choice. If the greens try to sell shale gas against natural gas as something "green", I think they will get a huge invoice from the economy and from voters. Not even the most naive green voters will take that argument and they do take a lot.
- ohgodplsno 5y ago
  The "Green" energy minister that lobbied Europe to have natural gas recognized as a "green" source of energy, while doing their utmost to block any other country from moving on with nuclear ? Super green.
  - fsh 5y ago
    This is literally the opposite of what the minister has said: https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Meldung/20220101-eu-taxonomy-statement-by-federal-minister-habeck.html https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Meldung/20220101-eu-taxonom... Please don't spread misinformation.
    - ohgodplsno 5y ago
      Are you going to pretend that Germany didn't lobby for natural gas to be included by Europe in the green taxonomy ? Adding "but we know it's bad!" after the fact doesn't make it better in the slightest. German greens are hypocrites.
      - fsh 5y ago
        Could you give a source for that? A German newspaper reports that the green party was against including gas in the taxonomy, but was overruled by the other two coalition members [1]. [1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/taxonomie-eu-kommission-erdgas-atomkraft-habeck-bundesregierung-1.5512976 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/taxonomie-eu-kommission-...
      - HotHotLava 5y ago
        The relevant part of the statement, per the official source linked above: > Minister Habeck said: "The idea of including fossil gas in the taxonomy system is also questionable. The European Commission does at least make it clear that gas from fossil fuels is only a bridging technology which needs to be substituted by green hydrogen. New gas-fired power plants must already be equipped for conversion to hydrogen, and from 2035 they must be operated on the basis of green hydrogen or low-carbon gas. This is ambitious and will require large amounts of hydrogen. Incentivising sufficient investment in the transition towards hydrogen, establishing the necessary infrastructure and ramping up hydrogen production are some of the major challenges we are currently facing."
belorn 5y ago
I think the one that will profit most is China, being the remaining trade partner in a much similar way when most of the world imposed sanctions against north Korea. At the same time this will reduce the impact on prices, since as long China is connected to the global economy then the global supply will still increase when they buy from Russia. There will be costs associated with transportation for EU, be that from China (as a middle man for Russia) or Canada/US.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > I think the one that will profit most is China If nothing else, is anyone keeping a very sharp eye out for what's going on around Taiwan or in the South China Sea, now that everyone's attention is on the Russian Kim's Ukrainian adventure?
- dragonelite 5y ago
  So you're saying the germans will drive german cars designed in germany but made in China.
- thematrixturtle 5y ago
  China is not a gas exporter, or do you mean that they can buy Russian gas more cheaply now? In any case it's Qatar and other Arab states that produce LNG are the ones who'll be laughing all the way to the bank here.
- eatonphil 5y ago
  I don't think China benefited per se (let alone profited) by being the only one with economic ties to North Korea. As I understand it it's a pretty parasitic relationship. China's reason to help North Korea is more so political and territorial than economic.
  - davrosthedalek 5y ago
    It also guarantees them exclusive access to rare earth deposits in North Korea, I thought that was also a major point. They certainly have interest in a stable NK, not a "Maybe I press the red button today" NK.
_ph_ 5y ago
It is dead for all purposes unless the political climate changes radically. Whatever the Russian plans for a gas supplier to Germany were, they are limited to what the existing pipelines can deliver. I hope, we can reduce the dependency on Russian gas quickly, even if it means the additional effort of shipping LNG from the US or other sources. Mid-term it should be highest priority to get rid of fossil fuels as quick as possible.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  >Mid-term it should be highest priority to get rid of fossil fuels as quick as possible. This line of thinking double prices to gas, natural gas and electricity in the last year. Please stop it!
  - jaegerpicker 5y ago
    This line of thinking is the only hope of not further destroying the planet! We need renewables to replace fossil fuels ASAP.
  - nmehner 5y ago
    How does renewable energy double the gas price? That does not make any sense.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > Mid-term it should be highest priority to get rid of fossil fuels as quick as possible. What Germany needs to do, stat!, is to undo its moronic decision to scrap nuclear power. It's not as if the North Sea is very prone to tsunamis. And most of Germany's nuclear plants were probably not even all that close to the coast. Let's just fervently hope that any plants already decomissioned can be re-comissioned ASAP.
- zx85wes 5y ago
  It's been dead for a very long time. It's a carrot that Russia was never going to get. If Scholz is smart (which I doubt) he'll restart/keep open the nuclear power plants and cut taxes on gas/electricity for households to neutralise the price hikes.
Maxburn 5y ago
Yes, it impacts the people far more than the state.
PinguTS 5y ago
Because Poland let the long term contracts run out and also got cheered up for this by the US to not depend on Russia, Poland is the one who buys on the spot market. The German companies buy from Gazprom under the umbrella of the cheap long term contracts and now are selling to Poland. The German companies order from Netherlands way much more then in previous years (almost double), because of long term contracts, that Netherlands has to fulfill. Here you have the companies, which are really profiting. It is not so much Gazprom as you may think.
- p_l 5y ago
  With Poland, it was more due to internal political need to be seen as hard on Russia (and please look the other way as we buy coal from Donbas). Another leg of that strategy was buying LNG from USA, which turned out to be American companies buying russian gas in St. Petersburg ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ With the contracts, the current ruling coalition sold people the idea that they "got back" money from Gazprom over high prices of long-term contract when spot gas prices were lower. This, indeed, led to a considerable refund - but also meant we don't have guaranteed gas prices anymore, and now spot prices are much higher than they were when they renegotiated out the long-term contract ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I think Poland expected more support for such a decision but they basically just cut their own flesh with that. Ironically the relationship between Russia and Poland is worse than between Germany and Russia. Post-war politics seem to have a larger impact.
  - cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
    How can it be Ironic? It exactly matches the relationships in the first couple years of the second world war: Germany and Russia had the Molotov-Ribbentroff Pact, and the parts of Germany and the Soviet Union that used to be a country called Poland Just Had To Put Up With It.
  - p_l 5y ago
    Germany (or rather "Prussia", given that unified Germany is relatively new thing) and Russia had been much more friendlier with each other than their relationship with Poland, for considerable stretches of history. To the point that at times it's talked as "traditional german-russian friendship". On completely unrelated note is that our (Polish) current government is beyond stupid, voided long-term contracts during a period of cheaper gas prices, and is now forced to buy at spot prices for more than it saved on the long-term contract (also lots of political capital being involved between govt and opposition).

bobthechef 5y ago

jquery 5y ago

> Overall it will be much more expensive for Europe than for Russia. Markets disagree here. The ruble tumbled as well as the main Russian index, 500% more than the USA/Europe did. Russia has a lot to lose.

gerikson 5y ago

<<Erst kommt das Gas, dann kommt die Moral>>

xcambar 5y ago
Good pun of Brecht's words, but how do you connect both here?

unchocked 5y ago

Recertification now goes through a Green energy minister. This is pretty much pulling the plug.

jebronie 5y ago
"green" in so far as having a history of helping the construction of LNG terminals to import american gas.
- tjansen 5y ago
  Still much better than lignite...
- oytis 5y ago
  The point is German Green party has the most anti-authoritarian external political stance of all, and have been opposed to Nord Stream II from the very beginning. They might exchange it for compromise on something else, sure, but will have to explain it to their own party members.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Not against shale gas which is worse than natural gas. They opposed it because of environmental concerns of fossil fuels. It would be much better to just get gas from Russia, which we did for several decades.
    - mcv 5y ago
      It would be much better to use less gas.
      - ben_bai 5y ago
        Thanks Captain Obvious. Your deep understanding of western economy has enlightened me.
        nindalf 5y ago
        > Don’t be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
raxxorrax 5y ago
It is actually legally questionable that the government can influence that project in the first place. It is accepted in a way but perhaps government will have to pay billions for that choice. If the greens try to sell shale gas against natural gas as something "green", I think they will get a huge invoice from the economy and from voters. Not even the most naive green voters will take that argument and they do take a lot.
ohgodplsno 5y ago
The "Green" energy minister that lobbied Europe to have natural gas recognized as a "green" source of energy, while doing their utmost to block any other country from moving on with nuclear ? Super green.
- fsh 5y ago
  This is literally the opposite of what the minister has said: https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Meldung/20220101-eu-taxonomy-statement-by-federal-minister-habeck.html https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Meldung/20220101-eu-taxonom... Please don't spread misinformation.
  - ohgodplsno 5y ago
    Are you going to pretend that Germany didn't lobby for natural gas to be included by Europe in the green taxonomy ? Adding "but we know it's bad!" after the fact doesn't make it better in the slightest. German greens are hypocrites.
    - fsh 5y ago
      Could you give a source for that? A German newspaper reports that the green party was against including gas in the taxonomy, but was overruled by the other two coalition members [1]. [1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/taxonomie-eu-kommission-erdgas-atomkraft-habeck-bundesregierung-1.5512976 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/taxonomie-eu-kommission-...
    - HotHotLava 5y ago
      The relevant part of the statement, per the official source linked above: > Minister Habeck said: "The idea of including fossil gas in the taxonomy system is also questionable. The European Commission does at least make it clear that gas from fossil fuels is only a bridging technology which needs to be substituted by green hydrogen. New gas-fired power plants must already be equipped for conversion to hydrogen, and from 2035 they must be operated on the basis of green hydrogen or low-carbon gas. This is ambitious and will require large amounts of hydrogen. Incentivising sufficient investment in the transition towards hydrogen, establishing the necessary infrastructure and ramping up hydrogen production are some of the major challenges we are currently facing."

belorn 5y ago

I think the one that will profit most is China, being the remaining trade partner in a much similar way when most of the world imposed sanctions against north Korea. At the same time this will reduce the impact on prices, since as long China is connected to the global economy then the global supply will still increase when they buy from Russia. There will be costs associated with transportation for EU, be that from China (as a middle man for Russia) or Canada/US.

CRConrad 5y ago
> I think the one that will profit most is China If nothing else, is anyone keeping a very sharp eye out for what's going on around Taiwan or in the South China Sea, now that everyone's attention is on the Russian Kim's Ukrainian adventure?
dragonelite 5y ago
So you're saying the germans will drive german cars designed in germany but made in China.
thematrixturtle 5y ago
China is not a gas exporter, or do you mean that they can buy Russian gas more cheaply now? In any case it's Qatar and other Arab states that produce LNG are the ones who'll be laughing all the way to the bank here.
eatonphil 5y ago
I don't think China benefited per se (let alone profited) by being the only one with economic ties to North Korea. As I understand it it's a pretty parasitic relationship. China's reason to help North Korea is more so political and territorial than economic.
- davrosthedalek 5y ago
  It also guarantees them exclusive access to rare earth deposits in North Korea, I thought that was also a major point. They certainly have interest in a stable NK, not a "Maybe I press the red button today" NK.

_ph_ 5y ago

It is dead for all purposes unless the political climate changes radically. Whatever the Russian plans for a gas supplier to Germany were, they are limited to what the existing pipelines can deliver. I hope, we can reduce the dependency on Russian gas quickly, even if it means the additional effort of shipping LNG from the US or other sources. Mid-term it should be highest priority to get rid of fossil fuels as quick as possible.

DeathArrow 5y ago
>Mid-term it should be highest priority to get rid of fossil fuels as quick as possible. This line of thinking double prices to gas, natural gas and electricity in the last year. Please stop it!
- jaegerpicker 5y ago
  This line of thinking is the only hope of not further destroying the planet! We need renewables to replace fossil fuels ASAP.
- nmehner 5y ago
  How does renewable energy double the gas price? That does not make any sense.
CRConrad 5y ago
> Mid-term it should be highest priority to get rid of fossil fuels as quick as possible. What Germany needs to do, stat!, is to undo its moronic decision to scrap nuclear power. It's not as if the North Sea is very prone to tsunamis. And most of Germany's nuclear plants were probably not even all that close to the coast. Let's just fervently hope that any plants already decomissioned can be re-comissioned ASAP.
zx85wes 5y ago
It's been dead for a very long time. It's a carrot that Russia was never going to get. If Scholz is smart (which I doubt) he'll restart/keep open the nuclear power plants and cut taxes on gas/electricity for households to neutralise the price hikes.

Maxburn 5y ago

Yes, it impacts the people far more than the state.

PinguTS 5y ago

Because Poland let the long term contracts run out and also got cheered up for this by the US to not depend on Russia, Poland is the one who buys on the spot market. The German companies buy from Gazprom under the umbrella of the cheap long term contracts and now are selling to Poland. The German companies order from Netherlands way much more then in previous years (almost double), because of long term contracts, that Netherlands has to fulfill. Here you have the companies, which are really profiting. It is not so much Gazprom as you may think.

p_l 5y ago
With Poland, it was more due to internal political need to be seen as hard on Russia (and please look the other way as we buy coal from Donbas). Another leg of that strategy was buying LNG from USA, which turned out to be American companies buying russian gas in St. Petersburg ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ With the contracts, the current ruling coalition sold people the idea that they "got back" money from Gazprom over high prices of long-term contract when spot gas prices were lower. This, indeed, led to a considerable refund - but also meant we don't have guaranteed gas prices anymore, and now spot prices are much higher than they were when they renegotiated out the long-term contract ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
raxxorrax 5y ago
I think Poland expected more support for such a decision but they basically just cut their own flesh with that. Ironically the relationship between Russia and Poland is worse than between Germany and Russia. Post-war politics seem to have a larger impact.
- cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
  How can it be Ironic? It exactly matches the relationships in the first couple years of the second world war: Germany and Russia had the Molotov-Ribbentroff Pact, and the parts of Germany and the Soviet Union that used to be a country called Poland Just Had To Put Up With It.
- p_l 5y ago
  Germany (or rather "Prussia", given that unified Germany is relatively new thing) and Russia had been much more friendlier with each other than their relationship with Poland, for considerable stretches of history. To the point that at times it's talked as "traditional german-russian friendship". On completely unrelated note is that our (Polish) current government is beyond stupid, voided long-term contracts during a period of cheaper gas prices, and is now forced to buy at spot prices for more than it saved on the long-term contract (also lots of political capital being involved between govt and opposition).