8 ms·

Switching to LNG requires special infrastructure (harbours attached to the gas-network) - and there is not nearly enough of that in Germany right now, and it ta

Switching to LNG requires special infrastructure (harbours attached to the gas-network) - and there is not nearly enough of that in Germany right now, and it takes a long time to build. So even if Russian gas COULD be replaced by LNG tomorrow, in terms of pure volume, it would still not possible to Germany to consume it. Germany really screwed the pooch on their energy policy for the past 15 years...

croes 5y ago
Others sources have either similar totalitarian governments or human rights violations like russia or damage the environment like transporting the LNG with ships to germany. Germany could have diversified it's suppliers if the Iran deals weren't killed by Trump, but even then not a good solution.
- klausjensen 5y ago
  Hindsight is 20-20, I know, but Russia was the worst choice there was as supplier. It was not nearly as obvious 15 years ago, as it is today, but all the signs were there. We (I include myself here) were just not listening closely enough to the countries that knew Russia the best: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine. The decision is also amplified by the meaningless end to the German nuclear program.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    German dependency on Russian gas is a lot older than that. Ostpolitik dates back to the ‘60s.
    - tmerse 5y ago
      Jein (Yes and no). Helmut Schmidt even advocated for diversification in 1988 (no importer should account for more than 30% - of course more with oil in mind but the principle stands). https://www.zeit.de/1988/08/sieben-prinzipien-vernuenftiger-energiepolitik https://www.zeit.de/1988/08/sieben-prinzipien-vernuenftiger-... Contrary to this, Russian gas imports to Germany used to account for 40% of total consumption in 2012 vs 52% as of today.
  - croes 5y ago
    Who would have been a better choice?
    - hef19898 5y ago
      In the pre-Ukraine war world there were none. Gas was comparatively cheap, pipelines and ibfrastructure was there. So Russia was a natural choice. Now that changed and the world will adapt.
    - gsserge 5y ago
      At the very least Germany could have said no to Nord Stream 1 & 2.
  - gsserge 5y ago
    > It was not nearly as obvious 15 years ago, as it is today, but all the signs were there. We (I include myself here) were just not listening closely enough to the countries that knew Russia the best: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine. After living in Western Europe for almost a decade it's still shocking to me how much people here do not understand Russia.
    - creato 5y ago
      In my experience, right here on HN the dominant narrative was that opposing Russian gas infrastructure was just American protectionism for frackers. Similarly, opposing Chinese built telecom infrastructure is just seen as an attempt at American protectionism. Hopefully that continues to be a viable position, unlike depending on Russian gas.
  - Mlller 5y ago
    Contrary to the narrative common now, many European states and particularly a majority of Eastern European states seem to have been more dependent on Russian gas than Germany: - Hungary: 110.4 percent - Latvia: 100.1 percent - Finland: 92.4 percent - Estonia: 86.5 percent - Czechia: 86.0 percent - Slovenia: 81.0 percent - Slovakia: 75.2 percent - Bulgaria: 72.8 percent - Germany: 58.9 percent “Some of the countries have a figure above 100 because they import more than required for domestic consumption and export other energy products.” per https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/3260553-these-european-countries-are-the-most-dependent-on-russian-gas/ https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/326055...
    - pell 5y ago
      While that is true, Germany is the economical powerhouse of the EU (and the fourth largest economy in the world). I think, these countries' GDPs combined are probably still smaller than Germany's. This gives Germany a special position here which is mainly why they're the center of attention here.
    - riku_iki 5y ago
      Those all are small countries, with combined population less than Germany.
  - pell 5y ago
    >It was not nearly as obvious 15 years ago, as it is today, but all the signs were there. We (I include myself here) were just not listening closely enough to the countries that knew Russia the best: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine. A big part of Germany's geopolitical strategy was (and partly still is) to act as a communication channel between West and East. Similarly to the EU which brought long-lasting peace in Europe through economical ties, the idea was to establish economical relationships with Russia to advance the relationship for a beneficial win-win situation both sides could live with. This, of course, was shortsighted in many ways.
- starkd 5y ago
  >> Germany could have diversified it's suppliers if the Iran deals weren't killed by Trump, but even then not a good solution. How does diversifying away from one totalitarian government only to depend on another totalitarian government solve anything?
  - jsnodlin 5y ago
  - mrep 5y ago
    Well for one thing, that other totalitarian government doesn't have nukes to threaten you if you intervene with them.
    - freemint 5y ago
      yet.
  - croes 5y ago
    Less power for each of such governments.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
krisoft 5y ago
Exactly as you say. > there is not nearly enough of that in Germany right now To elaborate on that: Germany has no LNG terminals. Zero. They signed the first contracts to build one this year March [1]. If I were a German citizen I would feel very cross with my own government. It's a good idea to have such an infra just in case. Just to hedge the bets. There is a very real reason why the Floating Storage Regasification Unit serving as the LNG import terminal for Latvia is called "FSRU Independence". [2] These facilities literally provide independence. 1: https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/germany-speeds-plan-for-first-lng-terminal-as-alternate-to-russian-gas https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/germany-speeds-pl... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSRU_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSRU_Independence
- spaniard89277 5y ago
  Spain has. But youll need pipes.
  - Gravityloss 5y ago
    There exists LNG terminals in Holland, Belgium and Poland: Rotterdam, Zeebrugge, Swinoujscie etc. They are connected to German pipelines. This map is excellent: https://www.gie.eu/publications/maps/gie-lng-map/ https://www.gie.eu/publications/maps/gie-lng-map/
    - spaniard89277 5y ago
      I know, but I've been told that Spain has the most underused installed capacity.
      - Gravityloss 5y ago
        Does Spain export a lot of electricity? It could produce a lot of solar power. Even some in the winter, a lot in the summer when it's needed for air conditioning. One can think of it this way, if a solar panel is manufactured in or imported to EU, maybe it should be installed in the more sunny regions for maximum benefit. Spain is also a wind power giant. As comparison, Germany is not a great location for either wind or solar power.
hef19898 5y ago
>> Germany really screwed the pooch on their energy policy for the past 15 years... Why? Russia, and the USSR through the entirity of the Cold War, delivered reliably all the gas ordered. If you have a stable relationship with suppliers stretching decades and through all kinds of conflicts you have zero incentive to change. The infrastructure is there. And being in business with your "enemy" keeps channels open and results in intet dependencies. Putin, in a bout of insanity, through all that out of the window. Once it was clear that's gonna happen, and no that was NOT clear a year ago, it was too late to switch (infrastructure).
- infamia 5y ago
  It's not like this is out of the blue. NATO has been training the Ukrainians for eight years because of the risks. The Europeans should have been hedging their bets against Russian gas as well.
  - yonaguska 5y ago
    > NATO has been training the Ukrainians for eight years because of the risks. Feels a bit like a chicken or egg question. I'm still undecided though, as Russia was funding the green anti nuclear movements in Germany way back when Fukushima happened. Fwiw, I don't think that renewables plus batteries are a safe hedge anyways. We're simply offshoring the environmental externalities to places far away in terms of energy storage, and China holds all the cards in this instance.
    - timka 5y ago
      What exactly do you mean by Russia funding the green anti-nuclear movements? Exactly who did this? All that green agenda, Kyoto and Paris stuff, affects Russia very badly by basically cancelling its fossil fuel export earnings. Just look at those who lobby the green agenda in Russia like Chubais.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      The Green party was funded as, partially, an anti nuclear party. Pushing that after Fukushima was just natural. Russia did support the AfD so, as they did with other far right movements across Europe. That said, 8 years is a very short time to switch from existing gas pipelines to LNG terminals.
weinzierl 5y ago
It is not only the missing LNG terminals. In the last 15 years gas heating has been been pushed to a degree that roughly half of all buildings are heated that way. I'm willing to believe that we can build an LNG terminal in a year or two, but replacing the heating systems of our buildings will take decades.
- nemetroid 5y ago
  Isn’t the point of an LNG terminal to supply a gas heating system with gas?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
huijzer 5y ago
> Germany really screwed the pooch on their energy policy for the past 15 years... If they would have pushed "this overrides all public interests" clause last year, they could have triggered a huge backslash especially among the German climate change deniers and car fans. This in turn could have hindered them from introducing the clause today. So, maybe they did a great job on the energy policy. Who knows
trhway 5y ago
>So even if Russian gas COULD be replaced by LNG tomorrow, in terms of pure volume, it would still not possible to Germany to consume it Why? Given that Germany has unused North Stream 2 connection to Germany infra they should just build an LNG terminal right where NS2 beaches. An LNG receiving terminal is pretty easy and fast to build.

croes 5y ago

Others sources have either similar totalitarian governments or human rights violations like russia or damage the environment like transporting the LNG with ships to germany. Germany could have diversified it's suppliers if the Iran deals weren't killed by Trump, but even then not a good solution.

klausjensen 5y ago
Hindsight is 20-20, I know, but Russia was the worst choice there was as supplier. It was not nearly as obvious 15 years ago, as it is today, but all the signs were there. We (I include myself here) were just not listening closely enough to the countries that knew Russia the best: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine. The decision is also amplified by the meaningless end to the German nuclear program.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  German dependency on Russian gas is a lot older than that. Ostpolitik dates back to the ‘60s.
  - tmerse 5y ago
    Jein (Yes and no). Helmut Schmidt even advocated for diversification in 1988 (no importer should account for more than 30% - of course more with oil in mind but the principle stands). https://www.zeit.de/1988/08/sieben-prinzipien-vernuenftiger-energiepolitik https://www.zeit.de/1988/08/sieben-prinzipien-vernuenftiger-... Contrary to this, Russian gas imports to Germany used to account for 40% of total consumption in 2012 vs 52% as of today.
- croes 5y ago
  Who would have been a better choice?
  - hef19898 5y ago
    In the pre-Ukraine war world there were none. Gas was comparatively cheap, pipelines and ibfrastructure was there. So Russia was a natural choice. Now that changed and the world will adapt.
  - gsserge 5y ago
    At the very least Germany could have said no to Nord Stream 1 & 2.
- gsserge 5y ago
  > It was not nearly as obvious 15 years ago, as it is today, but all the signs were there. We (I include myself here) were just not listening closely enough to the countries that knew Russia the best: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine. After living in Western Europe for almost a decade it's still shocking to me how much people here do not understand Russia.
  - creato 5y ago
    In my experience, right here on HN the dominant narrative was that opposing Russian gas infrastructure was just American protectionism for frackers. Similarly, opposing Chinese built telecom infrastructure is just seen as an attempt at American protectionism. Hopefully that continues to be a viable position, unlike depending on Russian gas.
- Mlller 5y ago
  Contrary to the narrative common now, many European states and particularly a majority of Eastern European states seem to have been more dependent on Russian gas than Germany: - Hungary: 110.4 percent - Latvia: 100.1 percent - Finland: 92.4 percent - Estonia: 86.5 percent - Czechia: 86.0 percent - Slovenia: 81.0 percent - Slovakia: 75.2 percent - Bulgaria: 72.8 percent - Germany: 58.9 percent “Some of the countries have a figure above 100 because they import more than required for domestic consumption and export other energy products.” per https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/3260553-these-european-countries-are-the-most-dependent-on-russian-gas/ https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/326055...
  - pell 5y ago
    While that is true, Germany is the economical powerhouse of the EU (and the fourth largest economy in the world). I think, these countries' GDPs combined are probably still smaller than Germany's. This gives Germany a special position here which is mainly why they're the center of attention here.
  - riku_iki 5y ago
    Those all are small countries, with combined population less than Germany.
- pell 5y ago
  >It was not nearly as obvious 15 years ago, as it is today, but all the signs were there. We (I include myself here) were just not listening closely enough to the countries that knew Russia the best: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine. A big part of Germany's geopolitical strategy was (and partly still is) to act as a communication channel between West and East. Similarly to the EU which brought long-lasting peace in Europe through economical ties, the idea was to establish economical relationships with Russia to advance the relationship for a beneficial win-win situation both sides could live with. This, of course, was shortsighted in many ways.
starkd 5y ago
>> Germany could have diversified it's suppliers if the Iran deals weren't killed by Trump, but even then not a good solution. How does diversifying away from one totalitarian government only to depend on another totalitarian government solve anything?
- jsnodlin 5y ago
- mrep 5y ago
  Well for one thing, that other totalitarian government doesn't have nukes to threaten you if you intervene with them.
  - freemint 5y ago
    yet.
- croes 5y ago
  Less power for each of such governments.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

krisoft 5y ago

Exactly as you say. > there is not nearly enough of that in Germany right now To elaborate on that: Germany has no LNG terminals. Zero. They signed the first contracts to build one this year March [1]. If I were a German citizen I would feel very cross with my own government. It's a good idea to have such an infra just in case. Just to hedge the bets. There is a very real reason why the Floating Storage Regasification Unit serving as the LNG import terminal for Latvia is called "FSRU Independence". [2] These facilities literally provide independence. 1: https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/germany-speeds-plan-for-first-lng-terminal-as-alternate-to-russian-gas https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/germany-speeds-pl... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSRU_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSRU_Independence

spaniard89277 5y ago
Spain has. But youll need pipes.
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  There exists LNG terminals in Holland, Belgium and Poland: Rotterdam, Zeebrugge, Swinoujscie etc. They are connected to German pipelines. This map is excellent: https://www.gie.eu/publications/maps/gie-lng-map/ https://www.gie.eu/publications/maps/gie-lng-map/
  - spaniard89277 5y ago
    I know, but I've been told that Spain has the most underused installed capacity.
    - Gravityloss 5y ago
      Does Spain export a lot of electricity? It could produce a lot of solar power. Even some in the winter, a lot in the summer when it's needed for air conditioning. One can think of it this way, if a solar panel is manufactured in or imported to EU, maybe it should be installed in the more sunny regions for maximum benefit. Spain is also a wind power giant. As comparison, Germany is not a great location for either wind or solar power.

hef19898 5y ago

>> Germany really screwed the pooch on their energy policy for the past 15 years... Why? Russia, and the USSR through the entirity of the Cold War, delivered reliably all the gas ordered. If you have a stable relationship with suppliers stretching decades and through all kinds of conflicts you have zero incentive to change. The infrastructure is there. And being in business with your "enemy" keeps channels open and results in intet dependencies. Putin, in a bout of insanity, through all that out of the window. Once it was clear that's gonna happen, and no that was NOT clear a year ago, it was too late to switch (infrastructure).

infamia 5y ago
It's not like this is out of the blue. NATO has been training the Ukrainians for eight years because of the risks. The Europeans should have been hedging their bets against Russian gas as well.
- yonaguska 5y ago
  > NATO has been training the Ukrainians for eight years because of the risks. Feels a bit like a chicken or egg question. I'm still undecided though, as Russia was funding the green anti nuclear movements in Germany way back when Fukushima happened. Fwiw, I don't think that renewables plus batteries are a safe hedge anyways. We're simply offshoring the environmental externalities to places far away in terms of energy storage, and China holds all the cards in this instance.
  - timka 5y ago
    What exactly do you mean by Russia funding the green anti-nuclear movements? Exactly who did this? All that green agenda, Kyoto and Paris stuff, affects Russia very badly by basically cancelling its fossil fuel export earnings. Just look at those who lobby the green agenda in Russia like Chubais.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    The Green party was funded as, partially, an anti nuclear party. Pushing that after Fukushima was just natural. Russia did support the AfD so, as they did with other far right movements across Europe. That said, 8 years is a very short time to switch from existing gas pipelines to LNG terminals.

weinzierl 5y ago

It is not only the missing LNG terminals. In the last 15 years gas heating has been been pushed to a degree that roughly half of all buildings are heated that way. I'm willing to believe that we can build an LNG terminal in a year or two, but replacing the heating systems of our buildings will take decades.

nemetroid 5y ago
Isn’t the point of an LNG terminal to supply a gas heating system with gas?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

huijzer 5y ago

> Germany really screwed the pooch on their energy policy for the past 15 years... If they would have pushed "this overrides all public interests" clause last year, they could have triggered a huge backslash especially among the German climate change deniers and car fans. This in turn could have hindered them from introducing the clause today. So, maybe they did a great job on the energy policy. Who knows

trhway 5y ago

>So even if Russian gas COULD be replaced by LNG tomorrow, in terms of pure volume, it would still not possible to Germany to consume it Why? Given that Germany has unused North Stream 2 connection to Germany infra they should just build an LNG terminal right where NS2 beaches. An LNG receiving terminal is pretty easy and fast to build.