3 ms·

Your lecture would have been more reasonable if I had not already given a specific example of diversification. Namely the construction of a LNG terminal. Here

by btilly 4y ago

Your lecture would have been more reasonable if I had not already given a specific example of diversification. Namely the construction of a LNG terminal. Here are numbers for you. The Sabine Pass LNG project in Louisiana, USA, was constructed for about $5 billion. Its capacity is almost exactly the same as the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which was constructed for approximately €15.7 billion. Thus for 1/3 of the cost of the pipeline, Germany could have provided themselves a backup plan for Russian gas, while requiring zero changes from industry and consumers. This one time investment would have been a fraction of what Germany spends each year subsidizing renewable energy, and a drop compared to the cost of shutting down nuclear. Therefore the cost of making sure that there was a second supplier of gas available would have been quite reasonable to do some years ago. Given that it hasn't been done, it is impossible to do on short notice. But Germany could have done it, should have done it, and was repeatedly advised by allies to do exactly that. And failed to.

AnonymousPlanet 4y ago
> Your lecture would have been more reasonable if I had not already given a specific example of diversification. Namely the construction of a LNG terminal. > Here are numbers for you. The Sabine Pass LNG project in Louisiana, USA, was constructed for about $5 billion. Its capacity is almost exactly the same as the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which was constructed for approximately €15.7 billion. Thus for 1/3 of the cost of the pipeline, Germany could have provided themselves a backup plan for Russian gas, while requiring zero changes from industry and consumers. LNG isn't even in the ballpark of what would be needed to replace Russian gas in volume. About 40 LNG terminals are currently operational in the EU. Even if you could use their full capacity, it wouldn't be enough to replace Russian gas. And it wouldn't affect prices positively aswell. LNG is only good for preventing actual shortages, not replacing the source. Even if Germany had built 5 LNG terminals in the last decade, it would be a drop in the bucket.
- btilly 4y ago
  There is an old saying that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. You aren't following that advice though. I claim that an LNG terminal on the scale of the Sabine Pass LNG project could replace Nord Stream 1. You claim that 5 such terminals would be a drop in the bucket. Let's look at numbers and see who is right. Nord Stream 1's official capacity is 55 billion cubic meters a year of LNG. (They actually run a bit more than that.) Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/kremlin-nord-stream-1-turbine-be-installed-volumes-will-adjust-2022-07-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/kremlin-nord-stream-... Sabine Pass is the largest LNG terminal in the world. Its capacity is 55.4 million metric tonnes per year. Source https://www.statista.com/statistics/1263935/largest-operational-lng-terminals-by-capacity-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1263935/largest-operatio... Those numbers are close, but the units are different. But 1 million metric tons LNG = 1.38 billion cubic meters LNG. Source: https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c6-89.html https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c6-89.... Therefore a single LNG terminal on the same scale as the Sabine Pass LNG project would provide 139% of the official capacity of Nord Stream 1. Do you have any more "corrections" to offer? Or do you wish to keep digging the hole you are in?
  - mid 4y ago
    > Nord Stream 1's official capacity is 55 billion cubic meters a year of LNG Hmm... Are you saying liquified natural gas is pumped through North Stream?
    - btilly 4y ago
      Oops, that was clearly a mistake. Thanks for catching it. Natural Gas is pumped through Nord Stream. But it is not sent in liquid form. If it was, then keeping the pipeline sufficiently cold and pressurized would be an insane challenge.
tharkun__ 4y ago
This is partly true. There were LNG terminals planned and are now being planned again AFAIK and also see sibling. There were/are some woes though as can for example be seen here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-30/german-lng-terminal-faces-headwinds-as-major-investor-steps-back https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-30/german-ln... Funny the timing is though.
pmayrgundter 4y ago
Interesting comparison. Germany's GDP is ~$3T, so a $5B insurance policy is well worth it, even had it not made any revenue, which it seems obv it would have. Side note.. SabinePass[1] 30 million tonnes = 30 billion kgs per annum NordStream1[2], 55 billion cubic metres a year Are those about equiv? LNG is 430 kg/m3, 55Bm3*430kg/m3=23,650Bkg, so 1000x more via NordStream, assuming same density. But looks like pipelines may be lightly compressed vs ships more typically higher compressed LNG? Anyone know? [1]https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cheniere-completes-new-sabine-pass-lng-export-unit-louisiana-2022-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cheniere-completes-n... [2]https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/kremlin-nord-stream-1-turbine-be-installed-volumes-will-adjust-2022-07-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/kremlin-nord-stream-... [3]http://www.kosancrisplant.com/media/5648/1-lng_basics_82809_final_hq.pdf http://www.kosancrisplant.com/media/5648/1-lng_basics_82809_...
- btilly 4y ago
  I presented my calculation in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32558820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32558820. Statistica reports a much higher capacity than your Reuters article reference. Using the same a million tonnes of LNG is 1.38 billion cubic meters that I referenced there, that would still be 52.44 billion cubic meters. My best guess for the (rather large) discrepancy is that Statistica is reporting on how much LNG is able to pass through the terminal, while Reuters is quoting how much they are able to liquify there for export. To answer your other question, a pipeline carries natural gas as a gas, while we ship it in in liquid form in pressurized containers. Therefore ships carry natural gas in a much denser form than pipelines do.

by btilly 4y ago

AnonymousPlanet 4y ago

> Your lecture would have been more reasonable if I had not already given a specific example of diversification. Namely the construction of a LNG terminal. > Here are numbers for you. The Sabine Pass LNG project in Louisiana, USA, was constructed for about $5 billion. Its capacity is almost exactly the same as the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which was constructed for approximately €15.7 billion. Thus for 1/3 of the cost of the pipeline, Germany could have provided themselves a backup plan for Russian gas, while requiring zero changes from industry and consumers. LNG isn't even in the ballpark of what would be needed to replace Russian gas in volume. About 40 LNG terminals are currently operational in the EU. Even if you could use their full capacity, it wouldn't be enough to replace Russian gas. And it wouldn't affect prices positively aswell. LNG is only good for preventing actual shortages, not replacing the source. Even if Germany had built 5 LNG terminals in the last decade, it would be a drop in the bucket.

btilly 4y ago
There is an old saying that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. You aren't following that advice though. I claim that an LNG terminal on the scale of the Sabine Pass LNG project could replace Nord Stream 1. You claim that 5 such terminals would be a drop in the bucket. Let's look at numbers and see who is right. Nord Stream 1's official capacity is 55 billion cubic meters a year of LNG. (They actually run a bit more than that.) Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/kremlin-nord-stream-1-turbine-be-installed-volumes-will-adjust-2022-07-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/kremlin-nord-stream-... Sabine Pass is the largest LNG terminal in the world. Its capacity is 55.4 million metric tonnes per year. Source https://www.statista.com/statistics/1263935/largest-operational-lng-terminals-by-capacity-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1263935/largest-operatio... Those numbers are close, but the units are different. But 1 million metric tons LNG = 1.38 billion cubic meters LNG. Source: https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c6-89.html https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c6-89.... Therefore a single LNG terminal on the same scale as the Sabine Pass LNG project would provide 139% of the official capacity of Nord Stream 1. Do you have any more "corrections" to offer? Or do you wish to keep digging the hole you are in?
- mid 4y ago
  > Nord Stream 1's official capacity is 55 billion cubic meters a year of LNG Hmm... Are you saying liquified natural gas is pumped through North Stream?
  - btilly 4y ago
    Oops, that was clearly a mistake. Thanks for catching it. Natural Gas is pumped through Nord Stream. But it is not sent in liquid form. If it was, then keeping the pipeline sufficiently cold and pressurized would be an insane challenge.

tharkun__ 4y ago

This is partly true. There were LNG terminals planned and are now being planned again AFAIK and also see sibling. There were/are some woes though as can for example be seen here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-30/german-lng-terminal-faces-headwinds-as-major-investor-steps-back https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-30/german-ln... Funny the timing is though.

pmayrgundter 4y ago

Interesting comparison. Germany's GDP is ~$3T, so a $5B insurance policy is well worth it, even had it not made any revenue, which it seems obv it would have. Side note.. SabinePass[1] 30 million tonnes = 30 billion kgs per annum NordStream1[2], 55 billion cubic metres a year Are those about equiv? LNG is 430 kg/m3, 55Bm3*430kg/m3=23,650Bkg, so 1000x more via NordStream, assuming same density. But looks like pipelines may be lightly compressed vs ships more typically higher compressed LNG? Anyone know? [1]https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cheniere-completes-new-sabine-pass-lng-export-unit-louisiana-2022-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cheniere-completes-n... [2]https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/kremlin-nord-stream-1-turbine-be-installed-volumes-will-adjust-2022-07-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/kremlin-nord-stream-... [3]http://www.kosancrisplant.com/media/5648/1-lng_basics_82809_final_hq.pdf http://www.kosancrisplant.com/media/5648/1-lng_basics_82809_...

btilly 4y ago
I presented my calculation in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32558820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32558820. Statistica reports a much higher capacity than your Reuters article reference. Using the same a million tonnes of LNG is 1.38 billion cubic meters that I referenced there, that would still be 52.44 billion cubic meters. My best guess for the (rather large) discrepancy is that Statistica is reporting on how much LNG is able to pass through the terminal, while Reuters is quoting how much they are able to liquify there for export. To answer your other question, a pipeline carries natural gas as a gas, while we ship it in in liquid form in pressurized containers. Therefore ships carry natural gas in a much denser form than pipelines do.