4 ms·
This is a misleading piece. What Germany did was to rent a floating LNG terminal. The real terminal still needs to be built, unless they want to add this cost t
by coliveira 4y ago
This is a misleading piece. What Germany did was to rent a floating LNG terminal. The real terminal still needs to be built, unless they want to add this cost to the already extremely high cost of LNG, for the long run. The so called solutions that Germany found to the gas problem only can be considered throwing large amounts of money to the equation. It may work in the short term, but the country still needs to find a way to support its industry for the years to come, or it will go broke.
- tuukkah 4y agoDunno about the numbers for Germany, but Estonia and Finland rented a floating terminal for ten years. That should be long-term enough to phase off all major demand of LNG. Regarding the cost, I calculate a miniscule fixed cost of 0.1 cent / kWh or 1 EUR/MWh, assuming the capacity will be used in full. "The vessel’s evaporation capacity is 140 GWh/day and even more than 40 TWh per year [--] The total cost of the LNG floating terminal project is estimated at EUR 460 million under a 10-year lease. In addition, there will be costs related to the volume of use." https://gasgrid.fi/en/fsru-en/lng-floating-terminal/ https://gasgrid.fi/en/fsru-en/lng-floating-terminal/
- KarlKemp 4y agoI don't think there is any floating structure in the world that amounts to more than a rounding error in the context of the German budget, let alone a few barges with pipes and pumps.