This winter Europe's people will be chilling?

This winter Europe's people will be chilling?
1. Why not Europe imports Liquefied natural gas (LNG) from other countries?
2. UK's new prime minister plans to subsidize energy's bills, but how useful is that? Because the problem/root-cause is supply is low. When supply is low, whatever subsidy is useless.
3. Can people go to forest to chop trees and burn wood in winter? Go back to medieval time.
4. Can people burn coal?
5. How many percentage of Europe's electricity is generated by Nuclear Plant?
6. How shortage of gas will affect the output of industry?
7. While US keep increasing interest rate, and energy crisis in Europe cannot be eased, inflation won't come down, will this cause recession?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

they have been subsidizing energy bills for decades

there is no shortage of gas
just a shortage of getting gas to businesses and houses

they are

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if no shortage of gas then why is the gas's price going up and up?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They have??
The gas supply industry was privatised in 1986, at which time bills were subject to market forces. Likewise electricity companies in 1990. The National Grid (electricity infrastructure) was privatised in 1990 and listed on the stock exchange in 1995.
So what subsidies are you referring to? The "Winter Fuel Allowance" given to Pensioners?

Within each country in Europe there is likely a shortage of gas. I.e. they are not receiving enough from what sources they can to satisfy (anticipated) demand. They are trying to build up sufficient stockpile to cover that shortfall over winter, and time will tell if that is sufficient.
It is not correct to say that countries have sufficient, and that the only issue is getting it from storage to the people that need to use it, if that was what you were meaning.

If you mean that there is no shortage in terms of global supply, that is correct, although Europe have cut themselves off from accepting supply from one of the largest suppliers, and hence have reduced the available supply to them, to a level probably insufficient for demand over winter (hence stockpiling). Russia, it seems, may well be burning off their excess gas rather than store it. It keeps the price Europe pay on the market artificially high, which is in their favour.

 

--> Firewood is the new toilet paper


_

 

Asking again, what is the difficulty to buy LNG from maybe US, Arab to replace Russian gas?

 

They do. But one country will not be exporting much natural gas this winter. Thus the shortage.

In a capitalist economy, higher prices for a product result in more supply, since most people want to make money.

No and usually not.

 

The US doesn't currently have enough facilities to liquify natural gas for ship transport, beyond the supposed 13% mark of Europe's supply reached a few months ago.

Algeria and Libya don't have the technical ability to increase their production more. West African countries likewise face challenges in terms of years.

Another option for Europe is Turkmenistan, but it has shifted the attention of its gas exports towards China.

Azerbaijan is available, but how much of Europe's shortages they can remedy is unclear.

Turkey needs more investment and infrastructure, plus there's an intermittently icy relationship with Turkey.

Qatar and other countries have much of their gas volumes tied up by long-term supply contracts with apparently non-European recipients.

 

i think coal is banned in uk(?)
& most woods are protected national parks so it would be illegal.

 

How about Ukraine itself, does it face energy crisis now in wartime?

 

All sales of traditional house coal will be banned in England from 1 May 2023.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-coal-for-domestic-use-in-england#smoke-control-areas

 

Interesting detail.

What I read is that the EU is ahead of plan filling their storage. There is now a new floating LNG gasification plant operating in the Netherlands and another one due to be installed in Germany within a couple of months. So the EU's capacity to import LNG is being boosted significantly.

Whatever happens this winter, the EU's dependence on Russian gas is being radically reduced for the foreseeable future.

 

Here's a multi-category overview (Sept 21) from the Atlantic Council think tank on the various energy security areas that transatlantic teamwork is focused on agenda-wise, with respect to helping Europe decouple from Russian gas and electricity (the Baltic states have the latter dependency).

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-...ern-europe-through-transatlantic-cooperation/

EXCERPT: The United States now supplies more gas to Europe than Russia, but US LNG alone cannot compensate for decreased Russian supply. To increase global supply, Washington should continue to engage other top LNG exporters, such as Qatar and Australia, as it has attempted through diplomacy with major oil producers.

Outreach to other major importers is also critical. The United States recently persuaded Japan—the world’s number-two LNG importer after China—to divert some of its long-term contracts to supply Europe. Finding ways to ensure fungibility in destination for LNG cargoes and managing competition in a tight marketplace is crucial to global energy security.

- - - - - -

The race is on to establish and lock-up what sources each European country's supplementary suppliers are going to be...

Britain Seeks US Gas Deals to Tackle Long-Term Supply Crunch (Sept 21)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...upplies-from-us-ahead-of-winter-energy-crunch

EXCERPTS: The UK is trying to secure long-term supplies of liquefied natural gas from US producers as high energy prices across Europe threaten the economy far beyond just this winter. [...] It’s usual for governments to begin talks that lead to negotiations on a commercial level, such as ones between Germany and Qatar.

[...] “Clearly the Truss government is engaged on this issue at the highest levels of government to lock in long-term supplies at affordable prices just like the Germans,” said Fred Hutchison, president of US industry lobby group LNG Allies. “The other European nations better step up pretty fast. What’s left in the United States is almost sold out.”

 

Yes it's a fast-moving picture. There is another important element to all this, which is the impact of measures taken in the EU to reduce the demand for gas. These range from shorter working for factories (partly self-imposed due to the current high cost of gas), and encouraging households to lower the thermostat, to the de-mothballing of nuclear power plants and a further push on renewables. Ben van Beurden, the Shell CEO, says that rationing of gas this winter remains a possibility.

This winter could be quite tough to get through if it turns out to be a cold one. After that, things should stabilise - with a permanently reduced dependence on Russia.

 

Why not build more nuclear plant to get rid of gas?

 

The history of Germany's withdrawal from nuclear power probably covers the glut of available excuses for NP hesitancy on the most "social-environmental values" posturing and "adult daycare" safety-fixated parts of the continent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

Though, let's face it, the safer generation of reactors wasn't around to entice in the old days. Small Modular Reactors are still in infancy and the whole GenIV crop supposedly won't be commercially realized over the next couple of decades. (Barring national emergencies goading governments to ease their bureaucracy procedures/protocols and mandate speedy development).

Generation III reactors were first physically instantiated in the late '90s, but the growing negativity toward nuclear has obstructed their number. Though more secure than Gen II, the NP phobia still projects worrisome issues on their designs, engendering a cumbersome administrative process to trudge through.

Below is a partisan expert working for the solar and wind industry (i.e., potential greenwasher) trying to primarily deflect blame from left-wing bashers (there have been some centrist and right-wing worrywarts, too) to it wholly being the fault of nuclear power being "expensive, too slow to build" (sans the former contributing to the latter).

Like most apologist efforts, it's undergirded by motivated reasoning and cherry-picking. The cognitive apparatus is interpreting events and data through a preferred or biased a priori template. (As if there really was such a fabulous entity as a neutral or impartial thought orientation devoid of background theories, self-interests, and commitment to employing institution or business... with respect to any individual or enterprise -- heh.)

Public Fear Of Nuclear Isn’t Why Nuclear Energy Is Fading
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/15/public-fear-of-nuclear-isnt-why-nuclear-energy-is-fading/

_

 

Because building wind turbines and solar generators is far quicker and cheaper nowadays than nuclear. You need some nuclear or hydro for base load, but nuclear is very slow to build and very costly, even setting to one side the decommissioning costs at end of life and the problem of nuclear waste.

 

Germany's PM visited UAE. he sealed a purchase of LNG from UAE.
Solar panel can't be efficient in winter when sunlight is low.
One day when oil is depleted, what people are going to get enough energy?

 

The world will not wait for oil to be depleted. We will reduce our use of it regardless of how much is left. It will be replaced with wind, tidal, solar (yes it still works in winter just less well), hydro, nuclear and maybe biomass in some form.

 

Not so much literally depleted by then, but legislatively phased-out.

It will simply be a fluctuating era of less reliable power supply, perhaps similar to Senegal's status in that area. But occurring in some (if not most) North American and European communities.

Extended drought trends will continue to either threaten or cripple hydroelectricity as such did this year.

The suppressed or greenwashed problems of "renewable" sources will be fully out of the bag (along with the future absence of back-up to fill power gaps). Whatever the make-up of that minority "destroying the environment to save it" activism is today, those protesters will be replaced or dominated by other political stripes as today's impaired perception fades or the unadulterated reality of solar/wind/etc dawns on the public further down the road.

The difficulty in recycling EV batteries will be glaring as they litter and foul the landscape in one sense or another. (Add the negative image of EVs in the context of used cars.)

In the US especially, a negligence in many areas of not upgrading the grid to accommodate EVs and a preemptive failure during prior years to aggressively discourage people from charging at night will also be felt.

Redundant since partly aforementioned, but necessary to highlight: Tomorrow's elevated wailing about the green marketed "environmentally friendly" and "addressing climate change" alternative energy technology of opportunistic companies not accomplishing those things according to expectations. (Even the opposite sometimes, particularly taking into accounts resource extraction for manufacturing the hardware and any lingering carbon-emissions from the same.)

A surprising radical policy shift to nuclear power, in terms of numbers and sped-up construction projects that actually make an impact, could change the portents. But not something likely.

_