Europe is locking itself in to US LNG
davekeating.substack.com
davekeating.substack.com
UK 5,6%
Azerbadjan 3,8%
Algeria 12,5%
Norway 30,1%
Other LNG 9,4%
USA LNG 27,2%
Russia 11,5%
If I read it right, for oil in Q1 2025, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
United States 15,0%
Norway 13,5%
Kazakhstan 12,7%
Libya 9,0%
Saudi Arabia 6,6%
Nigeria 6,3%
United Kingdom 5,2%
Iraq 4,5%
Guyana 4,3%
Brazil 4,1%
Azerbaijan 4,1%
Algeria 3,4%
Russia 2,5%
Mexico 2,1%
Other 6,6%The US were not thrilled about it when it was being constructed, obviously, but this was normal tensions towards Russia, prescient in the end but here we are.
There were several countries arguably interested in getting rid of that pipeline (Ukraine, Poland, the US), but Ukraine wanted it the most, had easy access, and there's no need to overcomplicate internet theories.
No, "normal" humans don't dive to 80m deep, where the explosion occurred. Any diver, whether professional or recreational (which is my case), will know about this. I don't have a (alternative) theory about this, I'm just stating facts. Well, the alternative theory, if we are speaking of divers, is that they had some very special equipment and were extremely skilled. It wasn't some random people, renting a random boat, renting random diving gear and buying random explosives ..
https://www-ostsee--zeitung-de.translate.goog/panorama/exper...
>Advanced Mixed Gas Diver (80m)...The Advanced Mixed Gas Diver course is a great way to extend already considerable open-circuit mixed gas diving skills.
This simply isn't true, I myself after a technical advancement in my PADI to be certified on a rebreather went >80m many times. It's absolute more common than it was in the past.
Those who are trained with special forces as alleged would also be required to be qualified.
My main point is that it's not as rare as some might think, it's becoming more and more recreational.
The people who did it definitely took on risk, but in my eyes, more so because if something did happen to go wrong, there's no support to help you out (that we know of). It's a flying with 1 engine scenario. The fact that it was pulled off is impressive. But for any rec divers, don't try without the right training, equipment and people with you.
"The open-sea diving depth record was achieved in 1988 by a team of COMEX and French Navy divers who performed pipeline connection exercises at a depth of 534 metres (1,750 ft) in the Mediterranean Sea as part of the "Hydra 8" programme employing heliox and hydrox."
Sounds like 80 meters is cake walk for any modern naval institution.
Not trying to give any hints there, just sharing some rummors.
Yes, it's an operation that requires coordination and planning, which is why it's reasonable to assume it was carried out by an intelligence agency and not a lone fisherman with a grudge. But once you're in the realm of intelligence activities, this isn't exactly the "let's blow up their pagers" level of complexity.
Bringing that bridge down is also much harder than blowing up the pipeline, because the bridge is covered by a lot of defenses, and naval drones will always have limited payload (if they want to be fast enough to evade defenses). Dudes performing a dive in the middle of the sea far from the battlefield are much less vulnerable.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explos...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-...
The first Kerch Bridge attempt was only a partial success. Traffic continued almost the next day. The second attempt was a complete failure. For the refineries, Ukraine uses at least GPS.
The sail boat theory is plausible from diving standpoint, but they allegedly installed explosives on NS-1 and NS-2 sites that were at least 100km apart, within 10 hours, with no decompression equipment. If they can do that, why do they repeatedly fail at Kerch Bridge?
The bridge is approximately 3km long or so, which makes it relatively easy to maintain a continuous 24/7 armed presence to prevent sabotage. An underwater pipeline is a 1200km stretch mostly in other international territory that is hard to protect. Definitely much easier to blow up a pipeline than it is to blow up a bridge.
it's the clusterfuck of EU police inactivity afterwards that needs to be paid more attention to
For example, Seymour Hersh (renowned wartime investigative journalist), published a brief on US involvement: https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...
AKA: Argument from ignorance
ROLF - that must up there with "we want the hostages back and we're actively working towards that goal".
https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-germanys-scholz-stress-u...
Halted.. Absolutely, political pressure on Europe to not sign or use it.
You've made the leap to blowing it up somewhere, that is the stretch I'm not buying until it's admitted to. Personally, as an Irish who knows the history of occupation during tense years, I'm not surprised what a well trained spec ops can do with some basic equipment, so my money is on Ukrainian people just doing something Impressive but I'll wait for the facts to say it's exactly what happened.
I didn't know dementia is so contagious.
A month or so later, Russia launched the 2022 offensive against Ukraine, and there was no longer any question of NS2 entering service because it was clear to all that the preconditions for Germany's rescission of approval for the pipeline had been satisfied. With that context, Biden's answer is best understood as him being quite confident in the quality of US intelligence that Russia was planning an imminent invasion of Ukraine that Europe was assessing as faulty. So while Europe was interested in the question of "what if Russia doesn't invade Ukraine?" Biden's answer was (in not so many words) "I'm not contemplating that scenario."
My money is actually on Polish special forces (or one of the Baltic states), in an effort to force Germany to be serious about weaning itself off Russian natural gas.
It didn't make much of a difference to Germany since the gas flow via NS1 was already switched off for a while and NS2 never had delivered any gas before the sabotage happened. In the end it was more of a symbolic gesture to freeze the status quo that was already in place anyway.
Russia warns Europe that it will freeze to death if help to Ukraine will continue -> Russia stops NS1 to demonstrate their economical superpower -> EU companies are looking for $18 billion compensation -> NS1 blows up to make an excuse.
The EU is screwed by all energy oligarchies, including transit nations.
The funnier / biggest irony is that US and Russia are working together to fix the pipeline, buy distilleries in Germany to sell to the Germans Russian gas at US prices.
The exact reasons aren't entirely clear, originally they hated NS because it allowed Europe to ignore Ukraine in the gas trade which left them more exposed. By the time of the full scale war I would bet the reason was more "fuck Russia" than anything more carefully reasoned.
(Not saying that's the case here, all considered)
When the pipeline was sabotaged, no gas and no money were flowing anyway, which makes it even more absurd. There is a very high likelihood that the front lines would be in the exact same place if Nord Stream had not been sabotaged.
Except of course, the EU would have had more leverage in negotiating LNG deals with the US and Qatar rather than making emergency deals.
EDIT: Downvoted while the Ukrainian transit pipelines were open from 2014-2025 and yielded Russian transit fees. And while Nord Stream was built partly because Ukraine stole Russian transit gas in 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...
It's like you're bending over backwards to make arguments in the direction you already decided you want it to go. Like you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole. If you already decided what you want to think then why do you need arguments?
If it had been done to a US pipeline, it would have been called terrorism.
But actually, by the time of the bombing the Russian gas was only flowing through Ukrainian pipelines. So Ukraine was ensuring "income to the Russian war machine", while Nord Stream was just costing them money; at most it could have been used as collateral in a loan.
Is it?
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-china-bless-v...
So Russia can now export gas, get foreign currency, and buy weapons with the money. I do not see any strategic wins here.
Additionally, China gets an economic boost. That is a sublime strategy.
The strategic win in bombing Nord Stream was that Ukraine finally got Europe on their side. Before NS was blown up many countries, especially Germany were sitting on the fence, reluctant to give Ukraine any help. They were hoping for Ukraine to lose the war quickly, then they would give Putin some slap on the wrist punishment, and return to "business as usual" with Russia. Nord Stream being destroyed removed the biggest incentive for doing that.
1. Power of Syberia 1 throughput is not fully utilized.
2. China pays half of the EU price.
3. Power of Syberia 2 not be build in the near future. It's not the deal to actually do something. It's too continue further discussion.
Russian negotiating position is weak and Beijing knows that.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukrainian-man-ar...
That they did it for their own motivations?
It seems at least as plausible that they did it because wanted to hurt Russia as it does that Washington ordered them to do it, to put it mildly. Washington has been supporting Ukraine during the war but has been rather reticent to support attacking Russian assets that are outside the territory of Ukraine.
Why would you conclude this where every intelligence and law enforcement agency that has looked into it and published a report has found the opposite?
Do you have a basis to conclude that "every intelligence and law enforcement agency that has looked into it and published a report has found the opposite"? You exhaustively went through all Western intelligence and law enforcement agencies and read their reports? So you are quoting other news articles/interviews. Apparently their views differed. Ok.
Nobody remembers anymore that Pres. Biden himself said, “If Russia invades ... there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” [°] Nor that the very next day, a EU parliament member, and now Polish foreign minister Radosław Sikorski thanked the US for the sabotage [^]. Nor that the same day, a competing natural gas pipeline has opened, the Baltic Pipe [_].
None of this matters, because "Ukrainians bombed it". Because WaPo and WSJ said so. In a waterway that is heavily controlled by all kinds of NATO vessels. Where NATO had an exercise 3 months before that, called BALTOPS. Come on.
[°] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8
[^] https://archive.ph/20220927190022/https://twitter.com/radeks...
"Nord Stream sabotage: Berlin issues arrest warrant for Ukrainian man"
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/08/14/n...
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-known-about-nor...
"There will be no longer a NordStream 2, we will bring an end to it"
Shocking, there is no longer a NordStream 2. =D
You shouldn't be calling for violence in response to a political disagreement.
(I'm not entirely sincere with the original snipe.)
"Georgia started war with Russia: EU-backed report.
An independent report blamed Georgia on Wednesday for starting last year's five-day war with Russia, but said Moscow's military response went beyond reasonable limits and violated international law." [0]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-wi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
what a coincidence. Georgia started the war just after the "exercises" where russia rehearsed just that war.
Batteries are an expensive solution that doesn't scale well at the grid level. It is useful for grid stability (fast frequency response) but simply a non-starter when you're dealing with national grids.
Batteries are an added cost to the system, without producing more electricity, and as a result prices will go up.
A far cheaper source of flexibility is Demand Side Response. Particularly data centres that are willing to be market actors. Compute can happen anywhere, so it should happen where the wind blows and the sun shines. It is cheaper to transmit bits than Megawatts.
It has real costs because it limits the utilization of involved infrastructure and is simply not feasible for a lot of industries. It does not help when residential demand exceeds the available supply either.
The most practical solution will probably be a mix of overprovisioning (especially considering how cheap solar panels have become), battery storage and fuel powered fallback, with the balance shifting as long as batteries and panels get cheaper.
Grid level battery storage is already coming online at scale (e.g. https://www.ess-news.com/2025/08/18/statera-energy-powers-up...).
LiFePo cells are already down to ~$60 for 1kWh (8000 cycles), which is pretty palatable for a lot of applications and prices still trend down.
Long distance high voltage transmission lines can help to an extent but create the same sort of concerns about dependence on unreliable foreign countries as fossil fuel imports.
For example, the OVO Charge Anytime tariff provides EV charging at just 7p kWh [1]. Average kWh cost is 26.35p/kWh[2]. From the linked case study:
> £7.7m/€9m total customer savings
Once Vehicle-to-Home and Vehicle-to-Grid is more widespread the savings will be even greater [3].
1. https://info.kaluza.com/hubfs/Charge%20Anytime%20EU%202024-0...
2. https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-cost-electricity-kwh-uk
3. https://info.kaluza.com/hubfs/What%E2%80%99s%20next%20for%20...
I'd like to see the reasoning behind why they don't pan out. LoFePO4 have dropped to $60/kWh in China. At 3,000 cycles that means they add about 2¢ to every kWh they store.
We don't get that cheap price where I live of course, but they being installed at a rapid pace now. I think most are being installed "behind the meter", which means they are being installed by people who pay retail. That's happening because paired with solar, they've dropped below the break even point at retail prices. Grid scale needs roughly another factor of 3 price drop to hit the same point. If CATL's $10/kWh sodium batteries that get 10,0000 cycles pan out, it will drive the price down by another factor of 10.
Your "demand" side response arises naturally with batteries. Those who can do without the power simply won't buy one. Or if they can get by with only a little emergency power, they buy a small one.
I experienced that first hand. I owned a 4.8kWh battery a while ago. That is by any definition is small. It costs about the same as a generator at today's prices (it didn't back then). A flood caused power to be cut off for a week. We only fired up the generator once, before discovering we could reduce our usage to what a small battery and a 6.6 kW solar array could cope with, even in the very overcast conditions that accompany a heavy rain event.
Demand side response is of course cheaper but there will always be people willing to buy it expensive electricity to fulfill a certain demand.
Take a BEV. The charging is generally optimized for when electricity is cheap and abundant, but when going on a roadtrip without flexibility in their charging people are willing to pay more.
Paying more opens the possibility for batteries and other solutions to fulfill the demand.
Russia might not have made the decision to invade Ukraine if Germany hadn't tied its energy needs so transparently to Russian natural gas.
And absent blowing up Nord Stream, might have hung Ukraine out to dry anyway.
So having to rapidly build LNG import terminals? Repaying that debt.
Germany fully realizes that Gas is only an intermediate tech which still is relevant for the next 15-20 years.
Regarding nuclear, the electricity companies didn't want to continue after they had already prepared to shut down the reactors. Maintenance was deferred, people let go or reassigned, etc.
The German fossil gas usage in the grid has been stable for decades at around 80 TWh.
The nuclear topic neither increased nor decreased fossil gas usage to make electricity.
not favourable to taking risks of pipelines spilling on Quebecois land, while not getting much value our of it.
per Mark Carney, he's interested in pipeline projects, maybe through to churchill instead of going through Quebec, but so far no private company is interested in investing.
https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2025/08/26/canada...
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-t...
LNG imports will be demand driven, not supply driven. And demand is going to decrease over time; not increase. That calls into question the need for more infrastructure. On both sides. Germany already topped up its reserves for the coming winter; ahead of schedule. There is no shortage.
The US is building a big LNG bubble with investments that might end up under water. What happens if demand flattens and decreases mid to long term, as can reasonably be expected at this point? Can the US sustain high LNG prices when cheaper sources become available? What will high export prices do for domestic pricing for energy? How eager will investors be to make big multi decade investments in this (given all this)?
The existing terminals are underutilized already (below 50%). It's hard to see where all this extra demand to fill even more terminals is going to come from. There is no urgency for any of this on the EU side.
However there is quite a bit of urgency on lowering energy prices for industry and consumers. LNG is not the way to do that. I don't see that changing.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
A good article on the energy politics between US and EU.
The US love Europe's policies...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/surging-us-lng-expor...
Investments in fossil fuel infrastructure still happen, too, in the form of LNG terminals.
Fracking is only profitable when oil is $120 a barrel or more.
The root problem is needing gas at all, of course.
There is very little strategic thinking in Europe.
Maybe, but the vast majority of gas use in industry is for heat and power and electricity is a trivial substitute there.
And even the direct use as process input is far from unavoidable, because in a lot of cases this use could be reduced/eliminated or shift to synthetic inputs, which would happen organically if prices shifted long-term anyway.
If the US is willing to destroy certain areas of its country in exchange for money, Europe will give them the dollars.
If Europe has nobody else to do it for them, I'm sure they'll do it themselves.
Furthermore, China doesn't want to be dirty anymore, in fact they are maybe the ones who take green technologies the most seriously. So the dirtiest jobs are pushed to other countries, mostly in southeast Asia.
Can you give examples? What "dirty jobs" is China, and now apparently other countries, being purportedly forced to do? So is Trump really an environmentalist when he levied massive tariffs on countries in the region?
No, when countries devastate their environment they do it on their own volition. China was disastrously dirty mostly due to domestic reasons like the absolute lack of pollution controls, coal burning, and so on. China introspected and decided that they wanted to be better than that (the Olympics might legitimately have been a major turning point) and have done an amazing job cleaning the country up, and many areas are now truly Western. Air quality is infinitely better...at the same time that the country is making more than ever for the rest of the world.
Other countries haven't got there yet. India, the Philippines and so on have only themselves to blame for the state of their country, however self-comforting the delusion that it's really outsiders that are to blame might be.
So, China is free to choose to pollute, as is Europe and the US free to choose production from a source that doesn't pollute as much.
Their electrical infrastructure that is built on coal (60% of current generation) even if they've made huge improvements. Rare earth mining and building of all those electrical batteries and solar panels is a pretty dirty business. Reality is China produces a colossal amount of stuff, and much of it is pretty dirty (it would probably be dirty anywhere as that's the nature of making things at an industrial scale)
Right now China seems headed in the right direction for pollution, moreso than the US. And probably the only way they end up reducing pollution completely is to grow wealthy enough to replace old methods.
And sure the the western world wasn't forced to trash China, but when a country decides to buy Chinese production that we know was made with no regard for the environment because it is more competitive than doing it locally where one has no choice but to care, then you are effectively exporting pollution.
As for Trump being an environmentalist with his tariffs. A few decades ago, he would have been, not so much anymore. If he didn't insist on trashing his own country that is.
No one "dumped" anything. There weren't random ships sneaking onto the coast and dumping their contents. No airdrops tossing out garbage bags.
This was a pull industry and China had such a negligent position on their environment that people -- Chinese people, in China, allowed by China -- made money tendering for recycling contracts and then just stacking it into a giant pile, presumably awaiting some innovation that would make it worthwhile to process. That precisely speaks to exactly what I was saying, and externalizing that and blaming it on others is the sort of patronizing, laughably bigoted infantilizing that people do about developing nations, and it's extraordinarily unhelpful. China started caring, and regulated these exploiters out of business.
> and India and several southeast Asia countries took over (Indonesia, Vietnam, ...)
Vietnam is a surprisingly clean country. Like you can drop a Google Maps pin almost anywhere in Vietnam and while it might not be glitzy and rich, there is a sense of pride in environment and a care and a concern about the commons.
India and Bangladesh, on the other hand... Yeah, this isn't covertly imported garbage, but instead is 100% domestic sourced, just as the vast majority of China's was before it became more enlightened. Countries that are cesspools overwhelmingly have themselves to blame.
I just had to respond because this sort of infantilizing "every bad thing is caused by outsiders" angle isn't remotely helpful. Like almost all of the world's ocean plastics come from Southeast Asia, and it's amazing seeing people try to rationalize how in cultures where plastics are used for everything, and discarded thoughtlessly everywhere, actually it's somehow the West's fault.
In past decades, we had this system that China manufactures goods, they are shipped in ships to US and Europe, and because US and Europe don't manufacture much anything, often the ships would travel back empty. Western countries started to legislate mandated plastic waste recycling, but didn't really have facilities to actually recycle. So we would ship our plastic waste to China, with a promise that it will be recycled. Legislators were happy. In practice, plastic waste is not so easy to recycle, and was often just dumped somewhere in Asia.
In 2017, China stopped accepting imports of plastic waste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_waste_import_ban
Some countries like Sweden, burn their household waste in combined heat and power generation plants. If you incinerate in sufficiently high temperatures, and have exhaust filters, you can do in cleanly without causing air pollution.
https://www.blueoceanstrategy.com/blog/turning-waste-energy-...
Their renewable buildout is large enough to both cover the grid expansion and force coal off the grid.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8322393/ - they include effects only to 2100 which is way too short term IMO, should be higher
There may be valid political and environmental reasons not to go this route but it's silly to claim that fossil fuel reserves are so limited when no one has really looked.
But Norway still has big gas reserves and supplies 33% of Eueropian consumption, so I was actually wrong in the original comment and the US LNG impact is pretty overstated, it's just 15%. Most of the rest comes from middle east.
Shale gas exploitation is banned in Europe so no-one is spending money looking for it, but estimates are that reserves are significant.
But if that happens, maybe the US Fossil Fuel "Cartel" will revolt. I think the EU really need to accelerate their renewal push even more. From what I read they are doing good w/renewals, but I would be nervous if I was in the EU until renewals and/or nuclear power provides 90% of the power.
I think what would be more likely is the EU does something with it as a bargaining chip to reduce import tariffs rather than Trump trying to tax it out of existence.
And just to be clear Trump's trade policy is dumb and I don't support it.
The question is how deep they'll have to go in 3 years. Can they stall it out, or will the US actually demand they fulfill the promise, causing at least some amount of lock-in?
Gas power generation is a necessary evil to balance out the variability of intermittent energy generation (i.e. wind and solar).
Hydropower isn't a feasible alternative because the easy resources have been developed.
The only alternative source of flexibility available today is demand side response.
Edit: I appreciate the down votes, as I've not explained in detail. It is a complex issue. My opinions are based on having a phd in the topic, 10+ years in control rooms, years of market operations and design, and years contributing to europe-wide risk assessment methodologies.
I emplore anyone who is actually interested in how energy mix actually impacts grid stability/reliability to look into the Eirgrid DS3 programme (https://www.eirgrid.ie/ds3-programme-delivering-secure-susta...).
Reactors are only good at providing baseload but that isn't how grids operate anymore. Renewables are too cheap, if a power plant can't drop output fast enough it is punished.
Halving the output essentially means doubling the price.
For Vogtle halving the expected capacity factor means the generated electricity now costs a completely stupid 40 cents per kWh or $400 per MWh.
An exercise to the reader, calculate the space and materials required to replace the average norwegian hydro reservoir with batteries.
Nuclear tech doesn't provide required ramp rates at a useful price. I do agree however that more nuclear helps.
The problem is dispatchability/flexibility, not storage. At a more complex level the issue is grid inertia and frequency response.
> The problem is dispatchability/flexibility, not storage. At a more complex level the issue is grid inertia and frequency response.
That's something batteries are extremely good at.
Solution: I can't compute the space and materials, but can estimate the cost.
Norway has 1240 storage reservoirs with a total capacity of 87 TWh [1], which yields an average of 70 GWh/reservoir.
Last year, in China, a 16 GWh battery storage plant received an average bid price of $US66.3/KWh [2]. From this we can compute that a 70 GWh plant should cost $US4.65 billion.
A bit on the high side, but can battery prices fall by another order of magnitude? Then again, this is for replicating one reservoir. Replicating 1240 would be a 5 trillion dollar endeavor.
[1] https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-energiforsyning/kraftpr...
[2] https://reneweconomy.com.au/mind-blowing-battery-cell-prices...
If prices continue to drop, there will be a powerwall alike in every second house in some years.
The UK is forging ahead with large scale battery storage projects. I have not done the math, but I assume there is a sound economic case in order for these projects to receive this level of investment.
Edit: Here's some more data on revenue for battery storage in the UK [3]
[1] https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/battery-storage/statera-u...
[2] https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/battery-storage/fidra-ene...
[3] https://modoenergy.com/research/gb-research-roundup-january-...
why is this relevant? clearly europe can also buy from outside of europe.
the nice thing about batteries is you dont need a new battery for each watt, compared to needing gas.
the simplest thing is to keep buying russian gas, and also pay ukraine to attack russia. no need to change anything or do any new buildouts whether thats batteries or in US LNG export terminals+european import terminals. those also take time where the russian fuel is readily available. the russian invasion isnt gonna last forever, so a move to US gas is wasted investment when europe can move back to Russian gas eventually anyways
My experience has been that the vast majority of people, even very technical people, don't really understand the energy mix required to sustain modern industrial technology. Their only experience is with their utility bill which shows them a pie-chart with a big area showing "green" so they can feel better about the state of things.
Electricity production accounts for the minority of energy usage, and residential a minority of the usage of electricity. People don't think about the energy required to send an Amazon package to their door or have fruits from South America stocking their grocery store year round, or even to create the industries that ultimately make up their paychecks each month.
The pandemic was the best view of what real energy usage changes would look like. Early pandemic was a rare moment when global energy usage dipped and that had nothing to do with the demand on the residential grid.
It also does nothing to help transmission grid frequency stability and control.
So expect prices to drop further.
Also yes, batteries help very much with grid stability as they can give steady power on demand anywhere. Have lots of batteries everywhere == lots of on demand grid stabilizers.
they dont help grid stability via inertia of spinning masses, but PLLs and the like exist, where you can control frequencies and phases without a spinning mass.
you dont need to burn gas to have a flywheel either
What about the manufacturing and industrial uses? Or the need for natural gas to be a feedstock?
How many batteries does it take to power a giant hyperscaler datacenter for a few days during poor weather conditions? You can’t really rely on backup generators at that usage rate as the expense (and environmental impact) gets to be crazy. Or you end up just building natural gas turbines co-located with such facilities and we are back to where we began.
its a necessary evil to fully capitalize on other investments. i dont care if the hyperscaler can run their GPUs overnight. perfectly happy for them to delay their training because theyre running in daytime.
the capital owners who bought the GPUs sure care, but why should i accept their pollution in order for them to run a bit faster?
Without industry you don’t have an economy in the long run. Replace hyperscaler with aluminum smelter or manufacturing line if you prefer. If you can’t operate those capital assets 24x7 they simply will not be built in your country.
Cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy is the foundation of wealth. Nuclear fission was likely humanities transition technology but we fumbled the ball 40 years ago so here we are.
Meanwhile team tRump are all in on oil and gas because non carbon is for libtards.
China is heavily reliant on coal.
The US Grid is presently less carbon intensive than the Chinese grid.
Agreed they are. But they want to move away from it, especially for air quality reasons. They've had a huge problem with air pollution. They are big into EVs. This means less reliance on foreign oil and cleaner air.
How can I find the price of battery storage, per kWh delivered to the customer, assuming a pure wind/solar/battery grid?
I can easily find the price per kWh of battery capacity but that's not the same thing. I'm looking for the effective levelized cost of electricity, over the lifetime of the battery, so I can compare against generation sources.
I really don’t understand the disconnect otherwise very intelligent people have on this subject. Every single person I’ve talked to in the actual industry seems to be aware of this fact and how dire things are getting. However it seems that everyone else believes that grid scale batteries are somehow going to save the day in the next decade or two.
Energy storage is energy storage. Natural gas is just a giant underground battery.
And that’s before you get to industrial uses of natural gas as a feedstock, while ignoring how much is still used for heating infrastructure and how long it would take to retrofit everything to heat pumps.
I often wonder what I’m missing, but I’m confident enough in this one to have put my money where my mouth is at least.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
Page 8 of this report [1] gives a pretty good visual of how this trend has increased over time.
Europe is basically reverting to using wood for it's primary heating fuel.
0. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/bioenerg...
1. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadRepo...
in canada and the US, a lot of that wood is going up in smoke without powering any industry already
And to lock yourself in with the Trump admin.
I'm guessing a lot of of people/countries are aiming to just string him along as long as possible.
At least we were an ally at the start of this of this trend
This is hugely downplaying Trump and his role in the world and domestically.
Adiplomatic is... _very mild_ considering the threats he's made about taking over Greenland and Canada. Bluster or not, the fact is... the President of the United States is openly talking about it, and currently using the military and all it's levers quite actively here and abroad.
Both the US and Russia are currently trying to influence the EU to do things that aren't what EU citizens want.
per the drunk signal text leak, Europe's shipping is being negatively impacted by the American Israel/Gaza stance, to the extent that the US has made up for it by bombing the Houthis.
...which says both that the US is an ongoing problem for europe, but that the relationship isnt nearly so shaky as it seems. Trump is getting US strategic goals in Europe, to make Europe pay for anti-Russia preparedness, while the US focuses on anti-China.
US and EU provide each other money through swaplines by printing freshly created respective currencies and exchanging them.
Then EU can use those dollars to buy US LNG.
Is this a far fetched idea? This is like undercover QE.
https://x.com/FedGuy12/status/1970010162741346356
South Korea is suggesting that their $350b investment in the U.S. is so large it requires an FX swap line, which in turn implies that the Fed would be the ultimate financier of the investment.
There is an obvious rift between Europeans, European leaders, and the US. Europeans seem tired of the US and it's policies, however simultaneously are unaware that the cushy "European" lifestyle they love only exists because of the US. Which is something that European leaders are keenly aware of.
So it creates a situation where the leadership will constantly bend at the knee to the US's demands, and the populace will get progressively more and more anti-US. However in it's current state, Europe is stuck under the thumb of the US on three sides - tech, military, and energy.
The only "clean" way to rectify this problem is for Europeans to slash regulations, slash social programs, and dramatically increase annual working hours. All things which are the antithesis of contemporary Europeans ideals. Europe desperately needs a modern industry hub, right now it's all US and China on the board.
Could you elaborate ?
https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/hours-worked.html
The lifeblood of the European economy is still the same things that were the lifeblood 30 years ago.
There is no tech scene in Europe, despite tech being at the global economic forefront for those 30 years.
The US spent more per capita than Europe did on support to Ukraine. It also provided the lions share of weapons and armaments.
And now Europe is turning to the US to supply most of it's energy. Which is methane. Heaven forbid the EU give green investment funds special economic rules to foster growth, it might generate a few billionaires.
Europe is a trust fund state burning old money and milking old industry. It desperately needs to build its own independence. Russia coming knocking seems to have been a bit of a wakeup call, but even still single child Europeans are sitting on the beaches of the Mediterranean complaining that they cannot retire at 55.
Wake up.
Why do so many Americans believe this? I would like to see some real accounting of the US-EU relationship. Americans only focus on the supposed defense relationship, where supposedly the EU is under investing because the US will supposedly come to the rescue. Every single other aspect of the US-EU relationship is ignored.
Even if you were to show them data, you could never convince them, as their position is based on emotions. And you can't argue someone out of a position using facts, if that person didn't arrive at that position using facts to begin with.
After the illegal and horrible Russian invasion (which was provoked nonetheless) the EU got progressively drawn into the US proxy war. They were criticized for not doing enough in 2022 by the US. In 2025 on the other hand they were criticized for wanting to prolong the war by Trump.
The EU pays the bill, the US reaps its benefits from weakening Russia, which is the entire goal of the slow moving war of attrition. Successes include US dominance in Syria, attempted dominance in Venezuela and possible Greenland.
Ruining the EU's social systems will achieve nothing. This is an energy problem and the US tries to control all choke points of energy delivery to the EU.
Disagree completely.
I would put significant part of the blame for the whole Ukraine disaster on western reaction in 2014, when Crimea was annexed (thats not to say that Putin isnt an imperialistic asshole, just that this could have been avoided regardless).
The "Merkel policy" (link EU/Russia by trade to prevent war) is a solid long-term plan, but the EU needed to demonstrate willingness to reduce that trade (even when it hurt themselves) to punish expansionism/destabilizing behavior.
It failed to do this almost completely. This made it clear to anyone that a (successful) annexation of the whole Ukraine would have gone (mostly) unpunished.
In this case, I blame the Merkel government for putting the financial well-being of its citizens over ethical principles, but a big part of the problem is that most voters are too stupid and uninformed to even realize that such a tradeoff is being made anyway, and react to economical signals only.
Its much worse than that in terms of realpolitik: the gains were short-term, the costs will be paid for over decades, and disproportionately allocated to germanys eastern neighbors like the Poles and Estonians who are at increased risk of Russian aggression.
It really was such a bad tradeoff and I don't think this is hindsight: Russia is basically doing what is has been doing for centuries.
Complete failure of the German political system between 1990-2020+
Nuland and others were active in Ukraine before and during the Maidan revolution.
But please, continue to blame Germany, blow up its pipelines, send 1,000,000 refugees who collect social security (the topic of this subthread, do the slash-social-security hawks here want to evict the Ukrainians and send them to the front lines)?
This is misinformation.
> the US proxy war
This is misinformation.
By the way, the Trump administration also perpetuated this "misinformation" when they pretended to seek peace in January 2025.
This document does not say what you said it says.
> also from Brookings: "path to persia"
This document is about Iran, and has nothing to do with Ukraine.
The dichotomy between social programs and weapons (a variation of the old butter vs. guns nonsense) is false, and I suspect is just used by some people here who want to slash social programs no matter what.
If you want to claim that butter vs. guns is nonsense then please be specific and explain exactly where the money will come from. And let's not have any vague non-answers like "tax the rich" or "cut waste".
https://www.nzz.ch/english/how-the-marshall-plan-is-overly-r...
https://mises.org/mises-wire/marshall-plan-isnt-success-stor...
“Britain received twice as much aid as West Germany did, but economic growth in Britain dramatically lagged behind that of the Germans.”
Germany needs nukes and a navy to project power to solve the energy dependence. It isn't that expensive and could be done by eliminating waste in the procurement process. The money is already there. Oh yes, and tax the rich, especially landowners with multiple properties.
(Why would I listen to you preemptively ruling out viable strategies? I do not take orders here.)
As for their so-called "navy" it's a government jobs program with uniforms. Their warships aren't even able to defend themselves, let alone project power. What a joke.
https://www.twz.com/news-features/german-navy-confirms-its-u...
What an absurdity to say that the only way out for Europeans is to follow the U.S. in their hyper-capitalist folly, as if speed-running their way to more concentration of power & capital was Europe's only salvation.
Yes, Europeans have to accept the fact that they will have to work longer given the current demographic trends and Brussels needs to make sure EU regulations don't impede innovation. But for the the most part European leaders just need to initiate a strategic shift and move on from the dogma that Europe's success is tied to U.S. dependency.
What has so far looked like pragmatism on the part of EU leaders is increasingly looking like a lack of courage to assert the EU's power and chart a path of their own