Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Europe 'falling Behind Us And Blighted By Energy Costs'

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9982885/Europe-falling-behind-US-and-blighted-by-energy-costs.html

“Europe doesn’t have an energy policy. It has a climate policy,” said Markus Beyrer, head of BusinessEurope.

Mr Beyrer said the US is running away with the shale energy revolution, leaving Europe’s companies in the dust. Spot gas prices are now four to five times higher in Europe, with grim implications for the chemical industry.

“Shale gas is a game-changer and we need to have a discussion based on the evidence, not based on risks,” Mr Beyrer told The Daily Telegraph. France has imposed a moratorium on shale exploration and few countries have yet to take decisive action.

Mr Beyrer said Europe’s carbon trading scheme is a muddle with “mutually distorting objectives” that drive up energy costs without much benefit for the climate. The latest twist is a switch to coal by EU power companies, playing havoc with CO2 goals.

“Nobody is happy. The US and even China are making more progress with renewable targets than we are,” he said.

Driving up costs in a global depression, you can't beat that for productive policy. You can't beat people who understand business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shale gas is a filthy, expensive barrel-scraping exercise that will benefit no-one except those financing its extraction.

On the other hand, there's an abundance of cheap, untapped natural gas and oil to be found near Greece and Cyprus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shale gas is a filthy, expensive barrel-scraping exercise that will benefit no-one except those financing its extraction.

On the other hand, there's an abundance of cheap, untapped natural gas and oil to be found near Greece and Cyprus.

Ssssh! We're not supposed to notice that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure either way about shale gas, but he's right about the carbon trading scheme. It's hard to imagine a less effective and more bureaucratic means of controlling carbon emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure either way about shale gas, but he's right about the carbon trading scheme. It's hard to imagine a less effective and more bureaucratic means of controlling carbon emissions.

Carbon credits are a scam, to benefit the big players - be they traders or those with a large play in the energy markets as users/suppliers - written by them and for them.

Shale gas runoff rate is the devil in the detail - initial rush of gas gas and then have to pepper the ground with wells to get ongoing flow, as the ground gets increasingly fractured surely the gas just goes to the point of least resistance and that is increasingly dispersed amongst a maze of fractured rock and not towards the well heads themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure either way about shale gas, but he's right about the carbon trading scheme. It's hard to imagine a less effective and more bureaucratic means of controlling carbon emissions.

It was set-up solely to provide a new source of income for the traders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shale gas in the states appears cheap at the moment because they don't have the pipeline infrastructure to distribute it in a similar manner to Europe, especially the liquefaction equipment for export as LNG (first large scale exports to come on line 2014/15). At this point there will be a large difference between some of the US east coast shale prices (near populous cities and access to UK / EU export terminals) and the Dakota area deposits which are big but lack sufficient capacity to get the gas to locations were the gas price is good for the seller rather than the buyer. The difference between US east coast and UK/EU other sources in 2 years time will be a lot smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shale gas in the states appears cheap at the moment because they don't have the pipeline infrastructure to distribute it in a similar manner to Europe, especially the liquefaction equipment for export as LNG (first large scale exports to come on line 2014/15). At this point there will be a large difference between some of the US east coast shale prices (near populous cities and access to UK / EU export terminals) and the Dakota area deposits which are big but lack sufficient capacity to get the gas to locations were the gas price is good for the seller rather than the buyer. The difference between US east coast and UK/EU other sources in 2 years time will be a lot smaller.

Yes, as I understand the gas is cheap because no-body wants it so it is effectively being dumped on the market well below cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, there's an abundance of cheap, untapped natural gas and oil to be found near Greece and Cyprus.

That is speculation for the stock market.

The only people that actually know whats in the ground are senior industry geologists and perhaps a few board members in the energy companies, and their lips are sealed with the charts locked in secure vaults.

If the Cyprus reservoir is as large as some forecast, I imagine that Israel will be keen on getting at it, as will Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and even Egypt. And of course Russia and the Yanks.

Cyprus and Greece have real sovereignty issues at hand. Except for UK bases, Cyprus is in a real pinch.

Greece. Well who knows. I'd imagine the Arabs or Russians will end up with their energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as I understand the gas is cheap because no-body wants it so it is effectively being dumped on the market well below cost.

It not the that no one wants it, its just that they can't use it quite yet. i.e. homes have oil boilers or industrial users are still using coal so there was comparatively little gas infrastructure in the US. This will change over time (industry (particularly chemicals) is already adapting fast in places). Reduced US oil dependency is also good thing.

Edited by koala_bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It not the that no one wants it, its just that they can't use it quite yet. i.e. homes have oil boilers or industrial users are still using coal so there was comparitiveltyy littel gas infrastructure in the US. This will change over time (industry (particularly chemicals) is already adapting fast in places). Reduced US oil dependency is also good thing.

America's biggest problem is its antique infrastructure.

Case in point: google fiber. Look it up; any IT inclined folk will know what I mean.

Most of America is living on 50's and 60's era civil engineering projects, build on 5 cent/gallon petrol.

Wholly unsustainable and they are heading for major and sensational disasters, such as collapsing bridges and toppling buildings etc...

Mississippi Bridge - 2007

bridge%20collapse500.jpg

New York Steam Pipe Explosion - 2007

midtown-explosion-steam-pipe.jpg

Some choice snips from a paper by Robert L. Reid of ASCE

Stephen E. Flynn, Ph.D., a senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, in New York City, and the author of The Edge of Disaster (New York City: Random House, 2007), maintains that Americans are in denial about how vulnerable the country is to potential catastrophes. In an interview for this article, Flynn noted that “we’re rapidly approaching a crisis point” if we are not willing to make the infrastructure a national priority and “make sure that we are adequately maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure to meet projected demands.”
Without “significant infrastructure investment,” aviation delays are expected to cost the U.S. economy $170 billion between 2000 and 2012, according to a statement that ASCE submitted to the Senate Committee on Finance at a July 12, 2007, hearing exploring the future of aviation financing.
More than 3,200 dams are currently classified as “unsafe”—meaning that their deficiencies leave them more susceptible to failure—a figure that has increased by as much as 80 percent since 1998.
U.S. school districts paid a “staggering” $600 billion in capital outlays from 1995 through 2004, the 2006 report noted, including $179 billion to expand or upgrade existing schools and $124 billion to construct more than 12,400 new schools either to meet growth in enrollment or because existing schools were “beyond repair.”
With eerie symmetry, Choate and Walter’s warnings from 1981 could be repeated verbatim today: “America’s public facilities are wearing out faster than they are being replaced. . . . The United States is seriously underinvesting in public infrastructure . . . the maintenance of a growing number of national and local public facilities has been deferred. Replacement and rehabilitation of obsolescent public works have been postponed.”
Edited by cashinmattress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany (and UK) needs to ditch 'green' and embrace nuclear as fast as possible and hope that in due course we can benefit from thermal solar based in North Africa and/or Southern Europe.

Until we do that we're going to be f*cked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Driving up costs in a global depression, you can't beat that for productive policy. You can't beat people who understand business.

I live near the Didcot power station. It was shut down last month due to EU regulations.

220px-Didcot_power_station.jpg

A billion pound investment sits there idle because some EU bureaucrats derive moral satisfaction from seeing pollution taking place in China rather than in the EU.

Limiting emissions in Europe, while allowing free trade with China, where there are no limits on pollution, does not reduce pollution. It only moves industry to a more highly-polluting location and then increases emissions as goods have to be shipped from the other side of the world. I don't believe that global warming or the environment should be taken lightly, but the current approach in the EU is doing the exact opposite of what it was supposed to accomplish, and causing severe damage to the economy in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany (and UK) needs to ditch 'green' and embrace nuclear as fast as possible and hope that in due course we can benefit from thermal solar based in North Africa and/or Southern Europe.

Until we do that we're going to be f*cked.

Concentrated solar power is the way forward for a 'green' energy infrastructure and I still can't understand why the EU isn't focusing it's energy on this. It would resolve a lot of the issues with the PIGS, and naturally 'rebalance' the EU. Of course the UK would be f*cked, but there's no difference there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live near the Didcot power station. It was shut down last month due to EU regulations.

220px-Didcot_power_station.jpg

A billion pound investment sits there idle because some EU bureaucrats derive moral satisfaction from seeing pollution taking place in China rather than in the EU.

Limiting emissions in Europe, while allowing free trade with China, where there are no limits on pollution, does not reduce pollution. It only moves industry to a more highly-polluting location and then increases emissions as goods have to be shipped from the other side of the world. I don't believe that global warming or the environment should be taken lightly, but the current approach in the EU is doing the exact opposite of what it was supposed to accomplish, and causing severe damage to the economy in the process.

I'd be inclined to agree, although China's CO2 emissions per capita only drew level with those of the EU last year. Countries like the US and Canada are far greater emitters per capita and, logically, should therefore be the first to attract trade sanctions. Same goes for the small, oil-rich states like Kuwait and Qatar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America's biggest problem is its antique infrastructure.

Case in point: google fiber. Look it up; any IT inclined folk will know what I mean.

Most of America is living on 50's and 60's era civil engineering projects, build on 5 cent/gallon petrol.

Wholly unsustainable and they are heading for major and sensational disasters, such as collapsing bridges and toppling buildings etc...

^ This

As for Germany et al investing in Nuclear, unless the fuel sources are domestic its a questionable punt.

"The German Minister for Economy and Technology, Phillip Rösler and his Tunisian counterpart, Ridha Saidi, have agreed to collaborate in energy issues. Focal points of the partnership include among others close cooperation on efficiency, further bilateral scientific research and the political collaboration on renewable projects included in the DESERTEC Vision. The agreement with Tunisia is the second German energy partnership with a North African country. The North African country offers great conditions for wind and especially solar projects such as the TuNur project which is currently under construction." [http://www.desertec.org/news/]

The germans should buy up bits of North Africa, install lots of solar capacity and then move the remaining local denizens to Germany as climate change hits africa and demographic decline hist germany.

saharaforest1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This

As for Germany et al investing in Nuclear, unless the fuel sources are domestic its a questionable punt.

"The German Minister for Economy and Technology, Phillip Rösler and his Tunisian counterpart, Ridha Saidi, have agreed to collaborate in energy issues. Focal points of the partnership include among others close cooperation on efficiency, further bilateral scientific research and the political collaboration on renewable projects included in the DESERTEC Vision. The agreement with Tunisia is the second German energy partnership with a North African country. The North African country offers great conditions for wind and especially solar projects such as the TuNur project which is currently under construction." []http://www.desertec.org/news/]

The germans should buy up bits of North Africa, install lots of solar capacity and then move the remaining local denizens to Germany as climate change hits africa and demographic decline hist germany.

I don't see why Germany should euthanize it's ancient kultur to islam.

However, the Germans are making strides in converting renewables to stuff like methane and even liquid fuels via hydrogen generation - Google 'Audi synthetic fuel' for an example. We'll probably still have luddites battling every single wind turbine when the Krauts are producing mega tonnes of synthetic diesel and methane.

In the UK we have underground coal gassification (UGC) prospects as well as fracking. And our tidal potential is huge too. I'm iffy on solar hereabouts though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And our tidal potential is huge too.

Tidal power is a bit of an albatross with the UK.

For the money you need to extract energy from waves you get little out... Unpressurised and slow moving water is a poor transmitter of mechanical energy, as is with most of the UK's tides.

Even this behemoth, the AS-1000 build in Scotland is only capable of 1 MW using very modern technology. It's running near 28% efficiency in terms of conversion of energy. Wind on the other hands is in the region of 38% efficient.

Worlds-Largest-Tidal-Powe-006.jpg

Plus you have the problems of seals and doing maintenance on something immersed, you create a hazard for boats and it is susceptible to any debris in the water.

Our tides are not sufficient in most cases and only a few places in the world would really be able to harness efficiently; with Digby in the Bay of Fundy, Canada, coming to mind.

Some wave mechanics maths, because in a unit flow the wave peak sees the most energy in the water column, versus the tide, which changes whilst the waves can more or less remain constant:

Wave flux (power) from classical mechanics. Wiki has some stuff too if you dabble.

k = 2*pi/L [constant for calculation]

L = g*T^2/2*pi [wave length, approximate for deep water, g- gravity (m/s^2), T = wave period (s)]

rho = seawater density (1025 kg/m^3)

H = wave height

P = (1/8)*rho*g*H^2*(1/2)(L/T)[{(1+2*k*d)/sinh(2*k*d))}] <-- Hyperbolic function. Not used too much is it?

So for UK waters, say a peak-peak period of 3 seconds and depth of 30 m: L = 14 m -> k = 0.45

P = 26 kw power per metre of wave crest

Not great for the investment you'd need to harness it.

Edited by cashinmattress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 244 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.