Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 131 posts

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#81

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

fsh wrote: post #40
Joeri wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of Belgium’s electricity comes from nuclear, wind and solar. They have been greatly expanding wind parks in the north sea, and they’re in the early stages of deploying SMRs. But the reality is that Belgium still needs a lot of natural gas for electricity production and its large chemical industry, and that all of this gas has to be imported. Long term there is the European hydrogen strategy which aims to…

The real problem are transport and heating. In most countries, those consume significantly more primary energy than the electricity sector and are still mostly fossil fueled. For example, more than half of the primary energy consumed in France is oil and gas. Heat pumps and electric vehicles or trains can now finally change this, but the transition is very slow.

You have to look at useful energy vs. primary energy. An ICE is 10-30% thermally efficient. Then you have all the energy wasted on getting the fuel into the tank.

For ground transport this is already solved by BEVs and rail. For ferries running fixed routes batteries also already solve it.

What we have left is aviation and longer maritime shipping. They will likely need chemical fuels for the foreseeable future, but to get to them we need to start with the easier applications first and develop the technology.

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#82

Post by troupo »

throw310822 wrote: post #37
wiseowise wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NATO is a defensive pact, it can't expand. Countries can and want to join it willingly. > and of not stopping (well documented) US political meddling in Ukraine Assuming that's true, and it's a big if, let's turn this around: Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to? > Europe because it thought it was beneath itself to seriously engage with Russia. B…

> Countries can and want to join it willingly. It's up to the current members to decide who can join and who can't. That should also include considerations of opportunity. > Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to? The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been…

> Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014.m

Oh no. The totally ordinary year of 2014 when nothing happened, and sanctions on Russia suddenly appeared for no reason at all.

Prior to that there was hardly a single thing the West was doing to, or against, Russia. Moreover, there were multiple "restarts", "reboots", "second chances" etc. that Russia repeatedly shat on.

Oh look, in 2011 they were discussing visa-free travel to the EU: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-russia-agree-steps-toward...

And according to Putin himself he floated the idea of Russia joining NATO: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/stone-interviews-p...

Oh, and Putin himself claimed that Ukraine is free to do whatever it wanted with regards to NATO: https://youtu.be/BeDW5C7Sbb0?is=Kdp75p9dCL6kAkVh

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#83

Post by orwin »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #61
Joeri wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of Belgium’s electricity comes from nuclear, wind and solar. They have been greatly expanding wind parks in the north sea, and they’re in the early stages of deploying SMRs. But the reality is that Belgium still needs a lot of natural gas for electricity production and its large chemical industry, and that all of this gas has to be imported. Long term there is the European hydrogen strategy which aims to…

The long term European hydrogen strategy aims to waste a while bunch of time and money on a dead end technology.

Currently, European (and Chinese) strategy on hydrogen is to use it as a reduction agent in steelmaking and other industrial processes (I've heard cement and some non-steel metallurgy, but steelmaking is the main one). Hydrogen is made from gas locally (as it is cheaper) and replace cocking coal. The next step is to produce hydrogen from water.

People think it is a dead end, and we should keep using coke clearly haven't read enough. The advantage of hydrogen are massive: no need to source the coal, the hydrogen can be made in situ. The reduction effect is for now more controllable (in a mix 80% coal, 20% hydrogen), and the inconvenients are reduced each year.

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#84

Post by drysine »

leonidasrup wrote: post #56
drysine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about heating?

In China there is already small-scale nuclear district heating. "China's Haiyang nuclear power plant in Shandong province has begun its sixth heating season, covering an area of nearly 13 million square metres - 500,000 square metres more than last year." https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/chinas-first-com... Similar plans exist for Finnland. https://thinkatom.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/rauli-parta... In…

These are local solutions, you can't put nuclear reactor in any city, town and village that needs heating

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#85

Post by _aavaa_ »

orwin wrote: post #83
_aavaa_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The long term European hydrogen strategy aims to waste a while bunch of time and money on a dead end technology.

Currently, European (and Chinese) strategy on hydrogen is to use it as a reduction agent in steelmaking and other industrial processes (I've heard cement and some non-steel metallurgy, but steelmaking is the main one). Hydrogen is made from gas locally (as it is cheaper) and replace cocking coal. The next step is to produce hydrogen from water. People think it is a dead end, and we should keep using coke clearly have…

Hydrogen as a chemical feedstock is not a problem, but that’s not what the “using hydrogen in LNG infrastructure” is what people push for. It’s about the “hydrogen economy” were you hear stupid ideas like energy carrier, hydrogen boilers, and fuel cell vehicles.

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#86

Post by _aavaa_ »

ath92 wrote: post #79
_aavaa_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The long term European hydrogen strategy aims to waste a while bunch of time and money on a dead end technology.

This is not necessarily true for all situations. Northern Europe is planning to produce a lot of electricity with offshore wind, but laying deep sea high voltage electricity cables isn’t cheap. There’s already a lot of gas pipelines that can be retrofitted for hydrogen transport at a much lower price. At a certain point it becomes viable to just use electrolysis and transport hydrogen using excess wind power instead…

> At a certain point it becomes viable to just use electrolysis and transport hydrogen using excess wind power instead of transporting the electricity to land and storing it in batteries.

If you are talking about excess energy, that implies there is non-excess energy that’s being transported across cables. So you are already transporting it to land and connecting it to the grid. Storage from there is trivial compared to a hydrogen transmission and distribution network.

As for repurposing the LNG pipes for hydrogen, that’s a pipe dream to convert a standard asset into a story you can sell.

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#87

Post by drysine »

wiseowise wrote: post #77
drysine wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Which Gorbachev himself said never happened He lied.[0] No one wants to look like a fool. >Before 2014 almost no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO. After 2014 almost everyone wanted to join NATO. Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive. And your statement is false, before 2014 there was significant minority that favored joining NATO and after 2014 th…

> Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive. I wonder where it came from [0][1]. > That's typical response. Now please tell me why the security concerns of these countries has to be respected and Russia's security concerns don't? World superpower (according to Russians themselves) has security concerns about checks notes Ukraine, Baltics, Georgia, Poland…

>I wonder where it came from [0][1]

I don't know what your links supposed to mean.

Yushchenko had time machine and he decided to ask to join NATO after seeing the future in which Georgia attacked South Ossetia[0] emboldened by getting the same promise of future NATO membership?

Or Yushchenko got upset that Russia didn't let Ukraine steal Russian gas intended for European countries? Here is the quotation from the very top of the article you linked to:

"The conflict began when Russia claimed that Ukraine was not paying for gas and was diverting gas bound from Russia to the European Union from pipelines that crossed the country. Ukrainian officials at first denied the last accusation,but later Naftogaz admitted it used some gas intended for other European countries for domestic needs. "

>Seems about right, judging by how war in Ukraine goes.

So what's your point?

>My fucking eyes, lmao.

When you deal with your eye problems, maybe you could provide an example supporting your point.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-wi...

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#88

Post by drysine »

wiseowise wrote: post #73
drysine wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Has Russia ever refrained from offending the West Of course. Like abstaining in a UN SC vote, allowing NATO bomb Libya. >Russian stooge as a president at the time, installed via fossil fuel extortion Nope, Yanukovich was elected by Ukrainian people.[0] Previous pro-Western president received only 6% of votes in the first round. >If Russia wanted truly neutral Ukraine, they should've backed the fuck off in the first…

> Of course. Like abstaining in a UN SC vote, allowing NATO bomb Libya. The generosity! > Nope, Yanukovich was elected by Ukrainian people.[0] Tell me more of those exciting stories. From your link: >> After all ballots were counted, the Ukrainian Central Election Commission declared that Yanukovych won the election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko. > Previous pro-Western president received…

>Ukrainian Central Election Commission declared that Yanukovych won the election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko

Looks like typical American election. What's your point?

>After the guy was poisoned

After he was poisoned (by Ukrainians, btw), he was elected the president of the Ukraine. Fast forward 4 years and his approval ratings were 2-4% [0]

>You should've linked [0] when you talk about Yushchenko, comrade.

I fail to understand what point you are trying to make by referring to an article about Ukraine stealing Russian gas and getting caught.

>Quid pro quo

The US installs pro-Western government and then it becomes neutral because of what?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#89

Post by mcphage »

mschild wrote: post #41
troupo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear takes like 15 years to build 6-7 years. France built 40 its nuclear reactors in a decade, at 6-7 years per reactor. Right now China is building reactors at 6-7 years per reactor. --- start quote --- Nearly every Chinese nuclear project that has entered service since 2010 has achieved construction in 7 years or less. Every single conventional commercial-scale reactor project in Chinese history has achieved c…

> Right now China is building reactors at 6-7 years per reactor. Thats China. In Europe, this building speed isnt going to happen anytime soon. The knowledge to build nuclear at that scale isn't in the coutry/continent anymore. You'd have to reteach an entire generation of engineers. Besides that, part of the point of switching away from oil and gas is at least some independence. Europe isnt known for its nuclear fue…

> The knowledge to build nuclear at that scale isn't in the coutry/continent anymore. You'd have to reteach an entire generation of engineers.

Well you better get on that, then. It’s going to a lot worse in 5 years.

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#90

Post by troupo »

drysine wrote: post #71
troupo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward. 1. Which Gorbachev himself said never happened 2. Before 2014 almost no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO. After 2014 almost everyone wanted to join NATO. After 2022 Sweden and Finland ran to NATO. > it's not Russia's business if NATO decides to expand. Countries bordering Russia literally run to NATO the moment they have a choice. I wonder why. It couldn't be Russia who's t…

>Which Gorbachev himself said never happened He lied.[0] No one wants to look like a fool. >Before 2014 almost no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO. After 2014 almost everyone wanted to join NATO. Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive. And your statement is false, before 2014 there was significant minority that favored joining NATO and after 2014 th…

> He lied.[0] No one wants to look like a fool.

Your oft-cited link doesn't support the "100% NATO said they wouldn't expand" and it's a verbal statement that wasn't even ratified anywhere.

Unlike, you know, multiple treaties Russia has with, say, Ukraine.

But if you're holding verbal agreements in such high esteem, Putin himself said he doesn't care if Ukraine joins NATO.

> Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive.

You mean "just some the NATO members were positive and within the country the request was so unpopular that it led to public protests".

> before 2014 there was significant minority that favored joining

My statement was definitely an exaggeration. However support for joining NATO:

- before 2014 was hovering around 20% on a good day, and the request to join NATO was met with strong opposition and public protests.

- after 2014 support spiked to 50 and then to 70, and then slowly subsided. Gee I wonder why

- After 2022 it's been around 80%. I wonder why. Truly it's all the fault of the expansionist NATO.

> Now please tell me why the security concerns of these countries has to be respected and Russia's security concerns don't

Russia's "security concerns": "if you subhumans don't do exactly what we say, we invade you and subjugate you, you are not a real country anyway".

Now tell me, who exactly is responsible for public opinion in Ukraine turning from "nope, we don't want NATO", to "yes, we overwhelmingly want to be in NATO"? I mean, you seem to absolve Russia of any and all responsibility.

> Russia has never supported any coups in Europe or in Georgia and Azerbaijan.

Ahahahhahahahahahahahha. This is the literal quote of what I said: "Russia is midwifing crises and elections actoss Europe and countries like Georgia and Azerbaijan". If you claim that Russia is not complicit in this, I don't know what to tell you.

But sure, in your eyes Russia does nothing, never gets involved in everything, and that 4-year war it's waging against anither country is totally and absolutely justified because Russia.

Post reply on HN