The build out for the LNG plant and infrastructure in Kitimat is around $31 billion USD. Susannah Pierce from Shell Canada would be an interesting guest to have on if you want to talk about that. She led that project and she has done a few podcasts before. Learning how a very large project like that comes together in Canada would be interesting.
Interesting discussion. However, I believe your guest created a significant contradiction when referring to LNG as the “champagne of energy” and then describing LNG as “dirty”. LNG truly is the cleanest burning hydrocarbon and is the champagne of energy for many reasons. It’s cleaner than getting energy from burning animal dung, wood, trash, coal, fuel oil, diesel, jet fuel, kerosene, gasoline etc. I believe he’s describing one of the combustion byproducts, CO2, as “dirty”. The reality is CO2 is a pure compound and the primary issue is being a bit too much of it in the atmosphere. The fact is we need a combination of many different types of energy sources. LNG, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, battery storage. A region (or country) can determine the best choice based on location, climate, geography, resources, population and many other factors. I enjoyed the discussion. Thanks
Yes, it may burn cleaner but the up, mid, and downstream processes leak so much as to be labeled as dirty as coal. I watched it as a field scientist develop W PA, OH, WV, etc. Any further increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will lead to increasing the scale of the catastrophe we already face! I suggest you look at Hansen's new paper for guidance as to the scale of the problem. Its urgent!. And since the process of climate change is irreversible, special care must be given when considering ANY fossil fuel use in the furture. CO2's long life in the atmosphere guarantees that. Personally, after 40 years in the environmental industry, my PE husband and I conducted a climate risk analysis for ourselves and our needs at our age, and moved accordingly. I suggest young people study up on climate science, and plan for great disruptions for the rest of their lives, because unfortunately the denial of these facts dominate the policy, guaranteeing the disaster that's here.
@@OldJackWolf ya, no doubt there’s a problem. One big challenge is that it’s not going to be cheap to change our ways. Gradually by 2050 we’ll get there.
Wow, just so many things wrong with that. Right off the bat, most of LNG is Methane. Methane is significantly more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2. 80 times or more powerful. Many times you will hear 20 times and that is because scientists have lowered the value to compensate for Methanes shorter lifespan in the atmosphere. Still, when it breaks down, it breaks down into CO2 and water vapor. Both greenhouse emissions themselves, so it's not like it stops holding in heat. Natural gas though is not pure Methane. It has many other elements in it. So when you claim it burns cleaner than other fossil fuels, what you are doing is repeating PR from the natural gas industry who recent exposures have been proven to be covering up just how dirty natural gas really is. Sure, when you watch it burn, it seems like there is no smoke or debris, but when studied with sensitive instruments, there is significant amounts of harmful emissions from burning natural gas. Don't take my word for it, go look at the research. The oil and gas industry is on a big push, piling in tonnes of money for PR, to make Methane appear like a green friendly fuel. They are somewhat able to do this because there are plants around that turn biowaste into Methane in Oxygen deprived digester. The idea there is that the Methane is produced from CO2 captured from the atmosphere from plants and animals. So it isn't introducing new carbon into the atmosphere. This is a sleight of hand lie though, because the vast majority of Methane put into the system is fossil fuel derived, which is adding new carbon into the atmosphere. Worse, because Methane leaks so significantly from the fossil fuel industry into the atmosphere, even the created Methane is still causing more problems that it is fixing. Most of the heat spike we've been witnessing over the last decade is from significantly more Methane being put into the atmosphere than before, not the excess CO2. More, a huge amount of power is used to make Methane liquid. Some will claim that in areas like British Columbia, Canada, that they have Hydro electricity, so this power usage isn't causing emissions. This sort of logic exposes a lack of understanding though. When they have am excess of electricity from their damns, Canada exports that power to America, and there it will offset fossil fuel power plants, reducing emissions. So when LNG plants even consume green electricity, they are diverting it way from offsetting fossil fuel energy production. Then that takes us to the physics problem of LNG. It takes an enormous amount of power to liquefy it. It takes even more to keep it liquefied. The industry doesn't want to spend the money on that though, so they allow it to warm up slowly, boiling off. This causes pressure to build. To prevent t explosions, they just release off Methane directly into the atmosphere to keep pressure low. It's a built in feature of the system. Let's face facts. Oil and gas are big industries with big profits. They've made a lot of people very rich and those people want to get more rich. It's a fact that the industry have known about and tried to cover up climate change for many decades now. They have already proven they will do and say anything to keep producing fossil fuels. Also, don't just take my word for it. Go look up more than just stuff you want to hear. Look up the actual research. Look at experts with opinions you don't necessarily agree with and study the points they make. See if what they say is factually accurate or just agenda points. I used to be into Hydrogen as an energy source quite a bit. Then I listened to a guy who worked in the industry for decades and he said it was pure insanity. I balked at first. Then he laid down the facts. 99% of Hydrogen is produced using fossil fuels. Hydrogen has significantly less energy per volume. Hydrogen leaks a whole lot more and reacts with pretty much everything. It us so hard to handle that pretty much every industry producing it today makes it right at the place they are using it, because they want to avoid storing or transporting it altogether. Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas. That last one was the shock that broke me off of liking Oxygen. I had never heard that before and I had to google it to verify. Yup, super easy to find, if one knew to look for it. Everything has pros and cons. Still, if the oil and gas industry is funding PR for something, the general rule is that there is something significantly wrong about it, because again, they will do and say anything to keep the status quo.
Energy dense industries, steel, aluminium, cement, fertilizers etc will move to China, a country with a strong, 'what ever it takes' energy development strategy.
@@kayakMike1000 Even if China's population declines somewhat, it won't collapse, it will still have a huge number of people, most of whom will be middle class. Africa for sure. Chinese companies are investing heavily there.
@@jimgraham6722 I hope they plan for crippling heat as abrupt climate change surges. But I agree China has done more in its transition than other nations.
Can’t speak to delusional Europeans, but I think the United States investing two decades to develop a method of shooting jets of chemically doped water several miles (and a 90-degree turn) underground to get oil and gas out of solid rock is a pretty “whatever it takes” approach to energy too.
LNG is liquid at -162 C -260 F at 1 atmosphere of preassure. Its very very cold, but if its in a few atmospheres, its not nearly as cold... I think methane is also a refridgerant.
Stopping the creation of future LNG export terminals is posable the smartest thing President Biden has done. Limiting the rate at which the USA can extract and export natural gas will ensure we get a better price for the exported gas and ensure we maintain our critical advantage of low prices and product availability further into the future. Thereby keeping America more energy independent and boosting our manufacturing competitiveness and our standard of living. Thanks Biden ❤ perhaps the best policy you have made.
Slightly off topic, but someone in this video has creaky floorboards or something and it took me several minutes to figure out the sound was not coming from my house.
So... It costs 200 million to build an LNG tanker. I think it can ship 100 million dollars worth of LNG. It costs $130 thousand to charter that ship for one day....
The only thing I would have liked you to cover is the cost of NatGas as it is only used to the greatest capacity in texas if the solar and wind turbines arent working. There is a lot of costs, but solar is 3 center per kilowatt hour during the day, and there is no fuel involved, so NatGas plants are only used to their max capacity if the sun not shine and wind dont blow. This use of gas the max capacity must create some wild fluctuations in the price/availability, and then during the mild weather months in texas, there is plenty of lectric to go around, and none of these natgas plants are turned on.
Gas pipeline structure is even more massive than LNG liquefaction. Urengoy-Pomary gas pipeline has 42 boosting stations (every 100 km) each station having at least 6 gas turbines with pumps. In fact at distances more than 5000 km shipping gas by LNG is MORE ECONOMICAL.
Liquefaction of natural gas costs 10-15% of the energy in the gas. Also, the liquefied gas needs special storage and then a tremendous amount of heat to regasify the liquid before use. It is best to transport the natural gas through pipelines instead. If only there was a country near the EU that has a lot of natural gas that could be piped in at a reasonable cost 😢
" If only there was a country near the EU that has a lot of natural gas that could be piped in at a reasonable cost" We tried that and it has ended with the biggest war in Europe since WW 2.
Good episodes, but it was depressing that the last third consisted of meaningless questions as you were comparing LNG terminals to nuclear power plants. But nuclear plants are at the end of their supply chain whereas LNG terminals are in the first half of the natural gas supply chain. It was really very apples and oranges. It would've made more sense to compare an LNG terminal to a uranium processing plant or fuel fabricator.
It's not a fair comparison to compare spot prices for prewar comparison in Germany, they had long term contracts at USD120/1000CBM, current spot at Baumgarten terminal is USD310
It's not a war. It's a Special Military Operation. And it's not an invasion. It's an incursion. The lunatics in the west were shelling daycares in Donbass since 2014. Russia was legally obligated under international law to move in and stop the slaughter of civilians. Just yesterday the New York Times ran a story explaining how the CIA had set up a terrorist base on the border of Donbass and Donestk from which they carried out operations murdering their citizens. One question I have is why are they telling us this? And why now?
Not a single mention of peak gas. Art Berman has posited that shale oil/gas have peaked out in all the major plays. No mention made of NET energy of LNG. You guys sound like Doomberg.
As calculated by M. King Hubbard in 1957, US conventional oil extraction peaked in 1971 in the 48 contiguous states. All oil extraction currently is the result of enhanced recovery processes. All the major Permian fracking plays have leveled off and are starting diwn the depletion curve. Art Berman and David Hughes both say that fracking has plateaued. The empirical evidence is inescapable. LNG only make sense when money dictates the value of energy. When energy begins to dictate the value and behavior of money is when thermodynamic reality strikes with full force and a lot of “conventional economic theory” demonstrates it’s worthlessness.
@@aliendroneservices6621 I think you miss understand me. So far as I know it would be possible to capture (and use) sewer gas. Until we are capturing all sewer gas and using it as a fuel source then we're not getting close to the limits of what methane is available.
No, liquids aren't gases. LNG is _liquid_ natural gas. But yes, it does absorb infrared light, somewhat better than CO2, but not as well as H2O. There's really tiny amounts in the atmosphere, something like 200 parts per billion. Not sure. It's really no big deal, the troposphere is already fairly opaque to most infrared light anyway, it's overwhelmingly caused by water vapor.
@@kayakMike1000lol, that's a lot of BS. LNG is mainly Methane, which is a super greenhouse gas. It has more than 80 times the ability to hold in heat in the atmosphere over CO2. Because it only stays in the atmosphere around 12 years compared to the 200ish years CO2 does, scientists claim its got about a 20x impact to compensate for the quicker turnover. Still, when Methane degrades, it turns into CO2 and water vapor. So it turns from a super greenhouse gas into a long life greenhouse gas and a really super greenhouse substance. More, LNG is held at very cold temperatures. So, right off the bat, an enormous amount of energy is consumed to get it to a liquid state. It is not an easy process. Then, it is typically way too expensive to keep cooling to keep in that state. So, over time it hears up and starts boiling, gassing off, which builds pressure. The only way to keep the tanks from exploding other than trying to keep them cold is to release the excess pressure. LNG, as part of its function, releases Methane into the atmosphere.
7:30 There are no longer 3 states of matter. There is also plasma and maybe one or two others. Its 2024 and you can buy a plasma torch to cut steel in thousands of welding supply shops around the USA, so maybe we add plasma to this list.
To get technical, there are many states of matter. Water had several different states as ice. For instance, just under zero degrees Celsius, water turns into a type of ice that expands and floats on water. Cool it down a lot more and it becomes another type of ice that condenses into a smaller space. Because it's crystalline structure changed shape, it is considered a different state of matter. Water even has a different state of water where it is hot. My favorite state of matter is one they are able to get Helium to get to at something like minus 270ish degrees Celsius. Bose-Einstein condensate. It's like a liquid, but has zero friction. It will actually climb the walls of a bowl and pour down the sides despite gravity. It has all sorts of other cool attributes. States of matter all come down to temperature and pressure. Since Earth is at a stable pressure, we mainly see only three states of matter in nature, thus the idea that there are only 3 states. In that context, it us mostly true. In the lab, it super duper isn't true.
You create a forum for people to contribute on energy. Big mouths giving you personal criticism are wasting their space. As with all energy, distribution is a huge part of its economics. Grid electricity from central plants must be looked at, the grid new costs are ignored as part of the blind faith or religious mindset. The use of the existing national grid is deceptively cheap. LNG is dirt cheap until world prices explode. And tanker ships need to travel longer distances and then return for the next load. Australian gas prices have exploded. Once the customers get used to the high prices, the supplier knows the retail price does not have to fall much for bogus claims from the suppier about customers benefits. Over price and then discount, bs. I think that LNG will have a place in chemical feed stock and emergency energy at times.
Disappointing how they didn't speak to the catastrophic problem with thinking fossil fuels will help the climate crisis. My experience working with fracking in Pennsylvania showed me that leaks are everywhere in the system. Obama made a critical error in promoting methane development, especially while impacts from climate change were already expressing themselves when he first took office. I found it is neither clean, nor transitional as he claimed when I took a sr. position with an ecological services dept at an international environmental consulting firm. I saw the industry build out infrastructure that will last well over 50, 100 years and in a most disruptive way. And the industry will surely use this infrastructure for as long as possible. And unfortunately, my research into the global warming potential of methane shows its heat impact is immediate, rather then the figures that governments commonly use. Yes, methane may burn cleaner, but the up-, mid- and downstream leaks put this fuel as carbon intensive as coal. At least coal emitted sulfur products that helped keep their region a little cooler, not that I approve of it either. Lastly, why would countries tie themselves to outside fossil fuel shipments when the now guaranteed disruptions from climate change will take out port structures? Just look at Germany and its ties to Russian gas. They're held hostage to the whims of Putin. Its not about the economics and profits anymore. It now is the cost of the disasters continuing on this path to complete and utter disaster. Furthermore, it's a shame young people like these two don't recognize that many old scientists like myself now consider them the walking dead. But I certainly wish them good luck as they try to navigate their futures while catastrophe after catastrophe surrounds them.
@@missano3856 It was America, but that doesn't change that Hersh's article was full of blatantly incorrect basic facts about the attack. Now we all know Seymour Hersh has been a plant his entire life.
There are two people who would blow up the pipeline. Putin has been teasing europe by slowing down pipelines, and releasing headlines, just like Saudi arabia does with oil. Putin wants higher prices. Who cares if you lose a pipeline for a month? The USA. The USA does not like Germany sending money to putin. Nobody really does other than Germany and putin. The entire world kinda hates these two countries except Germans and Putinites. But what blowing up the pipeline (that Germany said it was not using) and seeing a bunch of Gas come out of it.... that does tell people something. That tells people that Germany was buying Russian gas when the said they were not buying gas. Ukraine doesn't have a navy. so that settles that question
This was a great example of decouple media. you invite so many toxic poeple and so many clearly insane people that sometimes I can only watch 5 minutes before I have to turn away.
What do you mean toxic people when we are getting an honest discussion with this great forum? I have learned so much and yes the truth can hurt but best going forward with keen knowledge in our energy future with the right tools to navigate with.
So what did the speaker miss? Do you have anything constructive to say or just want to complain? There’s plenty of that going around which is easy to do but detrimental to forward progress to solutions driven conversation and action. 🙏
@@leontb69 Well, I was making a valid observation. I found his gum flapping very boring, much like your dumb comment. He can take all of what I want to say constructively or not I don't really care.
I think that we must appreciate and acknowlege that we pro nuclear, pro energy and resorce men are the most handsome and masculine men in the fight for a strong responce to the climate problem. 😏
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
This is the content we need. Glad I found this channel.
The build out for the LNG plant and infrastructure in Kitimat is around $31 billion USD. Susannah Pierce from Shell Canada would be an interesting guest to have on if you want to talk about that. She led that project and she has done a few podcasts before. Learning how a very large project like that comes together in Canada would be interesting.
Maybe wait till it comes together.
Interesting discussion. However, I believe your guest created a significant contradiction when referring to LNG as the “champagne of energy” and then describing LNG as “dirty”.
LNG truly is the cleanest burning hydrocarbon and is the champagne of energy for many reasons. It’s cleaner than getting energy from burning animal dung, wood, trash, coal, fuel oil, diesel, jet fuel, kerosene, gasoline etc. I believe he’s describing one of the combustion byproducts, CO2, as “dirty”. The reality is CO2 is a pure compound and the primary issue is being a bit too much of it in the atmosphere.
The fact is we need a combination of many different types of energy sources. LNG, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, battery storage. A region (or country) can determine the best choice based on location, climate, geography, resources, population and many other factors. I enjoyed the discussion. Thanks
Yes, it may burn cleaner but the up, mid, and downstream processes leak so much as to be labeled as dirty as coal. I watched it as a field scientist develop W PA, OH, WV, etc. Any further increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will lead to increasing the scale of the catastrophe we already face! I suggest you look at Hansen's new paper for guidance as to the scale of the problem. Its urgent!. And since the process of climate change is irreversible, special care must be given when considering ANY fossil fuel use in the furture. CO2's long life in the atmosphere guarantees that. Personally, after 40 years in the environmental industry, my PE husband and I conducted a climate risk analysis for ourselves and our needs at our age, and moved accordingly. I suggest young people study up on climate science, and plan for great disruptions for the rest of their lives, because unfortunately the denial of these facts dominate the policy, guaranteeing the disaster that's here.
@@OldJackWolf ya, no doubt there’s a problem. One big challenge is that it’s not going to be cheap to change our ways. Gradually by 2050 we’ll get there.
Wow, just so many things wrong with that. Right off the bat, most of LNG is Methane. Methane is significantly more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2. 80 times or more powerful. Many times you will hear 20 times and that is because scientists have lowered the value to compensate for Methanes shorter lifespan in the atmosphere. Still, when it breaks down, it breaks down into CO2 and water vapor. Both greenhouse emissions themselves, so it's not like it stops holding in heat.
Natural gas though is not pure Methane. It has many other elements in it. So when you claim it burns cleaner than other fossil fuels, what you are doing is repeating PR from the natural gas industry who recent exposures have been proven to be covering up just how dirty natural gas really is. Sure, when you watch it burn, it seems like there is no smoke or debris, but when studied with sensitive instruments, there is significant amounts of harmful emissions from burning natural gas. Don't take my word for it, go look at the research.
The oil and gas industry is on a big push, piling in tonnes of money for PR, to make Methane appear like a green friendly fuel. They are somewhat able to do this because there are plants around that turn biowaste into Methane in Oxygen deprived digester. The idea there is that the Methane is produced from CO2 captured from the atmosphere from plants and animals. So it isn't introducing new carbon into the atmosphere.
This is a sleight of hand lie though, because the vast majority of Methane put into the system is fossil fuel derived, which is adding new carbon into the atmosphere.
Worse, because Methane leaks so significantly from the fossil fuel industry into the atmosphere, even the created Methane is still causing more problems that it is fixing. Most of the heat spike we've been witnessing over the last decade is from significantly more Methane being put into the atmosphere than before, not the excess CO2.
More, a huge amount of power is used to make Methane liquid. Some will claim that in areas like British Columbia, Canada, that they have Hydro electricity, so this power usage isn't causing emissions. This sort of logic exposes a lack of understanding though. When they have am excess of electricity from their damns, Canada exports that power to America, and there it will offset fossil fuel power plants, reducing emissions. So when LNG plants even consume green electricity, they are diverting it way from offsetting fossil fuel energy production.
Then that takes us to the physics problem of LNG. It takes an enormous amount of power to liquefy it. It takes even more to keep it liquefied. The industry doesn't want to spend the money on that though, so they allow it to warm up slowly, boiling off. This causes pressure to build. To prevent t explosions, they just release off Methane directly into the atmosphere to keep pressure low. It's a built in feature of the system.
Let's face facts. Oil and gas are big industries with big profits. They've made a lot of people very rich and those people want to get more rich. It's a fact that the industry have known about and tried to cover up climate change for many decades now. They have already proven they will do and say anything to keep producing fossil fuels.
Also, don't just take my word for it. Go look up more than just stuff you want to hear. Look up the actual research. Look at experts with opinions you don't necessarily agree with and study the points they make. See if what they say is factually accurate or just agenda points.
I used to be into Hydrogen as an energy source quite a bit. Then I listened to a guy who worked in the industry for decades and he said it was pure insanity. I balked at first. Then he laid down the facts. 99% of Hydrogen is produced using fossil fuels. Hydrogen has significantly less energy per volume. Hydrogen leaks a whole lot more and reacts with pretty much everything. It us so hard to handle that pretty much every industry producing it today makes it right at the place they are using it, because they want to avoid storing or transporting it altogether. Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas.
That last one was the shock that broke me off of liking Oxygen. I had never heard that before and I had to google it to verify. Yup, super easy to find, if one knew to look for it.
Everything has pros and cons. Still, if the oil and gas industry is funding PR for something, the general rule is that there is something significantly wrong about it, because again, they will do and say anything to keep the status quo.
@@OldJackWolf What planet did you move to?
@@frankfarley2480 Erie.
One of the best episodes of Decouple ever. Really informative
Energy dense industries, steel, aluminium, cement, fertilizers etc will move to China, a country with a strong, 'what ever it takes' energy development strategy.
They won't have people available to do the work. I would bet on Africa.
@@kayakMike1000 Even if China's population declines somewhat, it won't collapse, it will still have a huge number of people, most of whom will be middle class. Africa for sure. Chinese companies are investing heavily there.
@@jimgraham6722 I hope they plan for crippling heat as abrupt climate change surges. But I agree China has done more in its transition than other nations.
@@kayakMike1000 That's crazy.
China grid capacity: 2900 GW
Nigeria (functioning) grid capacity: 4 GW
Can’t speak to delusional Europeans, but I think the United States investing two decades to develop a method of shooting jets of chemically doped water several miles (and a 90-degree turn) underground to get oil and gas out of solid rock is a pretty “whatever it takes” approach to energy too.
Very informative. Thank you...
Congrats on reaching 12k subs, *_Dr. Keefer!_*
Chris I see you taking notes during the interview. Nice
LOVE this !!!
I agree with everything he said, as a trader, I thought the commercial aspect would also be discussed, not just government-to-government contracts.
How can I become a trader ?
LNG is liquid at -162 C -260 F at 1 atmosphere of preassure. Its very very cold, but if its in a few atmospheres, its not nearly as cold... I think methane is also a refridgerant.
Great stuff.
Stopping the creation of future LNG export terminals is posable the smartest thing President Biden has done.
Limiting the rate at which the USA can extract and export natural gas will ensure we get a better price for the exported gas and ensure we maintain our critical advantage of low prices and product availability further into the future. Thereby keeping America more energy independent and boosting our manufacturing competitiveness and our standard of living.
Thanks Biden ❤ perhaps the best policy you have made.
Slightly off topic, but someone in this video has creaky floorboards or something and it took me several minutes to figure out the sound was not coming from my house.
So... It costs 200 million to build an LNG tanker. I think it can ship 100 million dollars worth of LNG. It costs $130 thousand to charter that ship for one day....
1:09:35
Exactly, right now all the construction contracts are with Qatar to build new ships like 30
Very informative
The only thing I would have liked you to cover is the cost of NatGas as it is only used to the greatest capacity in texas if the solar and wind turbines arent working. There is a lot of costs, but solar is 3 center per kilowatt hour during the day, and there is no fuel involved, so NatGas plants are only used to their max capacity if the sun not shine and wind dont blow. This use of gas the max capacity must create some wild fluctuations in the price/availability, and then during the mild weather months in texas, there is plenty of lectric to go around, and none of these natgas plants are turned on.
Gas pipeline structure is even more massive than LNG liquefaction. Urengoy-Pomary gas pipeline has 42 boosting stations (every 100 km) each station having at least 6 gas turbines with pumps. In fact at distances more than 5000 km shipping gas by LNG is MORE ECONOMICAL.
the audio cuts out at 1:10:00 and nobody noticed because they all leave comments before watching the end.
Liquefaction of natural gas costs 10-15% of the energy in the gas. Also, the liquefied gas needs special storage and then a tremendous amount of heat to regasify the liquid before use.
It is best to transport the natural gas through pipelines instead.
If only there was a country near the EU that has a lot of natural gas that could be piped in at a reasonable cost 😢
"
If only there was a country near the EU that has a lot of natural gas that could be piped in at a reasonable cost"
We tried that and it has ended with the biggest war in Europe since WW 2.
@@godq3 we have to keep the cost up to make a buck selling fossil fuels. 😔
Good episodes, but it was depressing that the last third consisted of meaningless questions as you were comparing LNG terminals to nuclear power plants. But nuclear plants are at the end of their supply chain whereas LNG terminals are in the first half of the natural gas supply chain. It was really very apples and oranges. It would've made more sense to compare an LNG terminal to a uranium processing plant or fuel fabricator.
It's not a fair comparison to compare spot prices for prewar comparison in Germany, they had long term contracts at USD120/1000CBM, current spot at Baumgarten terminal is USD310
It's not a war. It's a Special Military Operation. And it's not an invasion. It's an incursion. The lunatics in the west were shelling daycares in Donbass since 2014. Russia was legally obligated under international law to move in and stop the slaughter of civilians. Just yesterday the New York Times ran a story explaining how the CIA had set up a terrorist base on the border of Donbass and Donestk from which they carried out operations murdering their citizens. One question I have is why are they telling us this? And why now?
Tis NOT the champagne of energy. To this cat that goes to molten salt thorium reactors. NOW THAT IS THE CHAMPAGNE of energy in my simple book.
How is ethylene glycol made? What quantity is added per litre? Elucidate the use of ethylene glycol
thought Japan, Earth Quakes, what would be or how safe is LNG?
Natural gas in the UAS $1.60 per milion BTU
Liquefied natural gas delivered to asia $8.00
Ouch, that's quite the markup.
Not a single mention of peak gas. Art Berman has posited that shale oil/gas have peaked out in all the major plays. No mention made of NET energy of LNG. You guys sound like Doomberg.
no mention of the peak oil theory from the 1970s where they explained that we would run out of oil by the time the year 2000 came around either
As calculated by M. King Hubbard in 1957, US conventional oil extraction peaked in 1971 in the 48 contiguous states. All oil extraction currently is the result of enhanced recovery processes. All the major Permian fracking plays have leveled off and are starting diwn the depletion curve. Art Berman and David Hughes both say that fracking has plateaued. The empirical evidence is inescapable. LNG only make sense when money dictates the value of energy. When energy begins to dictate the value and behavior of money is when thermodynamic reality strikes with full force and a lot of “conventional economic theory” demonstrates it’s worthlessness.
There's no reason to worry about peak gas until we're capturing all the methane that is produced by municipal sewage.
@@wheel-man5319 Municipal sewage is powered by fossil-fuels.
@@aliendroneservices6621 I think you miss understand me. So far as I know it would be possible to capture (and use) sewer gas. Until we are capturing all sewer gas and using it as a fuel source then we're not getting close to the limits of what methane is available.
Lng is a greenhouse gas?
No, liquids aren't gases. LNG is _liquid_ natural gas. But yes, it does absorb infrared light, somewhat better than CO2, but not as well as H2O. There's really tiny amounts in the atmosphere, something like 200 parts per billion. Not sure. It's really no big deal, the troposphere is already fairly opaque to most infrared light anyway, it's overwhelmingly caused by water vapor.
@@kayakMike1000lol, that's a lot of BS. LNG is mainly Methane, which is a super greenhouse gas. It has more than 80 times the ability to hold in heat in the atmosphere over CO2. Because it only stays in the atmosphere around 12 years compared to the 200ish years CO2 does, scientists claim its got about a 20x impact to compensate for the quicker turnover.
Still, when Methane degrades, it turns into CO2 and water vapor. So it turns from a super greenhouse gas into a long life greenhouse gas and a really super greenhouse substance.
More, LNG is held at very cold temperatures. So, right off the bat, an enormous amount of energy is consumed to get it to a liquid state. It is not an easy process. Then, it is typically way too expensive to keep cooling to keep in that state. So, over time it hears up and starts boiling, gassing off, which builds pressure. The only way to keep the tanks from exploding other than trying to keep them cold is to release the excess pressure. LNG, as part of its function, releases Methane into the atmosphere.
7:30 There are no longer 3 states of matter. There is also plasma and maybe one or two others. Its 2024 and you can buy a plasma torch to cut steel in thousands of welding supply shops around the USA, so maybe we add plasma to this list.
To get technical, there are many states of matter. Water had several different states as ice. For instance, just under zero degrees Celsius, water turns into a type of ice that expands and floats on water. Cool it down a lot more and it becomes another type of ice that condenses into a smaller space. Because it's crystalline structure changed shape, it is considered a different state of matter. Water even has a different state of water where it is hot.
My favorite state of matter is one they are able to get Helium to get to at something like minus 270ish degrees Celsius. Bose-Einstein condensate. It's like a liquid, but has zero friction. It will actually climb the walls of a bowl and pour down the sides despite gravity. It has all sorts of other cool attributes.
States of matter all come down to temperature and pressure. Since Earth is at a stable pressure, we mainly see only three states of matter in nature, thus the idea that there are only 3 states. In that context, it us mostly true. In the lab, it super duper isn't true.
You create a forum for people to contribute on energy.
Big mouths giving you personal criticism are wasting their space.
As with all energy, distribution is a huge part of its economics.
Grid electricity from central plants must be looked at, the grid new costs are ignored as part of the blind faith or religious mindset.
The use of the existing national grid is deceptively cheap.
LNG is dirt cheap until world prices explode. And tanker ships need to travel longer distances and then return for the next load.
Australian gas prices have exploded.
Once the customers get used to the high prices, the supplier knows the retail price does not have to fall much for bogus claims from the suppier about customers benefits.
Over price and then discount, bs.
I think that LNG will have a place in chemical feed stock and emergency energy at times.
What about the NORSTREAM PIPELINE??? Does nobody remember that outrage?
My truck runs propane
Disappointing how they didn't speak to the catastrophic problem with thinking fossil fuels will help the climate crisis. My experience working with fracking in Pennsylvania showed me that leaks are everywhere in the system. Obama made a critical error in promoting methane development, especially while impacts from climate change were already expressing themselves when he first took office. I found it is neither clean, nor transitional as he claimed when I took a sr. position with an ecological services dept at an international environmental consulting firm. I saw the industry build out infrastructure that will last well over 50, 100 years and in a most disruptive way. And the industry will surely use this infrastructure for as long as possible. And unfortunately, my research into the global warming potential of methane shows its heat impact is immediate, rather then the figures that governments commonly use. Yes, methane may burn cleaner, but the up-, mid- and downstream leaks put this fuel as carbon intensive as coal. At least coal emitted sulfur products that helped keep their region a little cooler, not that I approve of it either.
Lastly, why would countries tie themselves to outside fossil fuel shipments when the now guaranteed disruptions from climate change will take out port structures? Just look at Germany and its ties to Russian gas. They're held hostage to the whims of Putin.
Its not about the economics and profits anymore. It now is the cost of the disasters continuing on this path to complete and utter disaster. Furthermore, it's a shame young people like these two don't recognize that many old scientists like myself now consider them the walking dead. But I certainly wish them good luck as they try to navigate their futures while catastrophe after catastrophe surrounds them.
Liquification
0:41 0:44
$GLNG ?
All your guests should shave their beards to join the moustache club 😂
You "don't know" who blew up Nord Steam???
The only people who know for sure ain't saying.
@@missano3856 It was America, but that doesn't change that Hersh's article was full of blatantly incorrect basic facts about the attack. Now we all know Seymour Hersh has been a plant his entire life.
There are two people who would blow up the pipeline. Putin has been teasing europe by slowing down pipelines, and releasing headlines, just like Saudi arabia does with oil. Putin wants higher prices. Who cares if you lose a pipeline for a month? The USA. The USA does not like Germany sending money to putin. Nobody really does other than Germany and putin. The entire world kinda hates these two countries except Germans and Putinites. But what blowing up the pipeline (that Germany said it was not using) and seeing a bunch of Gas come out of it.... that does tell people something. That tells people that Germany was buying Russian gas when the said they were not buying gas. Ukraine doesn't have a navy. so that settles that question
No one who is now called brandon?
@@missano3856I am going to take a wild guess that you're a Democrat. The liberal hivemind...
this champagne analogy is not very good the sparkling wine of pipeline gas is the same as the champagne of lng
This was a great example of decouple media. you invite so many toxic poeple and so many clearly insane people that sometimes I can only watch 5 minutes before I have to turn away.
What do you mean toxic people when we are getting an honest discussion with this great forum? I have learned so much and yes the truth can hurt but best going forward with keen knowledge in our energy future with the right tools to navigate with.
Please contribute an explanation to why you feel this way which could make future discussion on the subject matter more enlightening. 🙏
I just started watch this talking head. He seems to talk quite a lot and say very little. I think he has a PhD in blathering.
So what did the speaker miss? Do you have anything constructive to say or just want to complain? There’s plenty of that going around which is easy to do but detrimental to forward progress to solutions driven conversation and action. 🙏
@@leontb69 Well, I was making a valid observation. I found his gum flapping very boring, much like your dumb comment. He can take all of what I want to say constructively or not I don't really care.
I think that we must appreciate and acknowlege that we pro nuclear, pro energy and resorce men are the most handsome and masculine men in the fight for a strong responce to the climate problem. 😏
It goes without saying, but you're obviously correct