The energy thread

[Jimbuna]

Oil tumbles 2% as Putin lets Russian energy companies decide pricing, exports

Investing.com -- The official stance of the Kremlin is that it will not adhere to the West’s price caps on Russian oil.

In reality though, President Vladimir Putin’s administration is allowing Russian oil companies to sell however many barrels at whatever price they can get.

This effectively means the companies can apply any discounts necessary to transact oil in their hold, with the G7’s price cap already setting a barrel of Russian Urals at between $25 or $35 below the global crude benchmark Brent.

Media headlines on Monday suggested disparities between Russian government policy and actual activity in the physical oil market. That drove crude prices lower again, after a dip on Friday that came on the back of a rally over two previous weeks.

New York-traded West Texas Intermediate, or WTI, crude for March settled down $1.78, or 2.2%, at $77.90 per barrel after a session low at $77.75.

London-traded Brent crude for March delivery was down $1.90, or 2.2%, to $84.50 per barrel by 14:36 ET (19:36 GMT). The session bottom was $84.33.

The slide came after the Russian government maintained that it “forbids oil exports that adhere to Western price caps,” according to a headline from Reuters.

That was, however, followed by two other news bulletins that said that “the Russian government has charged oil companies with overseeing contract wording” and that “the Russian government has not set a floor price for oil exports.”

“Decoded, the three messages mean the Russian government’s grandstanding against the West’s price caps remains, while it has opened the backdoor for its oil companies to do whatever is necessary to get their oil moving on the market,” said John Kilduff, partner at New York energy hedge fund Again Capital.

“This is a serious problem for the so-called cooperation within OPEC+, which is predicated on its principals Saudi Arabia and Russia keeping exports as low as possible and prices supported at the higher end.”

The headlines on Russia came ahead of Wednesday’s meeting of OPEC+, which groups the 13-member Saudi-led Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries with Russia and nine other oil producing allies.

OPEC+ is expected to leave its production targets unchanged from December levels at the meeting. Oil bulls typically look to OPEC+ to announce cuts when the group meets. Sans that, crude prices are likely to dip.

Since the G-7 price cap of $60 on a barrel of Russian oil came into force on Dec. 5, it has added to the woes of OPEC+ in trying to rally a market already depressed by mixed signals over demand from top importer China and fears of an impending recession in the United States and Europe.

While the Putin administration has publicly balked at the G7 price cap, it hasn’t really been able to fight it.

And because they’re getting less money for their oil now, the Russians are also shipping out more barrels these days than the Saudis wish them to. And those barrels are primarily going to two destinations — India and China, which are the only two nations the United States allows to buy sanctioned Russian oil without questions.

The increased exports from Russia are not only messing up OPEC+’s aim of keeping production tight but also hurting the Saudis as India and China were also the largest markets in Asia for Riyadh’s state oil company Saudi Aramco (TADAWUL:2222).

India bought an average of 1.2 million barrels of Russian Urals a day in December, which was 33 times more than a year earlier and 29% more than in November. Discounts for Urals at Russia's western ports for sale to India under some deals widened to $32-$35 per barrel when freight wasn’t included, according to a Reuters report from Dec. 14.

Another Reuters report said China paid the deepest discounts in months for Russian ESPO crude oil in December, amid weak demand and poor refining margins. ESPO is a grade exported from the Russian Far East port of Kozmino and Chinese refiners are dominant clients for this.

If that wasn’t enough, a Reuters report from last Friday said Russia’s oil loadings from its Baltic ports were set to rise by 50% in January from December levels. Russia loaded 4.7M tonnes of Urals and KEBCO from Baltic ports in December. The January surge comes as sellers try to meet strong demand in Asia and benefit from rising global energy prices, the report said.

The Saudis, on their part, have slashed pricing on their own Arab Light crude to Asia to try and stay competitive amid the ruthless undercutting by the Russians — who are supposed to be their closest ally within OPEC+.

Riyadh is also attempting to talk to Moscow, with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud telling a Bloomberg interview earlier this month that the kingdom was “engaging with Russia over keeping oil prices relatively stable.”

“We have a very important partnership with Russia on OPEC+…that has delivered stability [to] the oil market…we are gonna engage with Russia on that,” Al-Saud said.

But Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak has told state news agency Tass that Moscow “is not discussing with OPEC+ possibility of its oil production cuts”. He was responding to a question on whether the Kremlin will reduce oil output to demand a higher price for its Urals crude as the G7’s $60 cap allows buyers to lowball the Russian product versus rival crude benchmarks such as the U.K. Brent, U.S. West Texas Intermediate, the Arab Light and Dubai Light.

"No, we are not discussing such issues," Novak said.

His response basically showed the two nations having different ideas on what they need to do at this point: The Russians need to sell as much oil as possible and at whatever price they could. The Saudis want to keep Arab Light competitive against Urals but not flood the market; hence their plan for a rollover in December production targets.

The G7 will have two more price caps coming into force on Feb. 5 on refined oil products out of Russia. No one knows what effect those will have on the Kremlin.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/othe...4d14cc4ee41d2e

[Jimbuna]

Shell reports highest profits in 115 years

Oil and gas giant Shell has reported record annual profits after energy prices surged last year following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Profits hit $39.9bn (£32.2bn) in 2022, double last year's total and the highest in its 115-year history.

Energy firms have seen record earnings since oil and gas prices jumped following the invasion of Ukraine.

It has heaped pressure on firms to pay more tax as households struggle with rising bills.

Opposition parties said Shell's profits were "outrageous" and the government was letting energy firms "off the hook". They also called for the planned increase in the energy price cap due in April to be scrapped.

Energy prices had begun to climb after the end of Covid lockdowns but rose sharply in March last year after the events in Ukraine led to worries over supplies.

The price of Brent crude oil reached nearly $128 a barrel following the invasion, but has since fallen back to about $83. Gas prices also spiked but have come down from their highs.

It has led to bumper profits for energy companies, but also fuelled a rise in energy bills for households and businesses.

Last year, the UK government introduced a windfall tax - called the Energy Profits Levy - on the "extraordinary" earnings of firms to help fund its scheme to lower gas and electricity bills.

Despite the move, Shell had said it did not expect to pay any UK tax this year as it is allowed to offset decommissioning costs and investments in UK projects against any UK profits.

However, on Thursday it said was due to pay $134m in UK windfall tax for 2022, and expected to pay more than $500m in 2023.

This may look small compared to its profits but Shell only derives around 5% of its revenue from the UK - the rest is made and taxed in other jurisdictions.

However, critics point out that Shell is a UK-headquartered company and has been paying more to its shareholders that it spends on renewable investments.

The government is currently limiting gas and electricity bills so a household using a typical amount of energy will pay £2,500 a year.

However, that is still more than twice what it was before Russia's invasion, and the threshold is due to rise to £3,000 in April.

The government's windfall tax only applies to profits made from extracting UK oil and gas. The rate was originally set at 25%, but has now been increased to 35%.

Oil and gas firms also pay 30% corporation tax on their profits as well as a supplementary 10% rate. Along with the new windfall tax, that takes their total tax rate to 75%.

However, companies are able to reduce the amount of tax they pay by factoring in losses or spending on things like decommissioning North Sea oil platforms. It has meant that in recent years, energy giants such as BP and Shell have paid little or no tax in the UK.

The annual profit figure far surpassed Shell's previous record set in 2008. The company also said it had paid out $6.3bn to its shareholders in the final three months of 2022, and that it planned another $4bn share buyback.

Shell chief executive Wael Sawan said that these are "incredibly difficult times - we are seeing inflation rampant around the world" but that Shell was playing its part by investing in renewable technologies.

Its chief financial officer Sinead Gorman added that Shell had paid $13bn in taxes globally in 2022. It had also accounted for 11% of liquified natural gas shipments into the EU, easing pressure on supplies caused by sanctions on Russia.

Labour's shadow climate change secretary Ed Miliband said: "As the British people face an energy price hike of 40% in April, the government is letting the fossil fuel companies making bumper profits off the hook with their refusal to implement a proper windfall tax.

"Labour would stop the energy price cap going up in April, because it is only right that the companies making unexpected windfall profits from the proceeds of war pay their fair share."

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said: "No company should be making these kind of outrageous profits out of Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

"They must tax the oil and gas companies properly and at the very least ensure that energy bills don't rise yet again in April."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64489147

[Jimbuna]

UK forks out £60bn for gas imports in four months as ‘cheapest' energy source wasted

Britain spent £60billion on gas imports in just four months despite there being enough winds to power 1.2 million homes daily. This source, hailed as one of the 'cheapest' energy generators, was wasted due to a lack of storage sites. With energy prices surging to astronomical highs due to Russia's war in Ukraine and supply chain issues, the price of imports of foreign oil and gas soared over the last year. This has had a major knock-on impact on billpayers who are forking out more than ever before for energy costs.

And in 2021, the UK imported almost £20billion worth of gas, a 312 percent rise from 2020's £4.8billion, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.

But Britain may not have needed to spend such a staggering amount of cash on these imports if it had built more renewable energy storage sites, analysis from global strategy consultancy Stonehaven has found.

At its current cost of £60 per MWh, renewables are the cheapest form of electricity. Meanwhile, the cost of importing gas for electricity peaked above £3,000/MWh last year.

Meanwhile, windy conditions between October 2022 and January 2023 resulted in a record 82.5 percent of Britain's electricity that was produced via low-carbon power from December 27 to January 9. However, the cheap power generation was not reflected on household bills.

This is partially because the UK also experienced a 'dunkelflaute', a German term used to refer to cold, still days when the country experienced little to no wind but still needed energy for heating.

When wind is generating vast amounts of excess energy, not all of it needs to be delivered to the grid immediately to power homes. Without somewhere to store that excess energy, it has nowhere to go and is instead wasted.

Meanwhile, wind energy is also intermittent, meaning turbines won't generate any electricity when the wind does not blow.

This is why energy storage is vital as it could save some of that excess energy produced on days with strong wind and send it back to the grid for use on days when the wind isn't blowing.

In fact, the lack of renewable energy storage meant as much as 1.35 TWh of wind during peak conditions was lost during the period with windy conditions, which could have helped to power around 1.2 million homes every day. Instead, the UK had to rely on £60billion-worth of foreign imports of gas, the analysis commissioned by Highview Power found.

Highview Power CEO, Rupert Pearce said: "Renewable energy storage is essential to powering a cleaner, cheaper, always-on Britain.

"By capturing and storing excess renewable energy, which is now the UK's cheapest, most secure and most abundant form of energy, we can power Britain's homes and businesses with renewable green energy, taking millions of tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere and ending a culture of reliance on expensive foreign imports.

"Long-duration energy storage can underpin the UK's world-leading position on renewables, accelerate the energy transition, create thousands of British clean energy jobs and skills, cut UK consumer bills and reduce our dependence on foreign gas.

"Building renewables storage infrastructure across the UK would also provide a welcome boost for clean growth in the near term, by positioning UK businesses to empower a renewables-led energy transition globally.'

Highview Power is planning to build at least 20 grid-scale renewable energy storage sites across the UK over the next decade in a £10 billion capital investment programme.

As Britain leads the charge internationally in the offshore wind energy sector, there is enormous potential to develop effective energy storage across the country to help drive down costs.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/othe...51fb29533184b5

[Skybird]

Die Welt:
-----------------------
One sentence turns the German energy transition narrative on its head

The British energy company BP is considered a pioneer in the oil industry when it comes to climate protection. But now, in a surprise move, CEO Looney is scaling back CO₂ targets. He then openly disputes an article of faith in the German ecoscene.

Money doesn't make you happy, but it does make you independent: With a fabulous annual profit of almost $28 billion behind him, the head of British energy giant BP apparently feels strong enough to announce unpleasant truths to the world.

"After the past three years, it's clearer than ever," Bernard Looney declared at the financial statement presentation: "The world wants and needs energy that is secure, affordable and also more climate-friendly - which together is known as the energy trilemma."

What's remarkable about this sentence is not just the order of attributes Looney chose: Safe, Affordable, and Climate Friendly. What is most remarkable is that Looney recognizes neither win-win-win nor consonance in these terms, but - on the contrary - a trilemma.

Its little brother, the dilemma, is, according to the Duden definition, a "predicament" and a situation in which one must or should choose between "two equally difficult or unpleasant things." According to this definition, a trilemma is a situation in which one has to choose between three difficult things.

Looney's phrase about the energy trilemma sounds harmless, but it turns the energy transition narrative commonly used in Germany on its head without further ado. This is because it is based on the assumption that the ecological transformation in no way leads to a predicament in which one has to choose between various disadvantages.

On the contrary, the narrative spread by influential non-governmental organizations in the media is that the green transformation of the energy system brings only advantages everywhere. Green energies are not only cheaper, but also safer and more climate-friendly. That's how Robert Habeck, Germany's green minister for economics and climate protection, tells it on his ministry's website: "Our energy transition: safe, clean, affordable."

Now the head of one of Europe's leading energy companies is saying the opposite: an equally affordable, clean, safe energy is an illusion for now. One would have to make up one's mind already. BP has made its decision: For safe and affordable energy. For the time being, the aspect of "clean" is being put on the back burner.

In a "strategy update," the BP CEO summarizes the planned braking maneuver in climate protection in figures: After previously targeting a CO₂ reduction of 35 to 40 percent by 2030, the company is now only aiming for a 20 to 30 percent drop in greenhouse gases.

At the same time, investment in new oil and gas projects will be increased by $1 billion per year. This is necessary to ensure security of supply, Looney stressed: "We need to continue to invest in today's energy system, based on oil and gas, in the short term to meet demand and to ensure that the transformation happens in an orderly fashion."

As a result, BP will exit fossil fuels much more slowly than previously planned: In 2030, oil and gas production will be only about 25 percent below 2019 levels, the new plan says. Previously, BP had held out the prospect of a 40 percent drop in fossil energy production.

With this announcement, BP is obviously breaking with the requirements arising from international climate targets: As early as May 2021, the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, had calculated that "with immediate effect" all new investments in oil, gas and coal would have to be halted if the goal of net zero emissions by 2050 was to be seriously achieved.

In its own "World Energy Outlook," an internationally recognized collection of data, BP itself had also stated that global oil demand would never fully recover after the end of the Corona pandemic. Even in the worst case, the pessimistic scenario for the global energy and transport turnaround, "peak oil," the global production peak of crude oil production, was already in the past.

However, almost all multinationals had significantly reduced investments in the discovery and development of new oil and gas fields in the past decade - often under pressure from ecologically oriented investors and funds. The resulting supply shortage had already led to sharp price increases before the outbreak of the war between Russia and Ukraine.

So by expanding fossil fuel production, BP is only making up for some of its earlier reluctance to invest in this area. Nevertheless, this is a sharp change of course.

For a long time, BP did not allow any competitor to pass it by when it came to environmental and climate protection. The company was one of the first oil multinationals to define a strategy for achieving net zero emissions by 2050. By the turn of the millennium, the company had even adopted a green flower as its corporate logo and become the world's second-largest solar cell manufacturer. The abbreviation BP suddenly no longer stood for "British Petroleum" but for "beyond petroleum" - in other words, for the green age "beyond oil."

But the profit of around $60 billion before taxes and depreciation (Ebitda) and a net income of around $28 billion now presented was generated for the most part with fossil energies. Investors, for whom the so-called ESG criteria for environmental, social and corporate sustainability were otherwise particularly important, are apparently becoming weak in the face of such sums - and resent BP's increase in fossil investments. On the stock market, BP's share price shot up by almost six percent during the course of the day.

Environmentalists are beside themselves: "BP is yet another fuel giant profiting from the suffering caused by environmental and energy crises," Greenpeace in the UK commented on the strategy shift: "What's worse: Their green plans appear to have been severely undermined by investors and governments to make more and more dirty money from oil and gas."

Lost in the environmental groups' criticism is the fact that BP nonetheless continues to invest substantially in renewable energy. For example, the company also plans to increase investment in its green transformation by $1 billion, to about $7 billion to $9 billion a year at that point. Between 2023 and 2030, the group would thus invest between $55 billion and $65 billion in its ecological transformation.

For example, BP expects revenues greater than 15 percent from its business with charging stations for e-mobility and also double-digit revenues from the sale of hydrogen. The production of biogas is to be increased six-fold, a goal the company has already come close to by acquiring Archaea Energy, the largest U.S. biogas company.

There are also plans to move into the production of climate-neutral kerosene at five refinery sites. Biofuel production is to be expanded to a volume of 100,000 barrels (159-liter barrel) per day.
------------------------

[Jimbuna]

BP scales back climate targets as profits hit record

Energy giant BP has reported record annual profits as it scaled back plans to reduce the amount of oil and gas it produces by 2030.

The company's profits more than doubled to $27.7bn (£23bn) in 2022, as energy prices soared after Russia invaded Ukraine.

Other energy firms have seen similar rises, with Shell reporting record earnings of nearly $40bn last week.

It has led to calls for energy firms to pay more tax as people's bills soar.

BP boss Bernard Looney said the British company was "helping provide the energy the world needs" while investing the transition to green energy.

But it came as the firm scaled back plans to cut carbon emissions by reducing its oil and gas output.

The company - which was one of the first oil and gas giants to announce an ambition to cut emissions to net zero by 2050 - had previously promised that emissions would be 35-40% lower by the end of this decade.

However, on Tuesday it said it was now targeting a 20-30% cut, saying it needed to keep investing in oil and gas to meet current demands.

Climate campaign group Greenpeace, whose voice the BBC has included because of the impact of oil and gas production on the environment, said BP's new strategy "seems to have been strongly undermined by pressure from investors and governments to make even more dirty money out of oil and gas".

Energy prices had begun to climb following the end of Covid lockdowns but rose sharply in March last year after Russia invaded Ukraine, sparking concerns about global supplies.

The price of Brent crude oil reached nearly $128 a barrel, but has since fallen back to about $80. Gas prices also spiked but have come down from their highs.

It has led to bumper profits for energy companies, but also fuelled a rise in energy bills for households and businesses.

Last year, the government introduced a windfall tax - called the Energy Profits Levy - on the "extraordinary" profits being made at energy companies.

The rate was originally set at 25%, but has now been increased to 35%, and only applies to profits made from extracting UK oil and gas. Oil and gas firms also pay 30% corporation tax on their profits as well as a supplementary 10% rate, taking their total tax rate to 75%.

However, they can reduce the amount of tax they pay by factoring in losses or spending on things like decommissioning North Sea oil platforms.

BP said its UK business, which accounts for less than 10% of its global profits, will pay $2.2bn in tax for 2022, including $700m due to the Energy Profits Levy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64544110

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Given my rampant paranoia, I'd gladly take on solar and wind if it keeps other people from bothering me in my shack somewhere in New Mexico.

[Dargo]

Shell sees record profits as encouragement to stay fossil for as long as possible

Shell is investing some three billion euros in green energy projects this year. At the same time, the energy company posted a record profit of almost 40 billion euros and claims to be embracing the energy transition. In its annual report, Shell reports that it puts only 14 per cent of its 23 billion euros of investments into the 'Renewable Energy and Energy Solutions' division. So Shell's policy seems to have changed little since then-Shell chief Ben van Beurden said in 2016, "I'll pump up everything I can to meet demand."

[Jimbuna]

UK's largest gas supplier warns output is at capacity

The boss of the UK's largest gas supplier, Norway's Equinor, has warned it will be difficult to further increase output after ramping up production last year to help fill the void in Europe's stocks amid Russia's war in Ukraine.

Anders Opedal said that natural gas demand will have to be lower across the continent to help compensate for the loss of Russian supplies while revealing annual profits that smashed the company's previous record.

While the UK is a net exporter of gas during the warmer months of the year, the country typically relies on Norway for 25% of its annual demand due to a lack of storage capacity.

Equinor, which was formerly known as Statoil and is majority-owned by the Norwegian state, ramped up production by 8% in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine when Russia cut gas flows to Europe in retaliation for Western sanctions.

Its efforts - coupled with energy-saving measures continent-wide - have helped contribute to the lights remaining on during the winter so far.

Challenges over the past few months have included a slow return to output at many French nuclear plants.

The UK has relied on gas flows from Norway during cold snaps when the wind has failed to blow, recently using the Demand Flexibility Service to ease pressure during peak hours.

Recent industry figures have shown that gas has accounted for more than 40% of power output over the past week.

The chief executive's remarks are important as Europe braces again to restock depleted supplies ahead of the next winter.

While wholesale costs have fallen across the continent from the peaks seen at the end of last summer, prices could yet rise again in the coming months.

The possibility of a cold end to the current winter, storage capacity and gas availability remain concerns despite further deals with the US to bolster liquefied natural gas volumes.

The record prices for natural gas helped Equinor post $74.9bn (£61.9bn) in adjusted operating profits for 2022, more than double its previous record, helping net profits to $28.7bn (£23.7bn).

It posted its earnings as oil and gas majors BP and Shell face a domestic backlash over their own profits, with government critics demanding a higher windfall tax to help compensate the public purse amid the energy-led cost of living crisis.

Tessa Khan, executive director of the Uplift environmental group, said: "While Equinor rakes in these shocking profits... pensioners in the UK are having their homes broken into by debt collectors or, worse, cut off because they can't afford their gas bill."

"Equinor has got rich on the back of the suffering of millions of people in the UK," she added.
https://news.sky.com/story/energy-cr...acity-12805846

[Skybird]

Hans Hofmann Reinicke, I qoted him before on some occasions, he is from the trade.

On wind - "renewable" energy?

----------------------------

THE ROAD TO HELL

As we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The government has made the resolution to convert the country completely to renewable energies. If that were realized, Germany would be paved with windmills and photovoltaics, and it would unquestionably be a road to hell - in many ways.

What is renewable?

There are forms of energy that consume natural resources to such an extent that they will be exhausted during the next few thousand years, or even sooner; for example, coal or oil. And there are forms of energy that do not - called "renewable." Wind energy is supposedly renewable - really? I suggest we take a look.

Let's imagine Germany as it is supposed to look in the future according to the plans of the current government: wind and PV would be expanded by a factor of three compared to today. Instead of 29,000 turbines with a total of 58 gigawatts (GW) of installed capacity, we would have 87,000 with 174 GW. That, then, would be the hoped-for backbone of sustainable and renewable power supply.

Now, there are two important empirical facts in this context that make the neat adjectives "sustainable" and "renewable" seem questionable: First, a wind turbine has a typical life of only 20 years, and second, it has a mass of 5000 tons.

14 million cars

In a typical year, then, you would have to replace one turbine in twenty on average, so you would have to scrap 87,000 / 20 = 4350 expired turbines and replace them with new ones. The elegant technical term for this process is "repowering." So you would replace a mass of 4350 x 5000 = 21,750,000 tons of material per year - that would be the mass of 14,500,000 typical cars. Again, in words, every year there is scrap metal weighing fourteen million cars, and every year new material has to be generated on that scale. And it's quite possible that certain raw materials for this will soon be exhausted if we keep this up. In particular, the so-called rare earths, which are needed for the strong permanent magnets in the generators, are not that abundant. They're called that for some reason.

Perhaps you, dear reader, have other numbers in mind, in which case just use those to do our simple estimation for you. Perhaps you say that the lion's share of the mass is the reinforced concrete foundations, and that these will continue to exist during repowering. Maybe you object that exactly said magnets will be saved and the steel components melted down and reused. Then the result might be half as bad, but still bad enough to realize that this strategy is disastrous for our energy supply and existence in every way; it is the exact opposite of renewable or sustainable.

And another thing: a turbine blade has a mass of, say, 15 tons. A turbine has three of them and so, according to Adam Riese, that makes 15 x 3 x 4350 ≈ 200,000 tons of waste per year. For the most part, this is carbon or fiberglass-reinforced plastic. Where to put it? It's pretty nasty stuff and hard to recycle, because the fragments of the fibers can allegedly harm the respiratory tract. And the plastic content isn't exactly environmentally friendly either - the planet is supposed to be made plastic-free, after all.

Conclusion

We noted at the beginning that there are forms of energy that consume natural resources, to such an extent that they will be used up during the next few thousand years. Our brief consideration leaves no doubt that wind energy falls into just that category.

And not only that; wind energy on a planned scale would not only be an irresponsible depletion of the planet's resources. It would cause even more damage to the habitat of humans and animals than has already been done, not to mention the catastrophic economic consequences.

Maybe our government really has the honest intention to save the planet. But beware: The road to hell could be paved with windmills.

https://think-again.org/der-weg-zur-holle/

----------------------------------

[Skybird]

And now the whole thing again, this time for photovoltaics, this author is also a specialist. Walter Rüegg worked at the ETH as a nuclear and particle physicist and subsequently worked at ABB in the field of energy technology. The article is from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:
----------------------------------

The toxic side of solar panels - Solar energy is supposed to save the world, but it causes gigantic new problems

The energy turnaround must include all factors. This also includes the consumption of resources. If you include it, nuclear power suddenly looks much better.

In the last twenty years, the construction of wind and solar power plants has been subsidized to the tune of over a thousand billion dollars. Nevertheless, their contribution to total primary world energy consumption is still negligible, at about 2 percent.

Energy transitions have happened more quickly. In New York in 1900, more than 100,000 horses were needed to transport people and goods. Fifteen years later, there were practically none. Instead, there were 250,000 motor vehicles - without subsidies.

The laws of nature made it possible: an internal combustion engine has a power density over a hundred times greater than that of a horse, it operates 24 hours a day, and its primary energy requirement is much lower than that of the oat engine for the same transport performance. The cost advantages were resounding.

Clean at first glance

With photovoltaics, the laws of nature also appear very benevolent at first glance: electricity is generated without moving parts, silently, cleanly and with renewable primary energy. Fascinating. But nature has also put two obstacles in the way of photovoltaics: a low power density and erratic electricity production.

To generate the same amount of electricity as a nuclear power plant, we need to capture solar energy over an area of 50 to 100 million square meters. The result: a demand for raw materials that is up to a hundred times higher, depending on the material. In order to avoid the problem of "flutter power," substitute systems with additional costs, additional raw material requirements and additional CO2 emissions must step in when electricity production is insufficient.

A lot of material needed

The following comparison illustrates this: A typical 1.7 square meter solar panel weighs twenty kilograms and produces an annual average of just under 40 watts. Without a balancing system - a grid or a large battery - meaningful operation is not possible. This is because the module produces either too much, too little or no electricity at all.

A 2000-watt gasoline generator also weighs about twenty kilograms. But its construction material requirements are 50 times smaller for the same amount of power generation. Most importantly, the genset generates exactly the right amount of electricity at the right voltage at the right time. The downside: a fuel consumption of 100 liters per year at 40 watts of average power - and, worse, 240 kilograms of CO2. Nuclear would only have to "burn" a tiny 40 milligrams of uranium-235 for this annual output - CO2-free. Also fascinating.

Back to raw material consumption. One critical element is copper. Copper mining generates the largest amounts of toxic waste on the planet. Currently, the world's mineable copper reserves are estimated at 870 million tons. Annual copper demand is 28 million, and recycling today covers about 30 percent of that.

To produce the same amount of electricity as a 1-gigawatt power plant in our latitudes would require a million 50-square-meter PV roof systems, a million inverters and many millions of meters of power cables. All of this requires copper, a lot of copper - about fifty times more than a hydroelectric or nuclear power plant.

A single solar module accounts for a good 1 kilogram of copper - and about 200 kilograms of mining sludge. These slurries, called tailings, consist of finely ground ore dissolved in strong acids, bases or other solvents. This slurry contains high levels of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead and other heavy metals.

According to a study commissioned by the Federal Office for Environmental Protection, a lethal dose of arsenic is found in 700 grams of non-ferrous metal tailings on average, and in some cases in as little as 7 grams. Worldwide, PV causes about 100 million tons of copper tailings - per year. Since they are not radioactive, i.e. do not decay, they remain toxic until the end of time.

Radioactivity advantage

There is no even halfway reasonable solution in sight for the safe final disposal of billions of tons of these sludges. Compared to this, the final disposal of highly radioactive waste is downright easy. The quantities are comparatively tiny, about 1000 cubic meters net, per year, worldwide. Of course, uranium mining also generates tailings, but on a much smaller scale. Moreover, these are on average somewhat less hazardous, even when radioactivity is taken into account.

In any case, PV today fares worse than nuclear power in life cycle assessments. Particularly astonishing: If one compares the "solar" mining waste with the nuclear waste, a simple estimate shows that the amounts of toxins, converted to the electricity produced, are similarly large - about 50,000 lethal doses per gigawatt hour. The difference: after a few hundred years, only 5000 doses of poison remain in the radiating waste, and it continues to decay.

Storage issue

Even greater differences exist in the storage of the waste: The radioactive substances are in water-insoluble ceramics or glass, packed in thick-walled steel containers, strictly monitored. Later, we put them many hundreds of meters underground - in our own country. Or - better - we use them as fuel in suitable reactors, destroying them to a large extent in the process.

Mining sludge, on the other hand, is usually stored in huge open reservoirs, even in industrialized countries, and in some cases "disposed of" directly into rivers - mostly in distant countries. It's hard to believe: about 1 million square kilometers are now occupied by mining waste, an area 24 times the size of Switzerland.

Unrealistic conversion

Burning more than 15 billion tons of fossil fuels per year is at least as bad and ongoing a burden. In the next few decades, we will have to get rid of it. A Herculean task: 80 percent of the world's energy consumption today is based on fossil fuels (coal, gas and oil).

If we want to replace them with electricity from PV and wind power, we need to dramatically increase their contribution to world energy consumption, from 2 percent today to over 60 percent. This is completely illusory in the next twenty to thirty years. Costs and raw material requirements (copper, aluminum, steel, nickel, lithium and other materials) would be enormous. For in addition, one must also replace all fossil machines and equipment with electric ones. Most importantly, one would need a plethora of backup systems (controllable power plants and/or storage) to plug the many production gaps and winter holes.

To conserve resources and finances, we should build solar and wind plants not at home, but mainly where there is sun and wind in abundance. Large-scale photovoltaic plants in the desert belt require barely a third of the raw materials (for the same electricity generation) and cost only a fraction. Nevertheless, the laws of nature prevent photovoltaic and wind power generation from ever being as reliable and resource-efficient as nuclear or hydroelectric power.

Sleeping beauty of nuclear power

Since hydropower cannot be expanded indefinitely, nuclear power will dominate in the long term. But nuclear power is only slowly awakening from the politically imposed slumber of the last forty years. It needs twenty to thirty years to become available on a truly large scale. Today, there are over 400 nuclear power plants in operation, 55 under construction, and another 100 in planning.

To decarbonize the world, you would have to multiply the stock by a factor as large as solar and wind. Very difficult, even if the conditions (cost and raw material requirements) are better. Compared to modern nuclear power plants (such as AP1000, VVER-1200, APR1400, HPR1000), solar plants in Switzerland cost at least two to four times more, and that's without backup systems or storage.

Coal in Asia and Africa

Since we cannot rapidly expand either renewable energy or nuclear power, we must accept that fossil fuels will dominate for the next twenty to thirty years. Despite all 27 climate conferences to date and all the energy turnarounds.

Gas and coal consumption reached new record levels in 2022. A decline is not in sight, on the contrary. This is because 476 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants and 859 gigawatts of gas-fired power plants are under construction or in planning (according to the Global Energy Monitor, as of July 2022), most of them in Asia and Africa. This increase is enormous, equivalent to nearly half of today's global electricity demand. It means several billion tons of additional CO2 emissions per year - and a lot of particulate matter. Nevertheless, this expansion is urgently needed to lift one to two billion people out of poverty. This will also slow down population growth.

The huge expansion of fossil energies is based on the reliability of such plants, see the example with the gasoline generator. This expansion also shows that a power grid cannot be operated reliably and economically with mainly solar and wind power. And certainly not in our sun- and wind-deficient country with a big winter hole. The world will not get around a major expansion of nuclear power.
-----------------------------

[Jimbuna]

https://www.google.com/search?q=ener...id:FYQcqg3ugbk

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

https://www.google.com/search?q=ener...id:FYQcqg3ugbk

Which one of these, Jim? Its the result list by Google, not the specific target text you intended.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Which one of these, Jim? Its the result list by Google, not the specific target text you intended.

Put up the wrong link and now unable to find it again...sorry

[Skybird]

Germany wants to impose anti-atom-ideology onto all others. Thankfully it looks that it fails in that. That is relevant, very much so, since fusion energy, if it ever comes, still is many, many decades away.



The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
-----------------------------------------------

Paris threatens Berlin with pipeline blockade


The dispute over hydrogen from nuclear power is coming to a head: Just three weeks ago, the disagreements between Germany and France seemed to have been resolved. Now there is no sign of that.

Just three weeks ago, the differences between Berlin and Paris seemed to have been smoothed over. At the Franco-German Council of Ministers, President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) demonstrated unity after a series of disagreements. Harmony was exuded in particular by a compromise on the question of whether hydrogen, an energy carrier considered indispensable for decarbonization, should be classified as climate-friendly only on the basis of wind and solar power.

Paris has been pushing for months for hydrogen produced with nuclear power to be given such a rating - and believed it had convinced Berlin of this at the Council of Ministers. It would "ensure that both renewable and low-carbon hydrogen can be taken into account in the European decarbonization targets," was the wording in the Franco-German statement, whereby "low-carbon" should be translated as "of nuclear origin" and, according to reports, should only not be called that at the insistence of the Greens. In return for this concession from the German side, Paris gave its green light to the extension of the planned Spanish-French hydrogen pipeline H2Med to Germany.

Now, however, the Franco-German hydrogen compromise is wobbling. Berlin is not sticking to the negotiation result, Europe Secretary Laurence Boone said Monday, threatening to block the construction of H2Med. "France agreed to the H2Med project when it became clear that the pipeline could also be used to transport low-carbon hydrogen, not natural gas," she told the F.A.Z. newspaper. France had agreed to the project only after a long hesitation, because it does not want to be only a transit country.

Earlier, French Energy Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher had already indirectly accused both Berlin and Madrid of breaking their word. Despite the latest agreements, Germany and Spain continue to oppose accepting hydrogen from nuclear power plants as "green". In doing so, they are targeting the ongoing discussion on the EU's "Red III" directive, which sets higher targets for the share of renewables in the energy mix. "These negotiations are not taking a satisfactory turn," Pannier-Runacher said in early February. She called it "incomprehensible if Spain and Germany would carry different positions to Brussels and not keep their commitments."

The German government sees no contradiction with the January statement. Renewable and "low-carbon" hydrogen had been explicitly distinguished from each other in the text. Therefore, the energy carrier derived from nuclear power can precisely not be considered renewable or "green," as France claims, it said in Berlin on Monday. The French nuclear energy, as mentioned in the text, at best serves the "European decarbonization goals," but not the expansion of renewable energies agreed upon in the EU. That's why the statement also says very clearly that they are sticking to the "general ambition level of renewable energy targets."

Government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit recalled that Germany and France "have set out their respective divergent or different positions on the use of nuclear energy." Both countries could pursue their own path "as far as climate-neutral economies are concerned," he said. It is in the interest of all EU governments to get the hydrogen economy up and running in general, he said. Only in the second step, he said, is it a matter of how it is produced. For Germany, renewable sources are crucial, "others have other priorities there."

The Franco-German dispute is breaking out at a time when Paris has won an important stage victory on hydrogen classification - which is of great importance to investors. In a so-called delegated act published Monday, the European Commission stipulates that in addition to hydrogen from renewable energy sources, those from nuclear energy will also be classified as "green."

Specifically, it says that countries with a low-carbon electricity mix (i.e., with a high proportion of nuclear power) will be exempt from the so-called "additionality rule" for a transitional period. This regulation states that green hydrogen will only come from "additional" sources of renewable electricity. It is intended to prevent hydrogen production from "eating up" the use of renewable sources for other purposes, thus promoting electricity generation from fossil fuel power plants.

The main beneficiaries of the new regulation are France and Sweden. Both derive a high proportion of their energy from nuclear power. Originally, the Commission had only wanted to classify hydrogen as sustainable if the electricity required for it consistently came from wind and solar parks that were additionally built. The European Parliament, on the other hand, had advocated a less restrictive regulation in order to accelerate the growth of the young industry.

Green MEP Michael Bloss called it a "scandal" that this should now also apply to hydrogen from nuclear power. "The label fraud continues," he said, referring to the fact that the Commission had already classified investments in gas and nuclear power as "green" in its "taxonomy" in January 2022. The EU needs hydrogen from renewables "and not incentives to keep outdated nuclear reactors online," Bloss said. The legislation published by the Commission can only enter into force if a majority of member states and the Parliament have not objected within two months.

According to reports, the French Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton in particular lobbied for the exemption. Accordingly, the legal act in the house of Energy Minister Pannier-Runacher on Monday in conversation with journalists as a "French victory". However, the discussion about the recognition of nuclear power in the Renewable Energy Directive has not become superfluous.

The French energy ministry is calling for the logic underlying the legal act to be applied to "Red III" as well - in other words, for hydrogen from nuclear power to be recognized in the renewables targets as well, instead of being blocked for ideological reasons. This is not an equation of renewables and nuclear energy, but is simply reasonable for decarbonization.
--------------------------------------

[Jimbuna]

British Gas owner Centrica has posted huge profits after oil and gas prices soared last year, sparking renewed calls for energy firms to pay more tax.

Its profits hit £3.3bn for 2022, more than triple the £948m it made in 2021.

Energy firms have seen record profits since oil and gas prices jumped following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The figures come after British Gas was criticised over its use of debt agents to force-fit prepayment meters in the homes of vulnerable customers.

Energy firms have faced huge pressure to pay more tax in the UK on their profits, as many households struggle with higher gas and electricity bills. Shell and BP have reported record profits this year.

The End Fuel Poverty Coalition campaign group said the energy market was "failing consumers and is in desperate need of reform".

But Centrica boss Chris O'Shea said the company last year invested £75m in supporting customers of British Gas, the UK's largest electricity and gas supplier, providing "much needed stability and support".

Most of Centrica's bumper profits came from its nuclear and oil and gas business, rather than from the British Gas energy supply business, which contributed just £72m of the £3.3bn profit. The sale of its Spirit Energy oil and gas business in May also boosted the figures.

Due to competition rules, Centrica cannot sell its own gas at a discount to British Gas customers.

In fact, it said British Gas's profits had decreased by 39% compared with 2021's levels, largely because of "voluntary donations" to support customers and the repayment of furlough funds from the pandemic.

In addition, Centrica said:

It paid £1bn in tax relating to its 2022 profits, the vast majority of which were paid in the UK.
Of that, about £54m was paid as result of the windfall tax - called the Energy Profits Levy - which was introduced by the government last year to recoup some of the "extraordinary" earnings made by firms, and to help fund lower gas and electricity bills for households.
Centrica also said it would increase the money it returned to its shareholders as it launched a £300m share buyback scheme.
Mr O'Shea refused to be drawn on whether he would waive his bonus for the past year, saying it was "too early to have a conversation". He turned down a £1.1m bonus for the previous financial year.

He is due to receive an annual salary of £794,375 for the past year and Centrica's annual incentive plan means he could also be eligible for an almost £1.6m bonus if targets are met.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64652142