- Joined
- 20 July 2021
- Posts
- 11,855
- Reactions
- 16,522
that would depend on if Europe also builds the facilities to accept delivery ( in the required volumes ) and transport it to regional customers .. at the current rate of decisions that would be a snowflake's change in an erupting volcano .
They're already under construction.that would depend on if Europe also builds the facilities to accept delivery ( in the required volumes ) and transport it to regional customers .. at the current rate of decisions that would be a snowflake's change in an erupting volcano .
i have heard some interesting estimates .. but THEN we have the saga of the Siemens turbine to show us the NEW German efficiency ( which is still the manufacturing heart of the EU )
my bet is to consider investing in washcloths
They have some and are building more.that would depend on if Europe also builds the facilities to accept delivery ( in the required volumes ) and transport it to regional customers
there is a desire to make Hydrogen a big part of the mix , it seems that Hydrogen will not be created/generated inside the EUThey have some and are building more.
The basic problem however is there just isn't an adequate supply of LNG to supply the existing import terminals globally. There's already a shortage - adding more buyers simply makes that even worse.
Hence LNG is now the most expensive fuel around. Coal, fuel oil and even jet fuel are all cheaper on an energy content basis.
If we become a giant H2 producers..i know??...we might soon be able to do a security operation in PNG , the Salomon islands or Timor..there is a desire to make Hydrogen a big part of the mix , it seems that Hydrogen will not be created/generated inside the EU
so there will be similar issues for using that as well ( shipping and storage )
Against expectations, global food prices have tumbled
Six months after Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, an inflationary shock is still ripping through boardrooms, finance ministries and households, with European natural-gas prices surging again on August 22nd owing to fears of further disruptions to supply from Russia. But in one crucial area, prices have come back to Earth. The cost of grains, cereals and oils, staples of diets around the world, have returned to levels last seen before the war began.
Russia and Ukraine are agricultural powerhouses—until recently, the world’s largest and fifth-largest exporters of wheat and two largest exporters of sunflower oil. It was not, therefore, a surprise that food prices surged in February and March, driven by fears that exports would be disrupted by war; indeed, the worry was that shortages would persist, decimating grain stocks and causing mass starvation.
That terrible outcome now appears to have been been avoided. Last week wheat futures in Chicago, for delivery in December, dropped to $7.70 per bushel, far below the $12.79 they reached three months earlier and back to their level in February. Corn is also back to its pre-war price. Meanwhile, palm oil, found in thousands of dishes from ice cream to instant noodles, has dropped not only back to its pre-war price, but to below it (see chart).
The recent deal brokered by the United Nations, allowing Ukrainian grain exports to leave the port of Odessa, can only explain a fraction of the shift: it was inked in late July, after most of the decline in prices. More can be credited to the strength of Russian wheat exports. America’s agriculture department suggests that Russian farms, far from being disrupted, will export a record 38m tonnes in 2022-23, some 2m tonnes more than they managed the previous year. A bumper harvest is under way, in part due to good weather earlier in the year, and there is strong demand from traditional importers in north Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
The worries about shortages may have been overstated in the first place. Charles Robertson of Renaissance Capital, an investment bank, argued at the time that cereal traders were overexcited—wrongly grouping together long-term disruption to oil-and-gas supplies and less plausible prolonged disruption to the food supply. “Global wheat stocks were extremely high,” says Mr Robertson, “which told us either that the relationship between stocks and prices had broken down or...that speculation had got ahead of itself.”
The sheer volume of speculation on futures markets may also help explain the volatility. Michael Greenberger of the University of Maryland, formerly a division director at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a regulator, notes that rules limiting speculation are routinely avoided by American banks, which assign swaps to their foreign subsidiaries.
The drop in prices will not immediately feed through to consumers. Wheat and other cereal prices have returned to their pre-invasion levels when priced in dollars, but not in many other currencies. The greenback has climbed this year on the expectation of more rapid interest-rate rises by the Federal Reserve, leaving some emerging-market economies struggling. The Turkish lira is down by 26% against the dollar this year and the Egyptian pound is down 18%. The countries are two of the three largest wheat importers in the world.
Prices were extremely high by historical standards even before the war, and there is no guarantee they will not rise again. Droughts across much of the world will affect crop yields. Meanwhile, fertilisers are still extremely expensive. Urea, a compound used in the production of nitrogen-based ones, currently runs to $680 per tonne—down from $955 in mid-April, but still considerably more than the $400 it cost a year ago. That reflects the surge in the price of natural gas, an ingredient in many fertilisers. With fuel prices in Europe continuing to hit record highs, there may be more nasty surprises in store. ■
YEP !Remember this next year:
$1 billion gas project denied express approval process
Tanya Plibersek knocks back a request to exempt an energy project in southern Queensland from assessment against environmental laws, saying she is "not satisfied" it is in the national interest.www.abc.net.au
And even worse than this, gas was already something that you only really used if you had no other choice, so there isn't even really any substitutes.They have some and are building more.
The basic problem however is there just isn't an adequate supply of LNG to supply the existing import terminals globally. There's already a shortage - adding more buyers simply makes that even worse.
Hence LNG is now the most expensive fuel around. Coal, fuel oil and even jet fuel are all cheaper on an energy content basis.
if that is the case ( i have hardly ever used gas .. except a water heater at one house ) one must ask the purpose behind the push for increased gas usage ( even in preference to existing nuclear power plants )And even worse than this, gas was already something that you only really used if you had no other choice, so there isn't even really any substitutes.
There are exceptions but for a generic power generation system:if that is the case ( i have hardly ever used gas .. except a water heater at one house ) one must ask the purpose behind the push for increased gas usage ( even in preference to existing nuclear power plants )
Here's the graph form of a lot of what smurf said:There are exceptions but for a generic power generation system:
Cheapest to operate = Renewables including wind, solar, hydro etc. Nuclear.
Next cheapest = Coal.
Most expensive = Gas, Oil.
Hence the normal operating approach is to make full use of renewables and nuclear first and foremost, then coal, and to use gas / oil to do the rest.
Reason for building gas / oil plant in the first place is that it's relatively cheap up front. It thus stacks up well economically for seasonal use, peak demand, backup etc since the cheap construction offsets the higher operating cost when use is intermittent. Plus the politics since gas comes with far less controversy than nuclear power or large on river hydro dams and it's generally seen as preferable to coal too. It's an "easy" option both economically and politically to build a new gas-fired power station.
The practical implication for inflation however is that it's rather hard to replace that gas in the short term. If the problem was a lack of coal, uranium or water (hydro) well then gas-fired plant could be placed into constant operation as a means of saving coal, uranium or water. It doesn't really work in reverse though since gas is already used primarily when other sources can't do the job so whilst not zero, the options to ramp up coal or nuclear in order to use less gas are far more limited than the reverse.
To the extent they exist, the options for using more coal to replace gas commonly involve returning disused 50+ year old facilities to operation and so on. Putting back into use things that are still usable technically but they're old, inefficient and relatively high cost - hence why they were closed in the first place. For example Sweden has 3 oil-fired steam (power generating) units back in operation now that date from 1969, 1971 and 1973 respectively, that's a typical example of the approach.
Then there's uses other than power generation.
The average household or office has one method of heating, cooking or providing hot water and no short term ability to switch fuels. If they're using gas, electricity, oil or whatever well that's what they're using, they don't have the equipment to just start using something else.
For industry it varies. Plenty of boilers that can switch between oil and gas for example but when it comes to things like fertilizer production, they're set up for gas and nothing else.
So overall demand for gas is somewhat inelastic. It's not zero but the ability to rapidly substitute something else is relatively limited. Not all but a large portion of the consumption occurs in situations where there's no immediate alternative - either direct uses (eg households and industry) or as "last resort" power generation when other sources are already fully utilised (or unavailable due to maintenance etc).
That's a perfect setup for a price shock. A commodity that's used for "essential" purposes where not all but a large portion of the consumption can't rapidly switch to a substitute.
Putting this into perspective, the uses of gas can basically be placed into four categories:is going to be interesting with the national GDP once grid power becomes unreliable/mom-existent ( at the current trend they should hit record levels )
Neel Kashkari (Fed member) speaking now. To paraphrase him: the Fed is avoiding food and crude oil prices when trying to determine monetary policy given their inherent volatilityHow will this affect inflation -
This should make Friday's US PCE Core Price Index an important data point to watch, as the print will likely play a significant role in shaping expectations for the September FOMC Meeting, and therefore market direction in the build-up.Neel Kashkari (Fed member) speaking now. To paraphrase him: the Fed is avoiding food and crude oil prices when trying to determine monetary policy given their inherent volatility
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?