I reckon the bottom is about 6 months away and probably less than $40 per barrel before there is some recovery. If the price does not fall that much, or if it recovers faster, then Saudi Arabia will have lost its battle against shale oil. In any event, shale oil is here to stay and all Saudi Arabia can hope for is to restrict new and small oil shale wells. Even a steep fall to around $40, held for a period of only 6 – 12 months, will not be enough to put all shale oil producers out of business and win the battle against shale oil.
Archive for the ‘Energy’ Category
Russia’s Rosatom had offered a to supply the reactor for the 1,200 megawatt Hanhikivi 1 nuclear power plant for Fennovoima at Pyhäjoki in north-east Finland. The Finnish government had required Finnish ownership of greater than 60% as a condition for granting a license for construction. Construction is planned to start in 2015 for the plant to be in operation in 2024. With Finnish Fortum now taking a 15% share in the project, Finnish ownership now exceeds 65%.
The Finnish parliament has this morning has given the basic approval for construction to start.
Finland’s parliament on Friday approved plans to build a new nuclear plant supplied by Russia’s state-owned Rosatom despite East-West tensions over the Ukraine crisis.
With support from 115 parliamentarians against 74 opposed, the vote comes at a time when the European Union has called for EU member states to curb energy deals with Russia.
The Fennovoima reactor in northern Finland, which will be supplied and fuelled by Rosatom, is expected to begin output in 2024.
NEI: Finland’s Fennovoima and Rusatom Overseas have signed a Project Development Agreement aiming at a nuclear power plant supply contract for Hanhikivi 1 to be signed by the end of 2013.
The companies have set “common targets,” according to which negotiations will be carried out. They are also in talks over the possibility of Rusatom Overseas acquiring a 34% stake in Fennovoima.
The Russian 1200 MW AES-2006 pressurized water reactor (VVER) is being considered for the Hanhikivi 1 project, in northern Finland. The plant corresponds with IAEA and EUR requirements, according to Rusatom Overseas. However, for licensing purposes it “will be adapted to be in accordance with Finnish national safety standards.”
Direct negotiations with Rusatom Overseas begun in April 2013. Talks also started with Toshiba in February 2013, but will now only continue with the Russian firm.
Fennovoima, which is owned by 60 companies representing industry, trade, and energy sectors from all around Finland, said that before a plant supply contract is signed, all of Fennovoima’s owners must decide on their continuation in the project.
UPDATE: Reuters – Saudi Arabia’s oil Minister Ali al-Naimi declares war on US Shale OIL
Yesterday Saudi Arabia got its way at the OPEC meeting and successfully resisted all calls for a cut in production to try and stop the decline of world oil prices. It seems Saudi Arabia (which has the lowest oil production cost in the world) has chosen the strategy of maintaining an oil price low enough to put a cap on US shale oil production and provide a disincentive for new shale oil wells.
This strategy is premised on the break-even price for shale oil being at or above $80 per barrel for small production sites down to about $30 per barrel for large production sites. For example Credit Suisse estimated these levels as varying between $24 and $85 earlier this year.
The US department of Energy puts sustainable break even values between $35 and $54. The Saudi calculations seem to be based on similar estimates. They appear to believe that with current oil prices moving down to about $70 per barrel, some of the smaller US oil shale wells are already uneconomic and that at this price new investment for further production sites will dry up.
But shale oil production costs are declining – fast. Costs are coming down following the learning curve for both capital costs and running costs. The analyst estimates are already out of date. My estimate is that actual break-even points are already down about 20% from those in the Credit Suisse estimate.
So I believe the Saudis have miscalculated. The average break-even world price for shale oil is probably – already – closer to $40 per barrel rather than $60-70 per barrel being assumed. While new investment in shale oil wells may well be toned down by world oil consumption, it will probably not be because world oil price is below some critical threshold. If the Saudis believe that any uptick in consumption will bring the oil price back up to over $80 per barrel, they are following a flawed strategy. We could be in for a decade of relatively low oil prices perhaps with a floor at around $40 per barrel and set by the average break-even for shale oil.
Consumers are still very wary. They are not sure that the reduction in oil price will be sustained and is not just a temporary dip which might lure them into a higher and more vulnerable consumption level. It will take a few months for them to see that OPEC has actually lost control over the world oil price but is still in denial about that. A sustained low oil price is what will trigger a new – and sustained – wave of global growth that is now so badly needed. The cartel is shrinking. New shale oil producers will all be outside the cartel – and the sooner Europe, China and India start production the better. But it is the beginning of the end of the OPEC cartel power.
History will – I think – show that the OPEC cartel lasted for 50 years. It will show that the cartel started in 1973 and that market forces of supply and demand were re-established around 2020.
Currently US crude is at just above $76 per barrel and Brent oil is at about $80. OPEC members are meeting this week in Vienna and it is thought that cuts to oil production of between 0.5 million and 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) are possible. The drop in oil prices since June (from around $110 per barrel is due to a glut which in turn is due to over production, large quantities of US shale oil becoming available and simultaneously a reduced demand from China and others. Saudi Arabia is conspicuous by not having made any significant production cuts so far. This could be due to one of 3 reasons:
- Saudi Arabia is testing the breaking point for some of the shale oil producers since some of the smaller shale wells probably have a break-even level of around $60-70 per barrel, or
- Saudi Arabia and the US are targeting Russia and Iran whose economies are vulnerable and very dependent on the oil price (and the Russians alone would lose some $100 billion in oil revenues per year), or
- Saudi Arabia is tired of bearing the brunt of the production cuts and is forcing some of the smaller OPEC producers to take their share of the pain of production cuts.
If cuts of less than 0.5 million barrels per day are made it is thought that the prices are headed down to about $60 per barrel. One analyst estimates that a cut of 2 million bpd is needed to get back up to $80 per barrel. Something in between will be – well – something in between.
I just don’t like cartels and especially when they are state sponsored cartels. So far shale oil production is just from the US, and the OPEC strangle-hold on oil price has yet to be broken. But, over time, I expect this cartel to weaken as other countries produce oil and gas from shale. I remain of the opinion that the OPEC cartel has – no doubt – enriched the oil producing countries but has only done so at the expense of the rate of development of non-producers. OPEC has done the global economy a disservice by holding back the developing countries and the strongest correlation in geopolitics is the link between energy consumption and development (not just GDP but also virtually every development parameter).
It may cause some short term turbulence but in the long run it will be a “good thing” even if oil price were to collapse to below $50 per barrel. Some producers will be hard hit but the net result for the global economy will be positive. So I shall be quite happy if OPEC cannot reach agreement on how much oil production to cut or if they make just a small cut. It is time for some of the the developing countries to get a break from the oil price extortion which has been in place since 1973. The sooner the OPEC cartel is rendered obsolete the better.
Some commodity fund managers believe oil prices could slide to $60 per barrel if OPEC does not agree a significant output cut when it meets in Vienna this week. Brent crude futures have fallen by a third since June, touching a four-year low of $76.76 a barrel on Nov. 14. They could tumble further if OPEC does not agree to cut at least one million barrels per day (bpd), according to some commodity fund managers’ forecasts. …..
Yet fund managers and brokerage analysts are divided over whether OPEC will reach an agreement on cutting output. Bathe put the likelihood at no more than 50 percent. Oil prices have been falling since the summer due to abundant supply, partly from U.S. shale oil, and because of low demand growth, particularly in Europe and Asia. As a result, some investors believe a small cut of around 500,000 bpd would not be enough to calm the markets. Doug King, chief investment officer of RCMA Capital, sees Brent falling to $70 per barrel even with a cut of one million bpd.
“With this, I would expect lower prices in the first half of 2015,” he said. If OPEC fails to agree a cut, prices will drop “further and quite quickly”, with U.S. crude possibly sliding to $60, he said. U.S. crude closed at $76.51 on Friday, with Brent just above $80. ……..
The market has been awash with conspiracy theories as to why Saudi Arabia has not already intervened. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman hinted at “a global oil war under way pitting the United States and Saudi Arabia on one side against Russia and Iran on the other”. Hepworth argued that Saudi Arabia appeared pretty happy with current pricing levels and suggested they were waiting to see where the cut-off point for U.S. production was. “Time is on their side, they can afford to wait,” he said, stressing he was talking months, not years, but added if oil fell below $70 that waiting time “shrinks to weeks”.
Tom Nelson, of Investec Global Energy Fund, said he believed Saudi Arabia had allowed the price to fall to incentivise smaller OPEC producers, which often rely on the biggest producer to intervene, to join Riyadh in cutting output. “They (the Saudis) want to cut but they don’t want to cut alone,” Nelson said, adding that a cut of between one million and 1.5 million bpd should be sufficient to balance the market.
“The market really wants to see that OPEC is still functioning … if there is a small cut, with an accompanying statement of coherence from OPEC that presents a united front, and talks about seeing demand recovery, and some moderation of supply growth, then Brent could move up to $80-$90.”
If the recent drop in oil price has been engineered (even in part) by Saudi Arabia as an attempt to put some of the burgeoning shale oil production sites out of business they will need to go much further. A break-even for shale oil production is probably at less than $50 per barrel. In any event the drop so far (25%+ in 6 months) is just the fillip the world economy needs. Saudi Arabia is probably not as vulnerable as other oil producing countries but increasing production to drive down the oil price is a dangerous game which could be self-defeating. Whether the current glut is just due to reduced world (read Chinese) demand and increased shale oil (US) production or has also been exacerbated by increased Saudi production, the oil consumer wins. Consumption will increase – and that will automatically reduce the glut and further increase the production of oil from shale.
If the global economy is to come out of the doldrums it needs the Asian economies – the tigers, the dragon and the elephant – to start prowling in earnest. Increasing consumption in the developing world seems to be one of the most effective ways of stimulating the world economy. It inevitably leads to increased production of consumer goods in the developed countries. And this current step-reduction of oil price could be just the trigger that is needed.
Yesterday the price of crude (WTI) was at about $77 per barrel and that price is sufficient to keep even the small shale oil wells in operation.
There are two questions here of course:
- How will oil price develop over the next 2 years? And the only certain thing is that forecasts will be wrong, and
- Can the net difference between the positive effect on oil consuming countries and the negative effects on oil producing countries be sufficient to lift the global ecoonmy out of its doldrums?
Oil prices have dropped 25% since June and currently WTI crude is at $81 and Brent crude is at $86 – down from around $110 – 115 in June. How far can prices drop and for how long? Of course this depends on supply and demand. But I think there is a new paradigm here and created by the injection of shale oil into the mix. I suspect that shale oil production now establishes a new floor price which means that the prices cannot drop lower than about $60 or possibly even $70. Oil from the traditional, large oil wells can still be produced profitably at much lower prices. But shale oil is more expensive to produce partly due to the costs of fracking but also due to smaller individual wells which last for shorter periods than the large oil wells. This in turn means that there is both a higher investment cost and a higher operating cost for shale oil compared to “traditional” oil. It is thought that as shale oil increases its contribution to the total mix, this production cost will set a floor for all oil at around $60-70 instead of the $30-40 needed for break-even (zero exploration) with traditional oil. The oil companies will maintain profits and dividends by scaling down jobs and their new exploration costs which is the variable they can play with . It is the oil producing countries who will lose tax revenues (offset by increased production – if any).
Goldman Sachs have forecast in a new research report that prices could drop to $70 by the second quarter of 2015.
Reuters 27/10: Brent crude futures fell below $86 a barrel on Monday after Goldman Sachs cut its price forecasts for the contract and for U.S. oil in the first quarter of next year by $15.
The U.S. investment bank said in a research note on Sunday that it had cut its forecast for West Texas Intermediate to $75 a barrel from $90 and that for Brent to $85 from $100, with rising production in non-OPEC countries outside North America expected to outstrip demand.
The bank expects WTI to fall as low as $70 a barrel and Brent to hit $80 in the second quarter of 2015, when it expects oversupply to be most pronounced.
Even Saudi Arabia now seems to have accepted that a regime of low prices will last 1 – 2 years.
Reuters 26/10: The recent decline in global oil prices will prove temporary even if it lasts a year or so, since population growth will ultimately bring higher consumption and prices, the chief executive of Saudi Basic Industries Corp said on Sunday.
Mohamed al-Mady was speaking to reporters after the company, one of the world’s largest petrochemicals groups and the Gulf’s largest listed company, reported a 4.5 percent drop in third-quarter net income, missing analysts’ forecasts.
At these price levels for 2 years almost $3 trillion will shift from the “few” producers to the “many” consumers. But most of this could fuel consumer growth (which it would not do to the same extent when in the hands of the oil producers). The consumer countries will also lose the foreign exchange constraints they must operate under for purchase of oil in US Dollars. It could release monies desperately needed for infrastructure projects. But the consumer countries need the prices to stay low for some time – and I would guess that 2 years is a minimum – for the public funds released to be utilised in “growth” projects.
The Economist: For governments in consuming countries the price fall offers some budgetary breathing-room. Fuel subsidies hog scandalous amounts of money in many developing countries—20% of public spending in Indonesia and 14% in India (including fertiliser and food). Lower prices give governments the opportunity to spend the money more productively or return it to the taxpayers. This week India led the way by announcing an end to diesel subsidies. Others should follow Narendra Modi’s lead.
Producer countries will be hit. Russia has actually been helped by the fall in the rouble which has cushioned – a little – the rouble values of the dropping oil revenue.
The most vulnerable are Venezuela, Iran and Russia.
The first to crack could be Venezuela, home to the anti-American “Bolivarian revolution”, which the late Hugo Chávez tried to export around his region. Venezuela’s budget is based on oil at $120 a barrel. Even before the price fall it was struggling to pay its debts. Foreign-exchange reserves are dwindling, inflation is rampant and Venezuelans are enduring shortages of everyday goods such as flour and toilet paper.
Iran is also in a tricky position. It needs oil at about $140 a barrel to balance a profligate budget padded with the extravagant spending schemes of its former president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Sanctions designed to curb its nuclear programme make it especially vulnerable. Some claim that Sunni Saudi Arabia is conspiring with America to use the oil price to put pressure on its Shia rival. Whatever the motivation, the falling price is certainly having that effect.
Compared with these two, Russia can bide its time. A falling currency means that the rouble value of oil sales has dropped less than its dollar value, cushioning tax revenues and limiting the budget deficit.
There are a number of other effects of $70 per barrel for oil.
Bio-fuels and bio-diesel, which are fundamentally unsound, have stayed alive on the back of subsidies on the one hand and a high oil price on the other. If the prices stay at $70 for 2 years or longer, land currently being wasted on bio-fuels could revert to food production. With lower fertiliser and transport costs in addition, a great deal of pressure on food prices go away. If the floor price is set by shale oil production costs, it may be too low for oil production from tar sands to take off in any big way. Electricity production costs will be bench-marked against the cost of gas turbine combined cycle plants.
But most importantly, another 2 years or longer with the public spending pressures reduced will allow a number of other countries to get their own shale oil (and gas) production going. And that will make Opec and the oil cartel obsolete. Oil and gas price speculation will no longer be possible.
It could provide the start for a long sustained period – perhaps even a decade or two – with oil prices stable at around $70 per barrel.
A new study published in PNAS has used thermal imaging to test the the hypotheses that wind speed and blade rotation speed influenced the way that bats interacted with turbines. They found that the air currents around slow speed turbines could be fooling the bats into thinking they were the air currents associated with tall trees. It is suggested that around trees the air currents led to the bats searching for roosts and nocturnal insect prey that could accumulate in such air flows. Thus bat behaviour which had evolved as being advantageous around tall trees might now be the reason why many bats die at wind turbines.
“Fatalities of tree bats at turbines may be the consequence of behaviors that evolved to provide selective advantages when elicited by tall trees, but are now maladaptive when elicited by wind turbines”.
Paul Cryan et al, Behavior of bats at wind turbines, PNAS, Vol. 111 no. 42, 15126–15131, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1406672111
Bats are dying in unprecedented numbers at wind turbines, but causes of their susceptibility are unknown. Fatalities peak during low-wind conditions in late summer and autumn and primarily involve species that evolved to roost in trees. Common behaviors of “tree bats” might put them at risk, yet the difficulty of observing high-flying nocturnal animals has limited our understanding of their behaviors around tall structures. We used thermal surveillance cameras for, to our knowledge, the first time to observe behaviors of bats at experimentally manipulated wind turbines over several months. We discovered previously undescribed patterns in the ways bats approach and interact with turbines, suggesting behaviors that evolved at tall trees might be the reason why many bats die at wind turbines.
Wind turbines are causing unprecedented numbers of bat fatalities. Many fatalities involve tree-roosting bats, but reasons for this higher susceptibility remain unknown. To better understand behaviors associated with risk, we monitored bats at three experimentally manipulated wind turbines in Indiana, United States, from July 29 to October 1, 2012, using thermal cameras and other methods. We observed bats on 993 occasions and saw many behaviors, including close approaches, flight loops and dives, hovering, and chases. Most bats altered course toward turbines during observation. Based on these new observations, we tested the hypotheses that wind speed and blade rotation speed influenced the way that bats interacted with turbines. We found that bats were detected more frequently at lower wind speeds and typically approached turbines on the leeward (downwind) side. The proportion of leeward approaches increased with wind speed when blades were prevented from turning, yet decreased when blades could turn. Bats were observed more frequently at turbines on moonlit nights. Taken together, these observations suggest that bats may orient toward turbines by sensing air currents and using vision, and that air turbulence caused by fast-moving blades creates conditions that are less attractive to bats passing in close proximity. Tree bats may respond to streams of air flowing downwind from trees at night while searching for roosts, conspecifics, and nocturnal insect prey that could accumulate in such flows. Fatalities of tree bats at turbines may be the consequence of behaviors that evolved to provide selective advantages when elicited by tall trees, but are now maladaptive when elicited by wind turbines.
It might seem counter-intuitive for Russia to be against the advent and development of shale gas in Europe since they themselves have huge quantities of oil and gas bearing shale in Siberia. But Russia has a very large investment in conventional natural gas production and pipelines (through Gazprom) which must be protected and nurtured. Putin needs to ensure revenues and that exports of conventional natural gas gives them a reasonable return on the investment before moving onto shale gas. About 30% of Europe’s gas comes from Russia. Russia needs Europe to go slow with its own shale gas production and to continue buying Russian gas at reasonably high prices for as long as possible. So much so that Russia has even been supporting anti-fracking groups in Europe. (It is a little ironic when the European anti-fracking alarmists take well disguised Russian funds and play into Russian hands).
The MotleyFool: Now there are accusations that Russia is working hard to keep Europe dependent on its gas supplies. According to Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Russia is doing this by funding anti-fracking groups. That’s something that some of the larger groups deny, but it would be hard to suss out where all of their donations come from in the anti-fracking movement.
There are good reasons for Russia to undertake such a covert operation. For starters, Gazprom would suffer greatly if its European business started to slip away. Second, by keeping Europe hooked on Gazprom gas, Russia maintains a strong bargaining position in world politics.
That, however, just gives the United States more reason to come to the aid of its European allies. Right now, the export of U.S. natural gas is severely limited. With the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the U.S., however, the flow of gas has outstripped demand and pushed U.S. domestic gas prices to record low levels.
While being able to sell natural gas to Europe would be a huge win for Europe politically and U.S. gas drillers financially, it would also be a big win for pipeline operators like Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI ) . Moving natural gas from where it’s drilled to where it’s used made up roughly 50% of Kinder Morgan’s business last year. The business isn’t about natural gas prices, either; it’s about providing a service. CEO Richard Kinder describes it this way: “We operate like a giant toll road.” So, if natural gas starts going overseas, Kinder Morgan will be involved in the process and make money doing it.
The possibility of surplus shale gas from the US entering Europe and depressing sales of Russian natural gas is a nightmare economic scenario for Vladimir Putin. Even the recent drop in oil prices has seriously unbalanced the Russian budget which needs an oil price of over $100 to be in balance.
Putin is clearly worried. Russian President Vladimir Putin took part at the plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi. He talked up the risks with US shale gas to Europe and talking up the benefits of Russian gas.
Tass: Putin: Europe’s transition to American shale gas will be suicidal for EU economies
Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that transition to shale gas will be suicidal for the EU economies. In his speech at the Valdai discussion club on Friday, Putin said that Russia’s trade turnover with the European Union stood at 260 billion dollars in the first half of 2014 even despite sanctions. He assumed, however, that the trade volumes could fall if Russia stopped all gas and oil supplies to Europe.
“We assume that it can happen at the will of our partners in Europe. But it’s hard to imagine,” Putin said, explaining that alternatives to Russian gas and oil supplies were worse.
It is either the crisis-hit Middle East where the “Islamic State” militants have stepped their operations or deliveries of shale gas and shale oil from the United States.
“We can imagine that /deliveries/ of shale oil and shale gas from the United States are possible. But how much it will cost?” Putin asked.
“This is going to be a direct way to reducing their own competitive ability because it is going to be more expensive than our pipe gas or oil delivered from deposits in Russia,” the Russian president went on to say.
“They are simply going to kill their competitive ability. What kind of a colony Europe should be to agree to this option. But I believe that common sense will prevail. The same is true of Asia,” Putin said in conclusion.
For very many reasons the very best thing that Europe (and Asia) could do would be to expedite the production of their own shale gas. It would bring down energy prices, stimulate growth, increase jobs, increase independence from Russia, increase exports, increase competitiveness against the US and consolidate energy intensive industries which are moving out. But this would have to overcome the opposition of the alarmist, European green parties who have a remarkable facility for being counter-productive.
Opposing the development of shale gas in Europe gives Russia the edge on the geopolitical playing field.
The German economy is export driven.
As long as Greece and Spain and the weaker Euro zone countries were holding back the value of the Euro, German exports and its economy boomed. Unemployment reached extremely low levels. There was a shortage of qualified labour. But now the German economy is stagnating and the high cost for energy, resulting from the misguided, self-mutilating Energiewende, is one of the chief contributors. The total cost to German consumers and German industry is comparable to the bailouts of the weak Eurozone countries. For no benefit.
Der Spiegel (2013): German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe. But because the government is failing to get the costs of its new energy policy under control, rising prices are already on the horizon. Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, and one of the country’s most important future-oriented projects is acutely at risk. …..
….. For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants — electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.
These are unsustainable costs. Industries dependent on high electricity consumption have found it increasingly difficult to compete against the lower electricity costs especially in the US. Investment and jobs have started shifting to areas with lower operating costs.
The project is the linchpin of Germany’s Energiewende, or energy revolution, a mammoth, trillion-euro plan to wean the country off nuclear and fossil fuels by midcentury and the top domestic priority of Chancellor Angela Merkel.
But many companies, economists and even Germany’s neighbors worry that the enormous cost to replace a currently working system will undermine the country’s industrial base and weigh on the entire European economy. Germany’s second-quarter GDP decline of 0.6%, reported earlier this month, put a damper on overall euro-zone growth, leaving it flat for the quarter.
Average electricity prices for companies have jumped 60% over the past five years because of costs passed along as part of government subsidies of renewable energy producers. Prices are now more than double those in the U.S.
Now the business climate is sharply down, orders are falling and costs are still increasing.
Der Spiegel (Oct 2014): The problem, though, is that Europe’s motor is losing steam, with a slew of bad news about the German economy in recent weeks. The latest business climate index published by the respected Munich economic think tank Ifo, which is considered to be a reliable early indicator, fell for the fifth straight month in September to its lowest level in almost a year and a half. Furthermore, German factory orders are down and exports are collapsing. And last week, the country’s leading economic research institutes issued downward revisions of their economic forecasts for this year and next.
Merkel’s new government have been on a give-away spree and that has not helped. Now finding funds to spur investment is becoming increasingly difficult. Meanwhile the ludicrous subsidies for renewable energy continue to drain the economy. The Energiewende is profligate, has no measurable benefits and has only led to more coal being burnt.
At the very beginning of its term, Merkel’s current government approved an expensive package of what amounted to pension gifts for women and older workers that is now consuming up to €9 billion a year in public finances. In their autumn economic forecast released last week, the country’s leading economic think tanks warned that the German government has “already given away a substantial amount of its room for maneuver.”
Compounding the problem is that measures taken by the government — a coalition of Merkel’s CDU and the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) — are contributing to weak growth. The think tanks predict that projects undertaken by the coalition, including allowing people to retire at the age of 63 and the introduction of Germany’s first-ever national minimum wage, will cause around 300,000 jobs a year to disappear. The CDU and SPD haven’t done much to fuel investments to counter that trend either. Interest rates in Germany may be lower than they’ve ever been before, but few companies have plans to build new factories or buy additional heavy machinery, they warn. The report states that while the many international crises do play a role — from the Middle East to Ukraine — homegrown factors do as well, especially the hostile environment created by (the government’s) economic policies.”
In Poland a different kind of energy revolution is taking place. Two new nuclear plants are being planned. Shale gas development is inevitable but is being hampered by the environmentalists. So more coal is being burned as in Germany.
The world has more to gain from a Germany with a strong economy exporting its excellent products. The pointless and profligate Energiewende needs to be dumped. Germans and Germany and the world are paying the price of pointless political correctness.
Lockheed-Martin and compact fusion – a long way away but more credible than the E-Cat cold-fusion hypeOctober 21, 2014
Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat cold fusion claims still smell like a fraud. It has been hyped for over 4 years now with little to show. I am somewhat surprised that there are still a few gullible academics and journalists around who keep the circus going.
The Lockheed-Martin development of a compact fusion reactor has a long way to go but I find it much more credible. I could consider betting some money on the compact fusion reactor but would not touch the E-Cat with a very, very, long barge pole.
Th availability of a fusion reactor of any kind would revolutionise the availability of electrical energy but always subject to cost. Mere availability would not be enough to cause a paradigm shift. The availability of gas (natural gas, shale gas and gas from methane hydrates) now extends to about 1,000 years. The use of gas turbine combined-cycle power plants, which have a 2 year construction period, will provide the cost benchmark for electricity production. Where fusion might place in the power generation mix will depend on its operating cost but the level to which it may penetrate will depend on the capital cost and the construction time.
A compact reactor as envisaged by Lockheed- Martin however would be a game changer not only for electricity generation but also for desalination, electrical vehicles and even space travel. The beauty of “compact” if achieved is that it “automatically” leads to low-cost and modular construction.
The probablity of success in the time-frame envisagesd is still low. It is a high risk development and it will not be cheap. But the potential reward is immense.
Some of the characteristics of their high-beta, compact reactor are:
- The device is cylindrical and 2×2×4 meters in size.
- The magnetic field increases the farther out that the plasma goes, which pushes the plasma back in.
- It also has very few open field lines (very few paths for the plasma to leak out; uses a cylinder, not a Tokamak ring).
- Very good arch curvature of the field lines.
- The system has a beta of about 1.
- This system uses deuterium and tritium.
- The system heats the plasma using radio waves.
PALMDALE, Calif., Oct. 15, 2014 – The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] Skunk Works® team is working on a new compact fusion reactor (CFR) that can be developed and deployed in as little as ten years. Currently, there are several patents pending that cover their approach.
While fusion itself is not new, the Skunk Works has built on more than 60 years of fusion research and investment to develop an approach that offers a significant reduction in size compared to mainstream efforts.
“Our compact fusion concept combines several alternative magnetic confinement approaches, taking the best parts of each, and offers a 90 percent size reduction over previous concepts,” said Tom McGuire, compact fusion lead for the Skunk Works’ Revolutionary Technology Programs. “The smaller size will allow us to design, build and test the CFR in less than a year.”
After completing several of these design-build-test cycles, the team anticipates being able to produce a prototype in five years. As they gain confidence and progress technically with each experiment, they will also be searching for partners to help further the technology.