© Dan Wilton
By Kalte Sonne
by Klaus Henkel
“Liquefied petroleum gas cannot replace pipeline gas”. At least that’s what Goldman Sachs analyst Jeff Currie at Capital says.
“Germany is likely to fail in its attempt to replace Russian gas supplies with imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). This is the conclusion reached by Jeff Currie, leading commodity expert at the investment bank Goldman Sachs. “Germany and Central Europe have built their industry with the help of cheap gas from Russia,” Currie told the business magazine Capital (issue 06/2022, ET 19.05.2022).
“Compensating for this with liquefied petroleum gas supplies will not work.” According to Currie, LNG is too expensive to become a real alternative for pipeline gas. “You have to cool it down, transport it in expensive containers, regasify it and then feed it back into a pipeline,” he said. “It’s pointless.”
Fittingly, the report that various nature conservation associations want to take legal action against the construction of an LNG terminal in Wilhelmshaven. Die Zeit reported:
“The current energy crisis must not be abused by the gas industry to sell more natural gas in Germany than before the war,” said the Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND). The Acceleration Act logs us into oversized and climate-damaging planning,” said BUND Chairman Olaf Bandt.
Two things are already noticeable in the argumentation. Against acceleration in the construction of wind turbines with corresponding reduction of rights of those affected, the associations obviously have little problems. There is no conclusive concept of the now complaining associations as to what the substitution of Russian pipeline gas should look like in concrete terms. This refers to the short- to medium-term period and studies in which the wish was the father of the thought are unfortunately excluded. This refers to the advice that wind and sun as well as heat pumps can replace Russian gas in the short term.
Ultimately, such lawsuits mean that dependence on Russian gas remains. Are the environmental associations aware of their helpful role for Russia? The BUND has a special role to play. They try to square the circle. On the one hand, the massive expansion of wind power is demanded and at the same time warned against this expansion. Please compare the quote above with this one from a message from the BUND:
“The climate crisis and energy crisis require an extremely fast and yet nature-friendly expansion of renewable energies in the hands of citizens. However, nature conservation must not get under the wheels at this speed,” explains Olaf Bandt, Chairman of BUND.”
Are there text modules at BUND? One can only shake one’s head at the “inner hand” of the citizens anyway. Gendergaga in top form.