Dimitry Orlov: Europe has no alternative to Russian natural gas

Those who are still paying attention to the pronouncements of European marionettes I mean national leaders, and who know a thing or two about energy, were probably quite amused to hear one of them say that Germany plans to reduce its imports of Russian gas to 10%, and another one to declare that Europe won't be paying for Russian gas in roubles because he doesn't even know what a rouble looks like. Silly pronouncements like these are to be expected from marionettes, who probably haven't been to school, and if they were, then it was probably some sort of marionette school where they didn't have to struggle with hard subjects like math, physics or chemistry.

We can lament all we want the sorry state of old European nations and the fact that they are figureheaded by brainless prats, but for those of us still possessed of mental faculties this won't change the fact that Europe cannot survive for long without Russian natural gas. A proper motto for Europe would be "Give me Russian gas, or give me death!"I will now provide a full rationale for this motto in both a short-term and a long-term perspective.

* * *

When pointing out that Europe's energy situation is absolutely desperate, one often hears the following quick retort: "This is all nonsense. Europe simply won't buy any gas right now. There is plenty of time before next winter and by then Russia will capitulate and offer its gas for free."

Let me fill you in on how natural gas delivery networks operate. In order to survive the winter heating season, Europe has to completely fill its underground gas storage by November while currently it is close to empty. If that doesn't happen, then, even with natural gas deliveries from outside at full flow, Europeans will have to choose between shutting down industry and leaving buildings unheated. Existing European natural gas infrastructure simply does not have the capacity to fill its underground gas storage in a day, a week or a month. Its volume is assessed at 100 billion cubic meters. Nord Stream 1, at maximum flow, can deliver 160 million cubic meters per day. Another 100 million cubic meters per day is currently being pumped through the Ukrainian pipeline. Add to that Yamal-Europe and Turk Stream, at 300 million cubic meters per day. By the end of the current heating season there will be less than 20 billion cubic meters left in underground storage (excluding trapped "technical gas" used to keep it pressurized). Maximum capacity of liquefied natural gas regasification plants in Europe is another 400 million cubic meters per day. Oh, and Europe still produces 150 million cubic meters per day on its own. And so the maximum available natural gas delivery capacity for all of Europe adds up to 850 million cubic meters per day. Applying advanced arithmetic principles, we arrive at the
inevitable conclusion that it is impossible to fill Europe's underground storage in any less than 100 days!

But that assumes that not a single cubic meter of gas will be used up in the meantime. That assumption is obviously not valid. Also, there are restrictions on how fast underground storage can be pumped up; the process slows down as storage is filled and pressure increases. In reality, to reach the stated goal of 90% of capacity by the beginning of the 2022 heating season, underground storage has to start getting filled by the middle of April—that is, right freaking now! Otherwise there will be no chance of catching up. And if Europe refuses to buy Russias 300 million cubic meters per day using roubles it currently doesn't have, then there is no hope at all of making it through the heating season.

Short-term conclusion: for Europe, there is no alternative to Russian natural
gas. Let's start with a proposition that seems both simple and logical: let's replace natural gas with logs of wind turbines; let's burn more coal; let's replace gas with oil; let's build some more nuclear power plants; let's burn biofuel (trees, furniture, dead animals, what have you). This won't work and here's why.

Let's start with some basic facts. Natural gas consists mostly of methane, CH4. A rather simple chemical transformation can be used to convert CH4, air and water into NH3, which is ammonia, or hydrogen nitride. It in turn can be used to make lots of useful things, from nitrogen fertilizer (without which lots of people would starve) to explosives (without which lots of people would live longer and happier lives, requiring even more nitrogen fertilizer), to lots of other stuff such as polymers (plastics, that is). There are other ways of making ammonia, but they are more expensive and the infrastructure for using them doesn't exist. Another essential, irreplaceable product made from natural gas is methanol; modern industrial chemistry is unthinkable without it. And so there is simply no way to replace natural gas with coal or wind turbines or nuclear power plants.

Next, consider that natural gas is used to generate electricity and heat. Yes, heat can also be generated by burning coal or using electric heaters, but coal furnaces aren't very common in today's European households, while the electric grid is not designed to provide heat in the quantities needed, which are orders of magnitude greater than the current electricity demand. Beefing up the electric grid or installing coal furnaces everywhere (and expanding the logistics of coal delivery) are both very expensive and time-consuming propositions. Thus, again,
there is no alternative to natural gas.

Now let's consider the uses of natural gas as fuel in glassmaking, metallurgy, cement-making and lots of other industrial processes. Converting glass or steel production to use coal won't work. Converting it to use electricity would take too long. The immediate choice is between continuing to use natural gas or shutting it all down. And shutting it all down means that Europe will deindustrialize, that all industrial workers will become unemployed, and that the standard of living of all Europeans will fall by an order of magnitude—all because of a lack of Russian natural gas.

The final reason why there is no alternative to Russian natural gas may seem somewhat counterintuitive: it can't be replaced because of renewable energy. That's right, the widespread use of renewable energy sources (wind and solar in particular) makes the use of natural gas absolutely mandatory. Furthermore, the natural gas-based generating capacity has to equal the amount of renewables-based generating capacity—nothing less will work. This is because wind and solar cannot provide a guaranteed level of output, and the more installed wind and solar capacity there is, the greater are the differences between ragged peaks and valleys in production. On the other hand, electricity consumers, be they aluminum smelting plants or hospital life support systems, cannot function with an intermittent electricity supply. The peaks and valleys have to be smoothed by something, and for physics-based reasons that something can only be natural gas.

Nuclear energy is right out, for the simple reason that a nuclear reactor cannot produce 500MW one minute and 5MW the next. That's called "maneuvering" and if it isn't done very slowly and carefully it makes nuclear reactors blow up like Chernobyl did. There are lots of other excellent reasons, but this first one is quite enough. What's left is coal and natural gas. It may be possible to maneuver using coal-fired plants but the energy efficiency of such maneuvers would be quite dismal: one moment you are stoking the furnaces like mad and the next you are loudly venting steam to the atmosphere. It would be cheaper to just scrap all the wind generators and solar panels than to run such an operation because nobody would be able to afford the energy so produced. Natural gas is unique in that it a natural gas turbine can be ramped up and down quickly and without major efficiency losses. What's more, the CO2 to produces is a valuable byproduct that can be used to make dry ice for meatpacking plants.

For the sake of completeness, let us briefly mention hydrogen (H2) which is so fashionable among the environmentally-minded. Some of them even think that H2 is a replacement for natural gas—in particular, a certain unemployed lady-gynecologist who inexplicably figureheads the entire European Union. I have bad news for her: the more hydrogen is used, the more natural gas is needed. And it's not even that hydrogen mostly has to be made from natural gas (from Russian natural gas, in Russia); there's a simpler, physics-based reason. Hydrogen cannot be delivered via pipeline like natural gas. Hydrogen molecules are tiny and pass through metal without much trouble at all; over a 1000km-long pipeline operating at the typical pressure of 60 to 90 atmospheres, 40% of the hydrogen would simply leak out.

Furthermore, hydrogen burns at a much higher temperature than natural gas and its use requires replacement of a great deal of infrastructure, from pipeline compressor stations to furnaces and heat exchangers. Lastly, hydrogen comes with its own host of unique problems: it makes pipelines brittle and susceptible to catastrophic failure; it is explosive at a wide variety of concentrations; its flame is invisible but extremely hot. The short of it is that by the time you have detected a hydrogen leak you are already halfway to being some kind of dead. The only bit of good news is this: experiments have shown that it is relatively safe and effective to mix natural gas with hydrogen at a 9-to-1 ratio. But that means that doubling the use of hydrogen requires doubling the use of natural gas.

Long-term conclusion: for Europe, there is no alternative to natural gas generally, and to Russian natural gas specifically (because there are no alternative sources of it). Currently, the Europeans have practically no natural gas in underground storage and no rubles in their accounts to buy more of it—a truly dreadful situation that is forcing them to go through the various stages of the grieving process. As of yesterday, some European countries—Germany, Austria and Poland in particular—are at the stage of denial, while others—Denmark—are already at the stage of bargaining. Bulgaria and Moldavia, having lots of experience dealing with Russia and knowing full well that Russia's first offer is always the best, are quick to agree to any and all conditions.

We can only feel sorry for the European marionettes. They have been bred and trained to follow any and all commands of their Big Brother to the west; but now their Big Brother to the West would like them to collapse today (by refusing to buy Russian natural gas) so that he can collapse tomorrow or the day after. They now have the unenviable task of violating all of their programming and bow down in supplication before the Big Brother to the East and ask: "What can we give you in exchange for some rubles with which to buy natural gas in order to survive the next winter?" They shouldn't even bother trying to offer the Ukraine; that territory has been reclaimed already. How about Lithuania, then?