The German Government aims to build liquefied natural gas terminals
Should Russia decide to cut or even halt its pipeline natural gas supplies to Europe, it could get rather cold in Germany unless sufficient supplies of liquefied natural gas are sourced.
The problem is there are no LNG terminals in Germany for freighters to feed their cargo into the national pipeline system. But German Chancellor wants to change that as fast as possible. In response to Russia's war against Ukraine, it has been announced to build two LNG terminals in the country.
Other European nations are better prepared. Across the continent, there are now 37 such terminals, out of which 26 are located in EU member states. According to the European Commission, LNG imports cover about a quarter of the bloc's overall gas demand. Germany currently has to get LNG deliveries via terminals in Belgium, France and the Netherlands.
Germany does not want to rely on other European ports. Going forward, other European terminals will keep receiving LNG, and that they were already approaching full capacity levels. In the future, they won't be able to handle the overall demand on their own.
However those who questions on German LNG terminals are of the view that between January 2021 and January 2022 only some 40% of the terminals' capacity was used, saying there is still much room for maneuver.
There have been plans for LNG terminals in Germany for years. with the potential locations most frequently mentioned being the northwestern cities of Stade, Brunsbüttel and Wilhelmshaven. A request for a building permit could be handed to the authorities in Stade over the next couple of weeks. If everything goes according to plan, the terminal could be completed by 2026 and could take in 10% of Germany's gas requirements.
In the case of Stade, it would require an investment of €1 billion ($1.1 billion). So if it emerges that storage capacities and imports are enough to meet gas demand — even if no more gas comes via Russian pipelines, Germany may prefer to focus on expanding renewables.
`Gas today and Hydrogen tomorrow' is another option widely debated among planners and is the possible conversion of LNG terminals into green hydrogen terminals in the future. The German government is very much in favor of using more hydrogen as a source of energy in the decades ahead.
As not enough green hydrogen can be produced in Germany itself, it would have to be imported, and so LNG terminals could be part of the solution. Germany will need hydrogen terminals anyway, so Germany could use part of the LNG terminal infrastructure for hydrogen terminals.
Germany requires hydrogen terminals right from the start to implement the country's energy transition.
LNG terminals could not only handle gas made from renewables, but if Germany succeeds in raising the share of renewables in its energy mix to 80% by 2030, dependence on Russian gas would decrease considerably.
LNG terminals could also handle gas made from renewables. The idea of importing synthetic methane or biogas boils down to greenwashing, all the more so since producing synthetic methane uses too much energy. Biogas is only climate-friendly, if it's produced from residues, and available quantities of such gas are almost negligible.
The US would profit from German LNG terminals. more
The problem is there are no LNG terminals in Germany for freighters to feed their cargo into the national pipeline system. But German Chancellor wants to change that as fast as possible. In response to Russia's war against Ukraine, it has been announced to build two LNG terminals in the country.
Other European nations are better prepared. Across the continent, there are now 37 such terminals, out of which 26 are located in EU member states. According to the European Commission, LNG imports cover about a quarter of the bloc's overall gas demand. Germany currently has to get LNG deliveries via terminals in Belgium, France and the Netherlands.
Germany does not want to rely on other European ports. Going forward, other European terminals will keep receiving LNG, and that they were already approaching full capacity levels. In the future, they won't be able to handle the overall demand on their own.
However those who questions on German LNG terminals are of the view that between January 2021 and January 2022 only some 40% of the terminals' capacity was used, saying there is still much room for maneuver.
There have been plans for LNG terminals in Germany for years. with the potential locations most frequently mentioned being the northwestern cities of Stade, Brunsbüttel and Wilhelmshaven. A request for a building permit could be handed to the authorities in Stade over the next couple of weeks. If everything goes according to plan, the terminal could be completed by 2026 and could take in 10% of Germany's gas requirements.
In the case of Stade, it would require an investment of €1 billion ($1.1 billion). So if it emerges that storage capacities and imports are enough to meet gas demand — even if no more gas comes via Russian pipelines, Germany may prefer to focus on expanding renewables.
`Gas today and Hydrogen tomorrow' is another option widely debated among planners and is the possible conversion of LNG terminals into green hydrogen terminals in the future. The German government is very much in favor of using more hydrogen as a source of energy in the decades ahead.
As not enough green hydrogen can be produced in Germany itself, it would have to be imported, and so LNG terminals could be part of the solution. Germany will need hydrogen terminals anyway, so Germany could use part of the LNG terminal infrastructure for hydrogen terminals.
Germany requires hydrogen terminals right from the start to implement the country's energy transition.
LNG terminals could not only handle gas made from renewables, but if Germany succeeds in raising the share of renewables in its energy mix to 80% by 2030, dependence on Russian gas would decrease considerably.
LNG terminals could also handle gas made from renewables. The idea of importing synthetic methane or biogas boils down to greenwashing, all the more so since producing synthetic methane uses too much energy. Biogas is only climate-friendly, if it's produced from residues, and available quantities of such gas are almost negligible.
The US would profit from German LNG terminals. more
Viewed by 3
Energy demand is on rise. The most recent one being the emergence of `Datacentres' driving the AI(artificial intelligence), cloud computing.....Datacentres are energy intensive and power demand raiser. Additionally they consume water too to meet their cooling demand.Some of the datacentres use tap water and once through water circulation. Whether you're a project owner, cost engineer, or technical project manager, you'll come away with actionable insights to improve your organization's operations today—and position it for AI-driven success tomorrow. So if the electricity generation mix lacks sufficient low carbon fuel options, energy demand raiser will raise carbon emissions, a country lacking expertise in low carbon energy generation will burn more coal for electricity generation and will contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions. Price sensitivity is another issue that drives affordability. Methane has also emerged as one of the greenhouse gas, more potent than carbon dioxide. Natural gas is mostly methane ( a hydrocarbon that has least carbon in each of its molecules) and may be present in bio-wastes. Its a fuel also and is a lower carbon energy option when compared with coal. It can potentially replace heavier hydrocarbon fuel oils too. It represents a technology different from coal as far as energy generation is concerned. If coal uses steam turbines, natural gas needs gas turbines for electricity generation. A recent study shows that gas turbine manufacturing is taking longer time than before that has impacted natural gas supply. Lack of sufficient gas turbines can result in oversupply of natural gas that can raise storage concerns. Moreover there is a mismatch between renewable deployment and power generation from renewables, former exceeds the later. No sun, no wind are challenging factors. As far as hydro-power is concerned, most of the dams are aging and some are over 50 years old and can potentially release water during heavy rains due to water level rise. Weak points in aging dams need to be identified and are better handled faster digitally. Innovative water storage solutions should also emerge and need to be worked out. Thing is that whatever is sold is produced. Demand-supply fundamentals drive economy. more
Oct 22
https://www.dailypioneer.com/2025/business/hush-no-green.html HUSH! NO GREEN Wednesday, 01 October 2025 | PNS "Most people have heard about greenwashing, the global practice when companies claim that they are more environment-friendly than they are. These can lead to grand announcements about projects to reduce carbon footprints, or earn carbon credits. But these plans are either puny in nature, or even non-existent. In the buzz surrounding circular economy, sustainability, waste management, zero net water and power usages, and Climate Change, this is an area of concern. Opposed to this shady and shadowy trend is an opposing one of greenhushing, when firms downplay their environment-related efforts. Experts contend that this practice is as dangerous as greenwashing. Still, why do companies pursue greenhushing? According to a recent article, there are several reasons why firms hush up, and shush their employees to talk about green initiatives. First, senior management is scared about reputations. If they speak about the efforts, they may be accused of greenwashing. In effect, the sober approach to remain silent is better than public revelations, which may be taken out of context, and turn into criticism. In such scenarios, positive efforts in one area may be juxtaposed with negative or non-existent ones in another, which may lead to accusations that a firm is not doing enough, and merely exaggerating its claims. This is especially true of sectors such as mining, oil and gas exploration, hydel and power projects, where the finger of suspicion invariably dogs the large companies. Second, owners and managers are overwhelmed by Climate Change. Hence, they are uncertain about the efficacy of their actions and decisions. Yes, I do pursue a circular economy, but is it enough? Yes, I pursue waste water management, but can I do more? Yes, I do plant trees, but do they live for the next few decades? Yes, I do convert a mined area into how it looked before the mining days, but is the soil resilient enough for farming, or other productive activities? The questions go on. The fact is that the answers require robust and sturdy quantitative tools and qualitative mechanisms to measure outcomes. Most firms either lack them, due to costs, or are unsure about their effectiveness, due to a general lack of confidence. Hence, managers depend on external and third-party certifications, rather than announcements. They get numerous certificates that they showcase in their annual reports, and on their websites. Of course, these are terse and technical. Investors and other stakeholders rarely understand their importance and implications. Most do not even understand if the certification agency or authority is genuine. In many cases, Governments issue such papers with minimal monitoring, and checks-and-balances. Tens of thousands of companies have ISO certifications, and people do not even understand what they imply. Firms in narrow streets wave them. Miners speak about how the exploited mines are back in their original healthy and productive form. But is this even possible? “Over-reliance on certifications can even be risky: Skepticism towards some schemes means that consumers may lose trust in the business if the certification badge it displays loses credibility in some way. And taken alone, they may offer little insight into the specific actions a company may be talking about,” stated the article. In cases of greenwashing, there are reports of wrong certifications, manipulated metrics and methodologies, and willful distortions of results and evidence. This is especially true when the so-called sustainable projects are in Africa and Asia, where local and national regulators and policy-makers may be corrupt, and participate in unethical practices. Consumers can never be sure. Even companies may be taken in, when they outsource these projects. Regulations and rules about sustainability are complex. Adhering to them is a legal and operational quagmire. Hence, firms feel that it is better to shut up, and go on with businesses, rather than make public claims, which may be questioned by the authorities. In such cases, the negative publicity is more dangerous than the positive actions. Similarly, once the green efforts are in the public domain, shareholders and stakeholders, apart from the public and policy-makers, may demand more. There may be a pushback from certain quarters, especially the Civil Society, to force companies to spend more to manage the environment. These may lead to higher costs, more actions, and being sidetracked from the operations. In some markets, greenhushing is the norm, rather than an exception, because of consumers’ fears. Buyers in some nations intuitively think that green products have lower performances, which will force them to use more, and they are generally more expensive than conventional alternatives. This mindset is evident from organic products, which have niche markets because of the pricing structure. Obviously, firms are prone to maintain radio-silence in their environmental efforts to maintain and enhance the customers’ bases. For example, according to another article, the tourism industry is reluctant to communicate its pro-nature efforts. This is to avoid the inherent and public moral discomfort of the guests. “When on vacations, people like to indulge and not concern themselves with problems such as Climate Change, resource depletion, and unsustainable lifestyles,” states the article. Being cruel to nature, which many tourists are, or being unfair to natural environments, which many are, is not what the holidayers wish to be reminded about. They do not wish to be told that the hordes of hotels, resorts, and homestays, which cater to their needs, lead to disasters that affect the areas. Hence, the “tourism businesses prefer to take environmental measures ‘behind the scenes,’ and ‘out of sight.’" more
Oct 01
Indian government is also converting old Thermal plants into nuclear power plants. The government has identified 10 old or retired thermal power sites for repurposing them into nuclear power units. This is economy of scope and through a brownfield projects. https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/power/10-old-thermal-plants-to-be-converted-into-nuclear-power-units-by-2047/122478470 Greenfield projects are greenwashing if the costs at the scale needed incur more carbon emissions than reducing them. The Eco Illusion of Trees "For many, planting a tree feels like the ultimate act of environmental virtue. But how much does it really change? Let’s say the tree survives, grows strong, and lives a full life, 20 years or more. Over that time, it may absorb around 400 kilograms of carbon dioxide. Sounds impressive, until you consider that the average middle-class Indian emits 5,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide each year. In the same two decades, that’s 100,000 kilograms. Even planting a hundred trees doesn’t offset the scale, not when our daily lives are powered by the very systems that destroy the forests we’re trying to replace. And many of these planted trees need artificial irrigation, which in turn produces more emissions. So while we nurse our saplings, vast self-sustaining forests rich in biodiversity and climate stability are cut down." https://www.dailypioneer.com/2025/columnists/greenwashing--pretending-to-care-while-burning-the-planet.html more
Aug 06
