Skip to main content

Russia Doubles Natural Gas Price for Georgia

By Eric McErlain
In Russia, it's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. From the Daily Mail:
Fears that Russia is using energy supplies as a political weapon increased last night after Moscow forced Georgia to accept a doubling of gas prices.

The deal came within hours of a threat by Gazprom, Russia's statecontrolled energy giant, to cut off supplies to the former Soviet republic from January 1.

Georgia had called the price increase 'unacceptable' and 'politically motivated'.

Relations between the Kremlin and Georgia's pro-West leadership were already at their worst for a decade after a spy row in September.

The Georgia 'agreement' is another example of what alarmed EU officials see as the Kremlin's heavy-handed tactics in dealing with energy clients.

It came the day after Gazprom took control of a massive oil and gas project from Royal Dutch Shell, which had suffered a long campaign of bureaucratic harassment.
Don't forget, as Geoffrey Styles said earlier this week, Russia's long-term goal is to be able to exercise just this sort of market power over the U.S. Of course, if the U.S. builds more nuclear power plants and displaces natural gas-fired electrical production the same way it displaced oil-fired electric production in the 1970s, the nation won't be in the same bind that much of Europe will be in the near future.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Rod Adams said…
As an unrepentant Cold Warrior, I have little trust in Russia's acceptance of the idea that the US is the world's sole remaining superpower.

Russia has a long history as a player in the world's power elite. Its leaders have used its natural resources and people power for at least two centuries to maintain their own lifestyles. They are excellent chess players and are as good at raw power plays as they are at subtle, long term moves.

I have no doubt at all that Russian leaders fully understand the importance of energy and the fact that nuclear power plants allow the owners a measure of independence from fuel supplier pressure that is not available for owners of fossil fuel burning generators.

I fully believe that some of the money that supports anti-nuclear pressure groups around the world comes from Russian oil and gas interests - aka the Russian government.
December 24, 2006 at 2:00 PM
Stewart Peterson said…
>>Of course, if the U.S. builds more nuclear power plants and displaces natural gas-fired electrical production the same way it displaced oil-fired electric production in the 1970s, the nation won't be in the same bind that much of Europe will be in the near future.

Nuclear power can all of a sudden displace load-following generators--especially with increased wind capacity requiring more gas backup?
December 27, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Anonymous said…
Many of the recent, larger gas units are combined cycle plants that were built for baseload use. New nuclear units will have more capability to load follow than older units but the more logical approach would be to load follow with coal units.

As to the impact of wind, we'll have to cross that bridge when we get there, but wind is a long way from being a significant part of the mix.
December 27, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Farkas said…
For the Russians to "exercise this sort of market power over the U.S." someone will have to build a pipeline (or LNG terminal) that connects Russian gas fields with the American gas infrastructure. The gas market is relatively large in North America and the Russians would have to be more than a marginal player to have the kind of influence they have over their European customers. New American NPPs will offset demand for new American gas-fired baseload generators; however, the U.S. having the largest economy in the world growing at 3%/year, it seems that all generators will be important in the task of meeting demand.
December 28, 2006 at 3:17 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more