back to article Wind, solar fulfill 10% of global electricity demand for first time

In a global first, wind and solar energy combined to generate more than 10 percent of the world's electricity in 2021 – though coal-fired power plant generation and emissions jumped to new highs in the same period, too. The 2022 Power Transition Trends report by new energy fund BloombergNEF (BNEF) found that power generation …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "clean" solar energy is genuine greenwash.

    How many kilos of coal is burned for each solar cell existing? 500 kilos? More? Almost all of them are made in China and coal is the primary/only source of energy in China.

    So lifetime emissions for each panel are literally in tons of CO2 -class. Which conviniently doesn't exist in *any* energy efficiency calculations. That's not an accident, but propaganda.

    It would be a shame for wood stove to beat solar cell in cleanliness, wouldn't it?

    1. GloriousVictoryForThePeople

      Re: "clean" solar energy is genuine greenwash.

      Easy to find some number for that: 46 vs 164g/kWh

      Total life cycle GHG emissions from solar PV systems are similar to other renewables and nuclear energy, and much lower than coal.

      https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56487.pdf

      It is true to point out however than renewables are front loaded: most of the emissions happen today, not over the lifetime.

      It is reasonable to expect solar to improve by a factor of 2 over time, while coal won't.

      (My mate just added new panels and they are ~30% lighter/W than those installed 6 years ago)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "clean" solar energy is genuine greenwash.

        It would be a shame for wood stove to beat solar cell in cleanliness, wouldn't it?

        Burning wood is ~390gCO2/kWh thermal.

        That would be fallen-on-site wood, use for direct heating.

        It is going to be much worse than that if you use (diesel) machinery to plant,harvest,transport etc. If you cut existing forest there is excess root carbon loss, and methane outputs as well.

        And 3x worse if you generated electricity from it.

        Even allowing that the wood takes CO2 out of the atmosphere, it is only neutral for on-site windfall timber.

        So yeah, solar panels are probably way better.

        1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

          Re: "clean" solar energy is genuine greenwash.

          Burning on-site wood is zero. Where do you think the carbon comes from? On-site wood is just stored sunshine.

          1. adam 40 Silver badge

            Re: "clean" solar energy is genuine greenwash.

            If there is no fertiliser input, you are correct.

            I do this at home. Completely carbon neutral, to heat my house.

            1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

              Re: "clean" solar energy is genuine greenwash.

              Fertilizer is not the source of carbon. You can add Nitrogen and Phosphorus with compost. Or cowpats.

      2. GloriousVictoryForThePeople

        Re: "clean" solar energy is genuine greenwash.

        correction: Solar 46g vs Coal 1064g I think.

      3. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: "clean" solar energy is genuine greenwash.

        "(My mate just added new panels and they are ~30% lighter/W than those installed 6 years ago)"

        So they shaved and cut more corners to save a few more pennies? Unless roof loading is a big issue, the weight of the panels isn't a big deal. Where I live we get some pretty substantial winds so the panels I install need to be robust enough that they aren't going to be damaged.

  2. Alfie Noakes

    :(

    Title says "energy", article says "electricity".

    Add gas boilers, most cars, diesel HGVs, blast furnaces, oil-powered ships, aircraft, barbeques and birthday cakes etc. - wind and solar still contribute a pathetic amount to the "global energy demand"

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Just the headline - now fixed

      The article's fine - it's about electricity, as the first sentence makes clear. This got truncated down to energy for a shorter headline, and has now been corrected.

      Don't forget to email corrections@ if you spot something wrong, ta.

      C.

      1. Alfie Noakes

        Re: Just the headline - now fixed

        Thanks for the fix :)

        Sadly too many press articles confuse power/energy with electricity (and kWh with kW etc.) - at least El Reg try to keep things on track ;)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: :(

      Until there is an excess of renewable electricity supply beyond electricity demand that will remain the case. (In some places this is happening now at times.)

      Once there is a significant surplus, it can begin to substitute for fossil fuels, and it can do so very cheaply.

      For example, anywhere you use gas or coal heat, you can add an electric air preheater and substitute as much or as little of the fossil fuel as you want when it is economic to do because renewable prices are currently low. You can extend this outside peak renewable times by using thermal storage (bricks) for your air preheating.

      This is a low capital route to a smooth transition of existing fossil fuel heating systems to renewables, without junking existing plant, steadily reducing the amount of fossil used, and without ever being unable to make heat when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

      While there are major long term challenges to get to zero carbon, today's problem is to reduce CO2 compared to yesterday.

      We have plenty of ways to do that right now.

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: :(

        "Once there is a significant surplus, it can begin to substitute for fossil fuels, and it can do so very cheaply."

        No. That's not correct.

        There's a big need for electrical generation to be reliable. While wind and solar can augment the grid, they are far too whimsical to be able to shut down base load plants if in an hour or two there will be a deficit. Thermal power plants don't take kindly to being thermally cycled frequently. The added stress from cooling and heating shortens their life and causes repair issues. Once a coal plant is up to temp and generating, it will live much longer if it's only turned off when it's time for periodic maintenance. Some nuclear plants don't make any sense to throttle down as doing so doesn't increase the life span of the fuel load.

        Wind and solar need applications where their intermittency is not much of a problem. If you have a Haber/Bosch ammonia plant built into a couple of shipping containers that can be sat next to a wind turbine and squirt out ammonia when the wind blows, that can take a big load off of the grid. If the grid can signal plugged in EV's that there's a sale going on due to lots of supply, the cars can be set to take advantage of the reduced rates and absorb some of the load. With some creative thinking, we may not eliminate fossil fuel power generation in the short term, but we might be able to scale it back.

        1. GloriousVictoryForThePeople

          Re: :(

          You seem to be supporting my point, not contradicting it.

          Since baseload electrical generation (of the kind you describe) can't be shutdown quickly, you need to have loads that can be turned on and off at whim instead.

          Process heat, augmenting existing fossil fueled furnaces with renewable electricity is that kind of of load. You can turn the heaters up and down as fast as you can send control signals. Your process always runs as normal, because it is (initially at least) a fossil fueled system anyway

          This is economic because the (pre-existing) fossil fuel furnace is sunk cost - so there is no penalty for not using it when cheaper renewables are available.

          Of course this is a transitional tool, in 30 years time, long after today's furnaces have been scrapped we need to do something different.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "China holds the crown for coal-fired power generation, accounting for 52 percent of total coal usage in the world"

    And they are *increasing* it by ~100 new power stations per month. But of course global warming is caused by westeners driving to work by their cars.

    That's how propaganda works: Small lies aren't believable, you have to have *big lies*.

    Göbbels knew what he was talking about and every propaganda organization nowadays are imitating him.

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Coat

      "China holds the crown for coal-fired power generation".

      So lets do nothing!.

      It's a problem yes, but they still produce less pollution per capita than we do in the USA and Europe and they will have about 20 new nuclear power plants within 10 years, probably more.

      They should do more but so should we.

      It's just a bit too simple to say - look at the Chinese, and do nothing.

      But there is, of course, Boris who will/would build one a year in Britain apart from all the hospitals.

      https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Until China has greater CO2/capita than a comparable moderate western country, you don't have much of a point really.

      Also much Chinese energy is probably going into outsourced industrial emissons for the west.

      Certainly here in NZ we have no plan at all to reduce total emissions, and simply intend to close our steel, refinery (done) and cement works and ship all industrial emissions offshore and stick our fingers in our ears and go la-la-la-la

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Certainly here in NZ we have no plan at all to reduce total emissions, and simply intend to close our steel, refinery (done) and cement works and ship all industrial emissions offshore and stick our fingers in our ears and go la-la-la-la

        I dunno, NZ seems to be doing it's best to lead the world!

        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/09/30/police-rescue-passengers-from-powerless-electric-ferry/#comments

        Passengers on Wellington’s new electric ferry were rescued by a police boat after the ferry lost power.

        A police spokesperson confirmed to the Herald the Ika Rere had run out of battery in the harbour and all passengers on board were transferred to the police boat.

        They were then escorted back to Queen’s Wharf, and the police boat went back out to help tug the ferry back to port.

        Curious exactly why that happened. One of the main reasons we switched from wind to coal power in the past is the obvious problem of sailing nowhere when there's no wind, or the wind is against you. So if this ferry also struggled due to changes in wind/tide/current etc meant draining the batteries faster than expected.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          "So if this ferry also struggled due to changes in wind/tide/current etc meant draining the batteries faster than expected."

          You would have thought they'd have that all worked out. Perhaps there was a fault in the charging and nobody looked to see if the batteries had enough charge before they set out. They'd been plugged for the requisite amount of time so why check. If that were the case, I expect there would be some sort of lockout so the ferry can't make a run if the batteries haven't charged up enough. Any deviation might require the captain phone up the office/engineering for a code to override the settings.

          1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Perhaps there was a fault in the charging and nobody looked to see if the batteries had enough charge before they set out. They'd been plugged for the requisite amount of time so why check.

            Yup. I looked for some more info. The ferry service is a short, regular hop across the bay, so energy consumption should have been pretty predictable. Presumably as part of the operations, there would be minimum charge levels and reserves, so it could have been some other fault that lead to loss of power. It's interesting though given it's 'new' technology, so adopters are still discovering the snags and safety issues.

            1. MachDiamond Silver badge

              "It's interesting though given it's 'new' technology, so adopters are still discovering the snags and safety issues."

              I can see that. I've run across "teething issues" with newly christened systems often enough.

    3. Tilda Rice

      Dont let the green lobby hear you say that AC

      UK < 1% of global emissions.

      A small portion of that transport, and roughly half that passenger cars.

      A bit like the angry tree "mob", who bemoan every tree felling, when there are more trees in the northern hemisphere than 35 years ago. Ironically due to global warming. (is a problem in the southern hemisphere for palm oil though)

      1. Lars Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        @Tilda Rice

        That is a very idiotic comment.

        Britain is number 17 among 209 countries with a 1.3% ahead of France, Italy, Poland and Spain for instance.

        Also among the bottom 190 all are below 1%.

        Try to remember that 100 times 1 is 100.

        https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          @Lars

          "Britain is number 17 among 209 countries with a 1.3% ahead of France, Italy, Poland and Spain for instance."

          We are a lot lower down per capita.

          1. Lars Silver badge
            Pint

            Re: @Lars

            @codejunky

            I believe you got it right but it gets a bit difficult to use the word ahead when it means "worse" as in that list

            where the worst offender is number one.

            So writing "ahead of France, Italy, Poland and Spain" means that Britain is worse than those countries.

            (on that list then).

            But my point was that it's ridiculous to pull the "just 1%" point that Tilda Rice did, probably not trying to fool anybody but rather having been fooled herself by it.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: @Lars

              @Lars

              What shocks me is per capita the UK is better than the Netherlands and Germany. If someone told me that I would have to have looked it up to believe.

              1. Tom 7 Silver badge

                Re: @Lars

                But Germany is putting in 10GW offshore wind every year till 2030 so they're going to be far better that we will by then. We wont really be making significant progress for 15 to 20 years when Johnson's first nuke may or may not go online.

            2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
              Pint

              Re: @Lars

              "Tilda Rice...fooled herself by it."

              Is Tilda Rice female? I thought it was a brand of rice and assumed s/he happened to have a bag in view when thinking up a username :-)

              1. Claverhouse Silver badge

                Re: @Lars

                Tilda is a respected girl's name --- short for Matilda for non-europeans --- more popular at the end of the 19th century than now; so it's all up on the air.

                1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Re: @Lars

                  I'm still going with the made up name due Tilda.com, Could be a name from somewhere where Tilda don't trade. Or parents who didn't think very carefully about naming their child :-)

                  There's absolutely nothing wrong with the name if it's for real though. There are many people around the world with seemingly normal names that can be seen as a little odd in other societies or cultures, or when shortened. We've all met people like that at some stage in our lives, as per previous discussions in these forums :-)

    4. Lon24 Silver badge

      "And they are *increasing* it by ~100 new power stations per month."

      Are you sure? In 2021 they were building 90 gigawatts of coal powered plant. In typical UK terms (2GW per station) that's 45. If it took only a year to build that's ~ 4 per month and probably less. Not good but a long way from your impressive claim. Can give an authoritative source?

      My source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2317274-china-is-building-more-than-half-of-the-worlds-new-coal-power-plants/

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "With the potential sabotage this week of a gas pipeline between Russia and Europe, coal could gain even more sway on the continent. I"

    None of those pipelines have transported gas at least a month. Also green fanatics are vehemently against burning coal. Of course, they are all paid by power companies who managed to raise price of electricity, first 50% in August and again, this time 200%, in October.

    While production costs haven't really changed much, if at all. It's *all profit*. Then EU decided that no windfall tax either. Throughly bribed bastards.

    1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

      --Also green fanatics are vehemently against burning coal. --

      Even the German ones?

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        "Even the German ones?"

        Not anymore.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      To be fair, it's the gas producers who are raking it in since that's how much of the electricity is produced, so the power stations production costs have gone up. The other people raking it in are those producing electricity from non-gas sources but who#s strike price has increased along with gas prices.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bufton Tuftons

    Tufton St. aficionados posting in 3 ... 2 ...

  6. Jan K. Bronze badge

    Heh, I was just looking at a fun overview before reading the article.

    Apparently we're at some 70% electricity coming from wind...

    A live view can be seen here https://energinet.dk/energisystem_fullscreen

    1. damiandixon

      Interesting web page.

      The UK equivalent is: https://gridwatch.co.uk/

      Wind: 45%

      Solar 4%

      Renewables: 51%

      Nuclear 13%

      Gas 33%

      Coal 0%

      Exporting 2GW to France and Nsl

    2. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      @Jan K

      The one Sweden provides is not bad either and includes Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

      It's interesting to see how a countries "geography" determines the energy source.

      Norway will get its electricity from mainly hydro and wind, right now 98%.

      Finland , a flat land with not that much wind either gets 52% from nuclear and about 20% from wind and hydro.

      Sweden gets about 90% from hydro 58%, nuclear 28% and wind 5% right now and is a net exporter.

      In Swedish

      https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/kontrollrummet/

      In English

      https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/

      1. Jan K. Bronze badge

        Thanks both!

        Very interesting indeed!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The first 10% is the easiest because of all the other sources to act as a buffer. Conversely the last 10% is not possible without a long term buffer, longer than batteries can perform, e.g, gas from electricity. In between those extremes is some sort of curve.

    And even if nuclear is providing a constant X%, there will always be a use for electricity generated hydrocarbons - e.g., aircraft fuel, fuel for emergency generators, etc.

    I'll be happy when renewable energy and long term energy storage progress are reported together.

  8. ComputerSays_noAbsolutelyNo Silver badge

    Explosives do, what politics did not

    If you are a cynical person, and doesn't become cynical in these times, one could think that Vlad does more for the transition away from fossil fuels than all the activists.

    Don't get me wrong, I think the activists are useful, necessary and justified to demand more action towards getting more renewables online.

    However, first the steep rise in the gas price due to the special miliary war operation, and now the blowing up of the pipelines really drives Europe to invest into renewables. Before the blowing of the pipe, one could have argued that when the war is over at some point, the gas price will relax again towards a pre-war level, and all will be fine. But now, Northstream 1 & 2 have been blown up, so there is no going back, because even if it would be all roses and gas-fairies again, now the pipeline capacity to get all this cheap gas has gone. It's blowin' in the wind.

    That coal is being used in Europe to substitute the missing generation from gas is bad, but I hope that this falls under "the pain that teaches", because if this situation specifically, the last years in general do not teach Europe to change their ways in energy generation, then nothing will, and we're doomed.

    1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

      Re: Explosives do, what politics did not

      -- Don't get me wrong, I think the activists are useful, necessary and justified to demand more action towards getting more renewables online.--

      I won't get you wrong you just are. If activists were sensible you might have a point but they generally do not stop at a sensible point.

      STOP OIL NOW

      I'm diabetic, my insulin pens are made from plastic - lets go back to having little glass bottles without a self sealing lid (made from plastic) - no thanks. How many other products are out there which need oil?

      I worked for a paper maker when the activists were all about stopping cutting down trees so we should shift to using plastic bags .... and they talk about government thinking not being joined up.

    2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: Explosives do, what politics did not

      However, first the steep rise in the gas price due to the special miliary war operation, and now the blowing up of the pipelines really drives Europe to invest into renewables. Before the blowing of the pipe, one could have argued that when the war is over at some point, the gas price will relax again towards a pre-war level, and all will be fine.

      So.. ermm.. why do you think those pipelines mysteriously blew up? It's one of those situations where it's worth looking at who really benefits from that. It's also fixable, although the sabotage intentionally made it expensive to replace the damaged sections, and the work can't be done whilst sanctions are still on.

      But 'renewables' are absolutely the worst option given they're exactly why we're in this mess. Because they're intermittent/unreliable, we had to invest in CCGT to keep the lights on and the EU's economy powered. So 'renewables' directly lead to the dependency on gas, and now the consequences of that decision.

      The sensible option would be building many more nuclear plants, but after decades of opposition from loony Greens, and lobbying from 'renewables' scammers like Bloomberg, our capability to do this is restricted. Plus they're not exactly quick to build anyway, especially if you're foolish enough to rely on EDF. But this report is just an advertorial from a Bloomberg energy fund, so it's unsuprising it's promoting a product that's extremely profitable given all the subsidies being thrown at the 'renewables' scumbags.

    3. Lars Silver badge

      Re: Explosives do, what politics did not

      The can be repaired.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: Explosives do, what politics did not

        Repaired to buy gas from a hostile power, who may even have blown them up in the first place?

        The best thing that can be done with those is recover the metal from the sea bed and reuse/recycle.

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: Explosives do, what politics did not

          Repaired to buy gas from a hostile power, who may even have blown them up in the first place?

          But why do that, when you can just keep the valves shut? Or cap the pipes and shift the hardware to new pipelines to customers who do want to do business? Or flip things around and ask why you'd want to sell to a hostile customer, especially when they're rather distressed right now and desperate for the product you have. But that's a negotiating option that's conveniently been eliminated, by party or parties unknown.

          Meanwhile, John Kerry's been flying around the world promoting 'renewables' on behalf of China. Gas supplies for back-up or power continuity not included.

          1. David Hicklin Bronze badge

            Re: Explosives do, what politics did not

            "But why do that, when you can just keep the valves shut?"

            Because now they can say we are ready to turn the taps back on and the "technical problems" are fixed but "Oh but the USA** blew the pipes up"

            ** Other scapegoats are available

          2. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Explosives do, what politics did not

            "But why do that, when you can just keep the valves shut? "

            Propaganda. If they leave the valves shut and people freeze to death, that looks very bad. If there is too much damage to repair the line in a short period of time, somebody external can be blamed and the gas remains off. I'd like to see some verifiable photos/video of the pipes from the location(s). Was the damage from an external source or are the pipes blown out in a way that points to either some sort of defect or a device that was sent down the line and detonated. It's all speculation, conspiracy stories and guesses until there is data. I hope we get some.

            1. Lars Silver badge
              Happy

              Re: Explosives do, what politics did not

              One theory is that Gazprom will now be able to claim they will not be able to fulfill their promises because somebody destroyed the pipes.

            2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: Explosives do, what politics did not

              Propaganda. If they leave the valves shut and people freeze to death, that looks very bad. If there is too much damage to repair the line in a short period of time, somebody external can be blamed and the gas remains off.

              Yep. There have already been several large protests around the EU due to high energy costs, and winter hasn't started yet. There's been pressure on Germany to 'do something', because if it doesn't, it's economy is going to be destroyed, there'll be mass unemployment, and people are going to freeze to death. Russia has repeatedly said that gas is there, if you just order it. Now, Germany can't. If it was getting cold feet about the impact of EU sanctions in the past, it's certainly going to get cold feet now.

              And of course there's the obvious propaganda value of instantly blaming Russia (as the Bbc did by quoting Ukrainian 'experts'), despite the total lack of evidence, or even much plausibility.

              Was the damage from an external source or are the pipes blown out in a way that points to either some sort of defect or a device that was sent down the line and detonated. It's all speculation, conspiracy stories and guesses until there is data. I hope we get some.

              Yep. That's the problem of Instablame, lack of any critical thinking, or just 'fact checking'. When the story first broke, I saw comments that the pipes were at around 650m depth. So that would make sabotage tricky. Experts have been busy spewing 'facts' like it must have been an attack by a state actor, therefore Russia.

              But the pipes are apparently only 100-150m deep, which makes sabotage much more doable. No need for Bond-style subs, mini-subs, or pig-bombs when eco-terrorists could have done this, if they could have rounded up some technical or commercial divers. It's a depth workable on rebreathers, mixed gas or heliox. Then you'd just need explosives. Off-the-shelf linear and point shaped charges are widely used in the oil & gas industry, and designed to punch or cut holes in pipes like these. We've shipped tons of explosives into conflict zones over the last few years, and can't account for most of it. Then there's stuff like this-

              https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/22/mystery-military-drone-spying-russias-black-sea-fleet-discovered/

              which doesn't really look like a diving drone, but technology makes those possible. Or perhaps probably. One aspect that suprised me a bit was the seismic data. and reports of the size of the blasts. That seemed like overkill to me given shaped charges would have done the job just as well and needed much less explosives. But if you're improvising, I guess you work with what you've got.. Which could be a modified sea mine, torpedo warhead, or you're just not being very professional about it. But given the amount of surveillance in the Baltic, and especially choke points like Bonholm, you should probably notice suspicious behavior on, or beneath the waves. Sweden and Denmark have regularly caught Russian subs and mini-subs sneaking around it's waters in the past.

              So it's all rather strange, and there's a lot of questions that must be answered. Along with a lot of rumors, conspiracy theories and mis/disinformation from both official and unofficial sources. It's one of those things governments really need to improve on given past lies, and our ability to contradict what should be 'reliable sources'. If there's hard evidence of Russia's involvement, show it. After all this is a very serious attack on the EU that is going to result in trillions in economic damages, and deaths.

            3. Claverhouse Silver badge

              Re: Explosives do, what politics did not

              If countries refuse to buy Russian Gas and people freeze to death, whether the valves are shut or open makes no difference.

              1. MachDiamond Silver badge

                Re: Explosives do, what politics did not

                "If countries refuse to buy Russian Gas and people freeze to death, whether the valves are shut or open makes no difference."

                Once you get to the point where shortages are causing people to die, the affected are going to demand that their government "do something about it" up to capitulating to the demands, break-away from the sanctions, and make the gas flow again. If the politicians don't make it all better, they are going to be out on their ear, or worse. Now, if there is a physical reason why the gas can't be immediately turned back on........

                1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                  Re: Explosives do, what politics did not

                  Now, if there is a physical reason why the gas can't be immediately turned back on........

                  For me, that's the most troubling aspect. If the 'West' was responsible, it's effectively done two things. One being removing an option for any peace negotiations, and condemning people in the EU and UK to a cold, miserable and potentially fatal winter. Either way, it would seem to be an extremely hostile act against the EU, and probably treason given our leaders may have intentionally harmed their people and nation's interests.

                  In other news, Blinken stated this is an excellent opportunity for the US to sell more LNG..

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like