A barrel of Brent brand costs 116 dollars, a megawatt-hour of gas – more than 300 euros … After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, gas and oil prices jumped to almost a record level. And the worst could be yet to come: trade between Russia and the West could come to a complete halt, and the EU would not want to turn off the tap. A big problem, as 40% of the gas and 27% of the oil imported by the European Union is produced in Russia. An opportunity for the Twenty-seven to rediscover their dependence on Russia.
But isn’t this an opportunity for an energy transition? See, why shouldn’t a Europe that wants to turn its back on Russian energy sources seize the opportunity to move away from fossil fuels?
The return of coal?
The EU urgently needs to find other sources of supply. Staying in the field of fossil fuels for now: according to Eurostat, in 2020 more than 70% of the available raw energy in the EU was of this type (36% oil, 22% gas, 11% charcoal). Are you going to the mainland? Impossible: “Europe cannot turn to its own fossil fuels because there is a catastrophic shortage of them,” recalls Aurora Emmanuel Rubio, a lawyer and expert in energy project development and decarbonization. However, according to Eurostat, Europe did import 60% of its energy in 2019, including 90% of its oil.
And towards the OPEC countries? The latter warned that they would not be able to increase production enough to supply Europe. And it’s not easier with gas: to do without Russia means to export non-continental gas, therefore, liquefied. And therefore more expensive.
So the short term solution is likely to be a return to coal. Italy’s deputy foreign minister, Manlio Di Stefano, said his country “should prepare for a war economy and is also ready to start coal-fired power plants.” Even before the Ukrainian invasion, in February, a decree was issued in France to extend the operation of coal-fired power plants this winter, according to Aurora Emmanuel Rubio. But the lawyer reassures: “Coal, which clearly shows Europe’s unpreparedness, is in no way seen as a long-term solution.” Moreover, this option returns to the original problem: according to the report of the Commission on European Affairs in 2020, 42% of the coal used in Europe is imported. Of these, 29% are from Russia…
Nuclear risks
Will nuclear power be the way out then? It accounted for 13% of the gross energy available in the EU in 2019, and half of Twenty-Seven is equipped with power plants. Several countries, especially Germany, have been pushing for denuclearization. The Ukrainian crisis can rehabilitate the nuclear industry, which does not depend on the Russians. Some countries, such as Belgium, are considering postponing the closure of their power plants. But nuclear power cannot be seen as the only solution, says Patrice Geoffron, professor of economics and energy specialist at Paris-Dauphine University: “They provide electricity, but only for a quarter of the energy we use – transport, for example, is still heavily dependent on oil. . In addition, the construction of a nuclear fleet takes time, and this could not but burden the next decade. »
The second and no less important problem is that the war in Ukraine is as much propaganda for civilian nuclear energy as it is an argument against it. Barbara Nicoloso, lecturer in ecology at Sciences Po Lille and director of the Virage Énergie association, says: “This is the first time that a civilian nuclear conflict has occurred in the country, and we see security issues across the continent. what it puts. If the nuclear power plant is bombed, what will happen to Europe? This war shows the risks of this energy.”
The defining advantage of geopolitics
So, we return to the original idea: to bet on renewable energy sources and kill two birds with one stone. This will join the climate evidence: “The IPCC report, published days after the invasion began, still insists on the importance of limiting the use of fossil fuels,” recalls Barbara Nicoloso. Europe is already on this path, but it probably still needs another “motivation”.
In 2020, 22% of energy consumption in the Union came from renewable energy sources, compared to 16% in 2012. Thus, there is progress, but the path is long. It is, according to Maria-Eugenia Sanin, lecturer in economics at the University of Evry, about money: “every energy revolution was carried out in the name of an economic motive, which is currently lacking. For decades, fossil fuels have been very profitable. We did not have enough economic signal for very serious investment in low-carbon energy. But the Ukrainian conflict brings two new arguments. On the one hand, an increase in the price of fossil fuels for at least a few months. On the other hand, “the geopolitical advantage is to become self-sufficient in terms of energy, which may be the reason for the lack of determination,” the lecturer supports.
In green and against everything
Will we see Europe covered in windmills, rapeseed fields and solar panels? Not so fast. Renewable energy sources, such as wind turbines, require so-called “critical” minerals such as lithium or cobalt. “It is absolutely necessary to evaluate the new dependencies that will arise in Europe,” warns Patrice Geoffron. But these dependencies will be less sharp than those that consist in living under the threat of gas shutdowns from day to day.” According to Barbara Nicoloso, the war can also have a counterproductive effect: “In the context of the economic and military crisis, it cannot be said that the budget originally planned for the energy transition will not be diverted to armaments or to the new “All that is needed”. »
“In the case of renewable energy sources, the question of the energy reserve arises,” adds Maria-Evgenia Sanin. The wind or the sun does not operate 24 hours a day, “it will also require investments in batteries and green hydrogen to keep energy available all the time.” In a word, the task promises to be difficult, and the lecturer reminds: “We do not build solar panels in ten days, especially to replace all Russian energy.”
Therefore, nothing is easy when it comes to replacing Russian oil and gas. Hence, perhaps, the need for an even greater paradigm shift. Barbara Nicoloso: “It is not the origin of our energy that should be doubted, but its quantity. It is unbearable to consume so much. It will take quite a significant social transformation: less car travel, less heating thanks to better thermal housing… to reduce our needs. But again, this will take time.