The war in Ukraine, accelerator of the energy transition in Europe?

• While the war in Ukraine continues, Europe hesitates, in retaliation, to cut off its oil and gas imports from Russia.

  Because its energy dependence remains very important.

• The hunt for other supplies is therefore open.

  Enough to give a big boost to the energy transition, in order to abandon fossil fuels in favor of renewables?

• Not that easy.

  Because to act on this shift, as strategic as it is environmental, it will take time.

  A lot of time.

A barrel of Brent at 116 dollars, a megawatt hour of gas at more than 300 euros… Since the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the price of gas and that of oil have soared to near-record levels.

And the worst may be yet to come: trade between Russia and the West could completely cease, with the EU reluctant to turn off the tap.

A major problem, since 40% of the gas and 27% of the oil imported by the European Union are 

.

The opportunity for the Twenty-Seven to rediscover their dependence on Russia.

But isn't this also an opportunity for the energy transition?

Understand: why wouldn't Europe, by seeking to turn away from Russian energy sources, take the opportunity to turn away from fossil fuels?

The return of coal?

For the EU, the urgency is to find other sources of supply.

Remaining for the time being in the fossil domain: according to Eurostat data, in 2020, more than 70% of the raw energy available in the EU was of this type (36% oil, 22% gas, 11% charcoal).

Heading to the mainland?

Impossible: “Europe cannot turn to its own fossil fuels, since it is sorely lacking,” recalls Aurore Emmanuelle Rubio, lawyer and expert in the development of projects in the energy sector and decarbonization issues.

Still according to Eurostat, Europe indeed imported 60% of its energy in 2019, including 90% of its oil.

And towards the OPEC countries?

The latter warned that they could not increase their production enough to supply Europe.

And for gas, it's not simpler: doing without Russia would mean exporting non-continental gas, therefore liquefied.

And therefore more expensive.

The short-term solution is therefore likely to be a return to coal.

Italy's Foreign Undersecretary Manlio Di Stefano said his country "must prepare for a war economy and is ready to start coal-fired power plants as well."

Even before the Ukrainian invasion, in February, a decree was published in France, intended to extend the activity of coal-fired power stations this winter, informs Aurore Emmanuelle Rubio.

But the lawyer reassures: "Coal, which clearly shows Europe's lack of preparation, is in no way seen as a long-term solution".

Especially since this option returns to the initial problem: according to a report by the European Affairs Commission in 2020, 42% of the coal used in Europe is imported.

Of which 29% from Russia…

The risks of nuclear

Will nuclear power then be a way out?

In 2019, it represented 13% of the gross energy available in the EU, and half of the Twenty-Seven are equipped with power plants.

Several Nations, notably Germany, sought to denuclearize.

The Ukrainian crisis could rehabilitate atomic energy, which is not dependent on the Russians.

Some countries, such as Belgium, are considering delaying the closure of their power plants.

But nuclear cannot be seen as the only solution, says Patrice Geoffron, professor of economics and energy specialist at Paris-Dauphine University: "It provides electricity, but only for a quarter of our consumption energy – transport, for example, still relies heavily on oil.

Furthermore, building a nuclear fleet takes time,

and that could not weigh on the next decade.

»

Second problem, and not the least: the war in Ukraine is as much a promotion for civilian nuclear power as a plea against it.

Barbara Nicoloso, teacher at Sciences Po Lille in ecology and director of the Virage Énergie association, argues: "This is the first time that a conflict has taken place in a country with civilian nuclear sites, and we see the security issues for the entire continent that this poses.

If a nuclear power plant is bombed, what will become of Europe?

This war shows the risks of this energy”.

The defining advantage of geopolitics

So we come back to the original idea: bet as much as possible on renewables, and kill two birds with one stone.

This would join the climatic evidence: “The IPCC report, released a few days after the start of the invasion, still insists on the importance of limiting fossil fuels, recalls Barbara Nicoloso.

Europe is already on this path, but probably still needs another 'motivation'”.

In 2020, 22% of energy consumption in the Union came from renewable energies, compared to 16% in 2012. Progress is therefore there, but the road is long.

In question, according to Maria-Eugenia Sanin, lecturer in economics at the University of Evry, money: “each energy revolution has been made in the name of an economic motive, which is currently lacking.

For decades, fossil fuels have been very profitable.

There was not a sufficient economic signal for us to make very strong investments in low-carbon energies.

But the Ukrainian conflict brings two new arguments to the table.

On the one hand, the rise in the price of fossil fuels, for at least several months.

On the other hand, "the geopolitical advantage of becoming self-sufficient in terms of energy,

In green and against everything

Are we going to see Europe covered with wind turbines, rapeseed fields and solar panels?

Not so fast.

Renewable energies, for example with wind turbines, are greedy in so-called “critical” minerals, such as lithium or cobalt.

“it is absolutely necessary to assess the new dependencies that will result for Europe, warns Patrice Geoffron.

But these dependencies will be less drastic than those which consist in living under the threat of a gas cut from one day to the next”.

According to Barbara Nicoloso, the war could also have a counter-productive effect: "With the economic and military crisis taking place, there is nothing to say that the budget initially planned for the energy transition will not be diverted for armaments or for a new "Whatever it takes".

»

“With renewables, the question of energy stock arises,” adds Maria-Eugenia Sanin.

The wind or the sun not acting 24 hours a day, "this will also require investments in batteries and green hydrogen, to have energy available all the time".

In short, the task promises to be complex and the lecturer reminds us: "We do not build solar panels in ten days, even less to replace all Russian energy".

Nothing is therefore simple when it comes to replacing Russian oil and gas.

Hence, perhaps, the need for an even greater paradigm shift.

Barbara Nicoloso: “What needs to be questioned is not the origin of our energy, but our quantity.

It is not tenable to consume so much.

It will take a fairly significant societal transformation, with less travel by private car, less heating thanks to better thermal housing... to reduce our needs.

But again, this will take time.

Economy

War in Ukraine: Will we soon pay 3 euros per liter of gasoline at the pump?

Economy

Ukraine-Russia conflict: Will the price of energy soar in the event of an invasion?

• EU

• Oil

• Energetic transition

• Russia

• War in Ukraine

• Environment

• Economy

• 0 comment

• 0 share

  • Share on Messenger

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share on Flipboard

  • Share on Pinterest

  • Share on Linkedin

  • Send by Mail

• To safeguard

• A fault ?

• To print