Can Europe give up Russian energy and still go green?
| Berlin
When Russian tanks and soldiers moved into Ukraine, it opened eyes across Europe that energy independence is a matter of national security. To that end, European leaders quickly declared the need to wean off Russian fossil fuels.
But just how does Europe abandon a reliably cheap source of energy?
Why We Wrote This
The war in Ukraine has crystallized European thinking about the need to end reliance on Russian energy. But that freedom may come with a short-term cost to green energy goals.
Germany imports about 60% of its energy, with about half its natural gas and coal needs coming from Russia, as well as a third of its oil. Even more reliant on Russian imports are about half a dozen European countries, including Finland, Bulgaria, and Latvia, with Bosnia-Herzegovina and North Macedonia 100% reliant.
To deal with immediate shortages in supply, Europe will likely be forced to fall back on a mix of undesirable but proven fuels such as coal and nuclear. In the longer term, energy experts say, the danger exposed by the war in Ukraine may spur into action governments, industries, and consumers who have been pushing climate change toward the horizon.
“The war will have a short-term increase in coal generation, but I expect that to be compensated with significant advance of low-carbon solutions,” says Julian Popov, a European Climate Foundation fellow. “The opportunities are huge.”
When Russian tanks and soldiers moved into Ukraine, it opened eyes across Europe that energy independence and a transition to green sources aren’t just a matter of environmental concern. They’re a matter of national security.
Nowhere is evidence of that wake-up call more apparent than in Germany, whose capital city of Berlin is some 500 miles from the Poland-Ukraine border. Having already halted a long-awaited Russo-German natural gas pipeline in the run-up to the war, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz quickly declared that the country must wean off Russian energy supplies, while the European Commission announced plans to buy two-thirds less Russian natural gas by year’s end.
This energy wake-up call will take Germany and Europe to new and unfamiliar places. To deal with immediate shortages in supply, the continent will likely be forced to fall back on a mix of undesirable but proven fuels such as coal and nuclear. In the longer term, the danger exposed by the war in Ukraine may spur into action governments, industries, and consumers who have been all too comfortable pushing climate change action toward the horizon, say energy experts.
Why We Wrote This
The war in Ukraine has crystallized European thinking about the need to end reliance on Russian energy. But that freedom may come with a short-term cost to green energy goals.
“We’ve got a three-front war – a pandemic, a shooting war in Ukraine, and a climate crisis,” says retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, former commanding general of the U.S. First Army and an environmental protection advocate. “Now is the time for us to think bigger and more strategically than Ukraine because the Earth is warming. How do we lift the gun from our heads from weaponization of fossil fuels – and at the same time how do we cool the Earth?”
Stepping back to step forward
Germany has a long and complex history of relations with Russia, and is suddenly conscious that it cannot rely on Russian fossil fuels. How does it wean itself off a reliably cheap source of energy imports?
Not easily, say the experts.
Germany imports about 60% of its energy, according to the World Bank, with about half its natural gas and coal needs coming from Russia, as well as a third of its oil. Even more reliant on Russian imports are about half a dozen European countries, including Finland, Bulgaria, and Latvia, with Bosnia-Herzegovina and North Macedonia 100% reliant.
Two weeks ago, in an emergency Sunday morning policy speech after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Chancellor Scholz said “forward-looking energy policy” is crucial for the economy, climate, and security. This week, he also said that alternatives to Russian energy are not quickly forthcoming. “There is currently no other way to secure Europe’s supply of energy for heat generation, for mobility, for power supply, and for industry,” he said. The EU has made a “conscious decision” to continue to buy Russian energy, he said in a separate statement.
Meanwhile, Europe has laid out an ambitious goal to decrease its dependency on Russian gas by half within a year. That will mean the near-term might look like a step backward to green energy advocates, since even German Economy Minister Robert Habeck – a Green Party leader – has talked about a return to coal and the reopening of phased-out nuclear power plants.
“These are taboos,” says Tyson Barker, head of technology and global affairs for the German Council on Foreign Relations, “but in these extraordinary circumstances they’re playing a very pragmatic role in saying, ‘OK, we’ve got to do this even if that goes against our core principles temporarily.’”
“We all have to sacrifice”
In the longer term, phasing out Russian fuels will come with economic costs that are “substantial but manageable,” write the authors of an energy report out of three German universities.
High energy prices may compel households and industries to take action to reduce energy use in the home, say the authors. For example, lighting consumes up to 50% of energy consumption, depending on the country.
Or perhaps air conditioners will be moved to higher temperatures in summer, with less clothing worn to compensate. The benefits are clear: Turning down home thermostats in Europe by 1 degree Celsius will save 10 billion cubic meters of gas, estimates the International Energy Agency. That simple move would save 7% of annual Russian gas exports to Europe, and reduce Russian export revenues by roughly a quarter, estimates Chi Kong Chyong, an energy researcher at the University of Cambridge.
“These little things should be packed into a strategy for immediate response,” says General Honoré. “We all have to sacrifice. We’re in a war whether we accept it or not. We can’t continue to operate like this war isn’t going on. The best way to do that is to get spectators to reduce our use of energy.”
Other measures laid out by the International Energy Agency include ramping up liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports, increasing gas storage to prep for the winter, speeding up new wind and solar projects, and maximizing nuclear power generation.
General Honoré says industry must also do its share, by placing more engineering talent into developing alternative sources of energy. “This is not a moonshot,” he says. “We need to get some of our best engineering, and it should be a national competition among industrial nations to come up with those solutions. There are many professors and [researchers] that have solutions. But we have to embrace them.”
Some solutions will be less than desirable. For example, switching en masse to electric cars would reduce demand for oil but boost demand for nickel, a key component of car batteries. The world’s largest nickel producer is a Russian company, and prices per ton have shot through the roof. Also, buying LNG elsewhere doesn’t mitigate the fact that this fuel produces the most methane of the greener energies. An energy transition should not move toward replacing coal with gas, but rather reducing use of both, says Julian Popov, a European Climate Foundation fellow and former environment minister of Bulgaria.
The United States may be Europe’s top supplier of natural gas in liquid form, but “be very very careful with the idea that U.S. LNG can save Europe,” says Mr. Popov. “It’s just not going to work.”
A tipping point
Europe is at a moment where crucial decision-making can ultimately change the trajectory of how we produce and consume energy, say energy experts. And the goal should be not to get fossil fuels from countries other than Russia, but to actually reduce demand for fossil fuels overall, says Dr. Chyong, who points out that in the next three to five years, Russia can simply replace Europe with other buyers. “Reducing fossil fuel usage is our true and effective weapon against Vladimir Putin.”
Mr. Popov says the time is ripe. No one needs to be convinced of the need for an energy transition, and the learning curve around alternative energies has advanced considerably. If there’s an obvious solution, people will go there, he says.
“The war will have a short-term increase in coal generation, but I expect that to be compensated with significant advance of low-carbon solutions,” Mr. Popov says. “The opportunities [for this moment] are huge.”
