Praise the EU gas replacement plan: Part 3

In the time-honoured tradition of saving the best for last, in the third part of my praise for the EU plan to replace Russian gas, we’ll be looking at things like energy conservation, efficiency, nuclear power, and oil and coal.

As per the Die Welt article covered by Worldcrunch, the EU gas plan envisages the complete replacement of 155 billion cu m of Russian natural gas annually. Of this total, 63 billion cu m should come from switching to LNG, pipeline gas from other sources and boosting output from the Groningen field in the Netherlands. I’ve discussed the feasibility of this in Part 1 here.

Another 26 billion cu m will be replaced with wind, solar, and biogas per the plan. The chances of that happening I’ve detailed in Part 2 here. Now on to lowering thermostats, retrofitting buildings and using oxygen instead of gas in industrial processes.

6. 10 billion cu m from energy conservation

One of the brainchildren of Commissioner Thierry Breton is the suggestion of Europeans lowering the thermostat by 1-2 degrees Celsius, which, according to him, would save around 10 billion cu m of Russian gas. Perhaps while doing that and putting on an extra sweater, Europeans could follow EC vice-president Vestager advice to say “Take that, Putin!” because, you know, that would really hurt the Russian president and it’s also a very mature thing to do.

If the suggestion of turning the thermostat down sounds familiar that’s because it seems to be a really popular measure these days. UK experts recommended it as a way for households to save on their electricity bills. It was in a bouquet of other sensible advice such as hugging a pet and leaving the oven door open after the cooking is done.

International Energy Agency recommended it last month and it was even more generous with the effects on consumption than Breton. According to the IEA, turning the thermostat down by 2 degrees would save as much as 20 billion cu m of Russian gas. Germany’s economy minister added a melodramatic note to the Thermostat Song with the assertion that "Every kilowatt-hour counts.”

The population of the European Union is 447.7 million. Let’s divide this by four to get a very, very average household. That makes 112 million households. The Breton plan seems to expect that 112 million households might be willing to act in concert in order to… use less gas because the EU doesn’t like the supplier of this gas.

There are many in Europe who also don’t like the supplier. Maybe they will turn their thermostats down. There are those who like the supplier and they have been posting pictures online of turning on all gas burners at once in support for Russia (which is just as mature as Vestager’s shower advice).

And then there is what I suspect is the overwhelming majority that cares a lot less about politics and foreign crises than it cares about its own physical, material wellbeing. That majority will only heed the thermostat recommendation if forced to do so. We might reasonably expect energy conservation mandates.

7. 4 billion cu m from “energy-efficient refurbishment”

Proper building insulation is crucial for energy conservation. It is also a costly affair, if done properly. Governments provide grants for energy-efficient renovations already but things must be moving slowly if Breton is calculating savings of gas from yet-to-be-done renovations.

Here’s an interesting article about just how slowly the renovations are going. In June last year, the EU’s energy ministers agreed to work to double the rate of energy renovations going on in the union by 2030. According to the Euractive article, the ministers emphasised “the need to at least double energy-related renovation rates by 2030 and to promote deep energy renovations.”

Since the Die Welt article lacks any timeline about the renovations I had to assume that the aim is to have as many buildings renovated within the year because this is the timeline for completely replacing Russian gas. I could only wish renovation planners good luck and deep pockets. Higher demand drives higher prices, after all. It’s valid for both natural gas and renovation services (and materials). But what’s one more drain on EU finances if it’s for the common good, right?

8. 12 billion cu m from nuclear power

This is a another interesting part of the plan in that it can be seen as either ironic or amusing, depending on your mood. I find it amusing and one more piece of evidence that when push comes to shove, ideology flies out of the window.

Per Breton’s plan, the EU can save 12 billion cu m in Russian gas consumption by extending the life of three German and two Belgian plants previously slated for retirement. The question is whether the German government would succeed in convincing the very strong anti-nuclear lobby of the usefulness of such a move.

So far, the chances are not looking good. A month ago, the government suggested extending the life of the three facilities in light of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Almost immediately after that, the ministries of the economy and the environment dropped the plan.

"As a result of weighing up the benefits and risks, an extension of the operating lives of the three remaining nuclear power plants is not recommended, also in view of the current gas crisis," they said in a joint statement cited by Reuters.

Of course, a month is a long time in energy crises and there may be a change of heart. But it’s definitely not something the EU can count on as guaranteed. These 12 billion cu m, therefore, can only hypothetically be replaced by extending the life of nuclear power plants. Of course, a lot of the Breton suggestions are purely hypothetical but the degree of hypotheticity is especially obvious in nuclear. On the flip side, keeping the two Belgian NPPs open will save some gas.

9. 20 billion cu m from switch to coal

Let me expand that because it pleases me greatly: Commissioner Breton proposes reducing the EU’s dependence on Russian natural gas (the least polluting fossil fuel) by increasing its consumption of coal (the most polluting fossil fuel). I doubt even the most genius satire author could come up with such an idea. It takes a Brussels bureaucrat to do it. And it takes a few more bureaucrats to vote for banning imports of Russian coal soon after the floating of this idea.

Russian coal accounts for 45 percent of the EU’s total coal imports. But it accounts for 70 percent of thermal coal imports and thermal coal is the sort used for electricity and heating generation. I’m sorry but I need to expand on that, too.

In its effort to punish Russia for the Ukraine, the EU is willing to deprive itself of more than two-thirds of the coal it uses to make power and heat, only to “cut another important revenue source for Russia,” amounting to some $4 billion annually, in the meantime having to pay a lot more than that for alternative coal supplies.

This from the news of the last couple of days: Indonesia hikes April coal price 42% on Russia coal ban. Indonesia, Australia face limits in coal exports to Europe ahead of Russian ban. In other words, the EU will not only be paying through the nose for increasingly scarce coal because of emissions and lower investments in production. It will be paying through the nose for coal and it will still not be able to secure enough to replace lost Russian cargos. In this context, Breton’s idea of 20 billion cu m in savings becomes not so much far-fetched as an ironic fantasy.

10. 10 billion cu m from switch to heavy fuel oil

By this point, nothing should come as a surprise, now that we’ve got coal named as a desirable alternative to Russian gas. So it is no surprise that Breton is also suggesting replacing natural gas with heavy fuel oil, which, incidentally, is among the most polluting fractions. But needs must so heavy fuel oil it is. Guess who’s the biggest supplier of oil and oil products, including heavy fuel oil, to Europe. Separately, guess who’s talking about an oil and gas embargo on Russia. You won’t need to guess who voted for a complete fossil fuel embargo on Russia.

In the meantime, the EU is still very much determined to keep reducing its emissions, in what I can only assume is a case of unusually severe cognitive dissonance. The bulk of Russian gas replacements will come from other fossil fuels. This is enough to enrage any environmentalist worth their salt. And environmentalists are bound to speak up as global emissions last year hit the highest ever despite all the green efforts of European governments.

11. 3 billion cu m from switch from gas to oxygen

Oxygen has multiple industrial uses in processes such as welding, cutting, and oxidation (this from Google. I had a C in Chemistry in high school.). Apparently, it can also replace natural gas in some other industrial processes, which was news to me but not to the EU. Or can it?

“Burning more oxygen instead of natural gas could save three billion cubic meters of gas by the end of 2022, especially in the steel and metal industries and in the production of mineral wool and glass,” the Breton plan says and since I couldn’t readily find any useful information, I turned to my chemistry professor friend for help.

I sent the above sentence to him, with a link to the full article, and asked for his comments. Here’s what he wrote back.

“This sentence makes no sense or is incomplete, which makes it inaccurate. Oxygen does not burn. Take part in the process of burning as an oxydising agent Burning is a process of oxidation, during which organic compounds, such as methane, turn into water and carbon dioxide under the influence of oxygen. Oxygen is not a fuel. I have no idea what they meant.”

I think this is a good place to put a full stop to my praise of the EU’s gas replacement plan.