Can we continue to finance a war that we condemn elsewhere? Can we congratulate ourselves on defending Ukraine, while paying for the missiles and tanks that are devastating the country today? However you ask the question, it illustrates how difficult the European position will be to maintain in the coming days, even though the Americans have just announced an embargo on Russian oil and gas.
→ READ. War in Ukraine, 14th day: update on the situation
But for the European Union, much more dependent than the United States on Russian hydrocarbons, there is currently no question of considering such a scenario. “If tomorrow, in Germany, the lights go out, that would not stop the tanks”said Sunday the head of German diplomacy, Annalena Baerbock.
The subject will be on the menu of the discussions of the informal summit of the European Union which is being held on Thursday March 10 in Versailles. As a reminder, Russian gas currently accounts for 40% of European consumption, which conceals large disparities between states (16% in France, and 100% for the Czech Republic). According to estimates by the Bruegel Institute, 600 million euros would thus be sent to Russia every day. A bill that continues to climb, while the benchmark gas index (the Dutch TTF) has already multiplied by 14 in one year.
Reduce heating
But what can Europe do to “detox” from Russian gas? Last week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published a series of ten measures to be adopted urgently, which would allow a reduction of a third of Europe’s dependence on Russian gas in one year: not renew the long-term contracts with Gazprom expiring this year, oblige the States to reinforce their gas reserves, negotiate additional volumes with alternative suppliers (Algeria, Azerbaijan, the United States or Qatar) , increase the production of biogas and biomethane, or even reduce the temperature of gas-heated homes by 1°C.
On Tuesday 8 March, the Commission also provided a list of proposals. In addition to an acceleration of investments in renewable energies and hydrogen, Brussels proposes to establish an average level of storage of at least 80% by the end of September with binding objectives for each country.
Four to five years to replace Russian gas
Still, taken end to end, these measures will not make it possible to dispense with Russian gas overnight. According to the bank UBS, it would take at least four to five years to replace all Russian gas. “In reality, the possibilities of substitution are limited and risk costing European states very dearly”believes Thierry Bros, researcher at theOxford Institute for Energy Studies. Asked by The echoes on the scenario of a supply disruption, the boss of Engie, Catherine MacGregor, declared on Monday March 7 that “Europe might run out of gas next winter”, and that it would be up to states to take action to freeze prices and ration demand.
“Today, one-third of gas is generally used by residential customers, one-third by industrial customers, and one-third in electricity production. Insofar as no State is going to let its households die of cold, the risk is above all to penalize the industrial fabric, and ultimately to curb growth.explains Thierry Bros.
Enough to revive all eventualities, including those of coercive rationing, like what had been decided during the oil crisis of 1973. According to estimates, lowering the thermostat of gas-heated houses by 1 degree in France would reduce our imports of Russian gas by 11%.
Inadequate rationing measures
“The problem is that, unlike fuel measures, the leverage on gas is much lower”, observes energy consultant Olivier Sidler. According to his calculations, it would be possible to completely do without Russian oil by reducing our speed and our routes by 10%. But even with intensive thermal insulation programs, it would take France six years to do without Russian gas. “To give an order of magnitude, the thermal renovation of buildings currently makes it possible to reduce our annual consumption by only 2 or 3%”adds Nicolas Leclerc, co-founder of Omnegy.
For the European Union, the whole difficulty will consist in diversifying its supplies without halting its trajectory of energy transition. “There may be a temptation for certain States to postpone their climate objectives to respond to the emergency situation of the war. This is why it is essential to keep in mind that the energy transition cannot be achieved with low prices”, says Anna Creti, professor of economics at the University of Paris Dauphine-PSL. Since the invasion of Ukraine, the demand for coal has also started to rise once more, and the States have brought out all the options on the table.
Last week, Germany’s economics minister, environmentalist Robert Habeck, said there was no “no taboo”, nor that of postponing the closure of the last three nuclear power stations, nor that of extending the coal-fired power stations. For its part, Belgium might give up phasing out nuclear power in 2025. In France, the candidate Éric Zemmour went so far as to plead for the reopening of Fessenheim. And Nicolas Leclerc concludes: “It’s always the problem of energy: you have to choose between one addiction and another. » The only way to detox is to stop using.
——————————
In 1973, energy savings
On October 16 and 17, 1973, OPEC decided to unilaterally increase the price of a barrel of crude by 70% and a monthly reduction of 5% in oil production. This is the first oil shock.
As of November 30, 1973, Prime Minister Pierre Messmer launched the French nuclear program and presented energy saving measures: TV broadcasts stopped following 11 p.m., shop windows turned off at night, and speed limits on the highways.