The Russian request to the countries of the European Union to pay for natural gas in rubles rather than in dollars or euros, it may herald a cut in supplies. And the emotional wave relating to the accused and recriminated military atrocities in Ukraine has reignited calls for a boycott of Russian gas, which European nations (not without distinction and disagreements) are trying to implement.
With extraordinary timeliness, just a week after the start of the conflict theInternational Energy Agency (IEA) published a document called “How the EU can significantly reduce natural gas imports from Russia within a year”. The 10-point plan it includes recommendations to replace Russian gas (which makes up nearly 40% of all natural gas consumed in the EU) with other energy sources.
Reduce Russian gas needs within a year?
First point of the IEA plan: to reduce consumption, “accelerate the replacement of gas boilers with heat pumps”. A request that did not fail to immediately activate an industry: the American one.
On March 9, just 8 days after the AIE plan, the non-profit organization Rewiring America issued a policy plan asking US manufacturers to help the EU without Russian gas rapidly expand the deployment of heat pumps. “We would be kidding ourselves if we didn't take a wartime view of production,” he says Ari Mutasiak, CEO of the organization.
Almost in unison, il The Washington Post he reported that the White House was seriously considering this suggestion. There's nothing to say: generous and diligent.
There is a fundamental flaw with this approach, however.
The IEA estimates that the widespread use of heat pumps would save only 2 billion cubic meters of natural gas each year. Just 1,3% than what Russian gas supplies to the EU. If we believe in miracles, perhaps massive US aid will bring us double, maybe triple the reduction. We are far below the quantity that could make a difference for next winter, when the problems will come home to roost.
This explains well the crazy question posed by Mario Draghi to the Italians in the press conference the other day: that "do you want peace or the air conditioners on"?
There are two hypotheses before us, both of which lead to a semi-European disaster. In the coming weeks, or months, Russia may follow through on its threats to cut natural gas supplies to Europe. Or, more likely, EU leaders could agree to a boycott of Russian gas.
What would really happen without Russian gas?
How could EU officials, engineers or individual homeowners prepare for such an eventuality?
The expert Vaclav smil, Professor Emeritus at the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba in Canada, points out that there are huge structural impediments in solving an embargo on Russian natural gas.
European nations are searching for energy like a person in respiratory distress searches for air. They would like to try to generate as much electricity as possible using alternative fuels. The options on the table? Many. From equipping oneself to change fuel in the central boilers used for district heating (which heats a quarter of EU homes) to use portable electric stoves and not radiators.
The main strategy also according to the IEA, in any case, is to lower the thermostat.
Not exactly a foolproof plan
The IEA's 10-point plan provides a temperature reduction of 1 ° C. A mantra then repeated in cascade by national politicians and by many VIPs who adhere a priori to media simplifications.
Unfortunately, things are very different.
The EU as a whole could in theory save enough energy to replace all Russian gas imported only if people reduced the internal temperature of homes more drastically. How drastic? Very drastic. I'm talking about something like 8° or 9° C, which would be the amount necessary (the IEA's own estimate says so) to save 10 billion cubic meters of gas. This prescription glosses over the differences in dependence on Russian gas among EU countries (and Italy, for example, is in terrible shape), but it gives you an idea of how drastic the necessary temperature reductions would be.
It can be done?
No. Turning the heat down that much would be, let's put it this way, very difficult. The IEA indicates that average indoor temperatures in the EU are just 13° or 14° C (55° to 57° F).
Of course, most people could “technically” manage this difficulty in small spaces and with electrical devices. Room heaters. I said "technically", not "economically", however. And I'm not talking about shops or larger spaces, that would be another matter. But “technically” yes.
Now, given that without Russian gas the electric heater will be next winter's cult object, the question is: could we produce enough heaters between now and next winter? We will see a productive effort similar to the one to obtain more ventilators at the beginning of the pandemic. On the other hand, at a rough estimate (Smil estimate) 10 million space heaters are needed. An objective within our reach, even producing as many as needed and adding others at the last minute, if necessary.
It would be a dramatic solution, but at least "European", if you think that Siemens would be at the forefront in Germany (it is already the largest industrial production company).
In other words
Rewiring America and the various EU energy policymakers spend their time persuading citizens that it's all about their behavior. Or exhibit enthusiasm and generosity (interested) for heat pumps, which would take years.
The truth is that the most realistic option for next winter and for the 450 million Europeans forced by the absurdity of war to face the cold: electric heater, and even a low temperature one.
