How to end dependence on russian gas? Heat pumps, electric heaters, alt fuels?

[Hydrogen]

To help dodge sanctions, Russia had demanded that by the start of this month, members of the European Union begin paying for the natural gas it was buying in rubles rather than dollars or euros, threatening to cut off supplies if they didn’t. And the recent revelation of atrocities committed by the Russian military in Ukraine have renewed calls to boycott Russian gas, an action European countries are struggling to figure out how to implement.

Even before all this, just a week after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began, the International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a press release titled, “How Europe can cut natural gas imports from Russia significantly within a year.” The IEA’s 10-point plan includes strategies for replacing Russian gas (which represents nearly 40 percent of all the natural gas the EU consumes) with other energy sources and for reducing demand.

The first of the IEA’s prescriptions for reducing demand is to “speed up the replacement of gas boilers with heat pumps.” Heat pumps are, basically, air conditioners that run in reverse. Powered by electricity, they can “pump” heat from the environment at a colder temperature into a building at a warmer temperature.

In the United States, the common perception is that heat pumps are only suitable for comparatively warm climates. For example, Trane, a leading manufacturer of heating and cooling equipment, says on its website “that heat pumps are best for moderate climates.” Carrier, another prominent U.S. manufacturer, echoes that message on its website, saying “Heat pumps are more common in milder climates, where the temperature does not typically drop below freezing.”

“This has been one of the myths,” says Jan Rosenow, European program director for the Regulatory Assistance Project, “that heat pumps don’t work in cold climates.” He regards it as misinformation “coming from an industry that is under threat.” This misunderstanding is common not just in the United States, says Rosenow, but also in European countries that don’t have a lot of heat pumps.

The distribution of heat pumps in Europe supports Rosenow’s contention. The European countries where heat pumps are most used are some of the coldest, including Norway, Sweden, and Finland, where more than 40 percent of homes use heat pumps. But Rosenow explains that “there is a shortage of installers in Europe; there is a shortage of kit.”

The shortages, combined with the urgency of the problem that the war in Ukraine has created, prompted the nonprofit organization Rewiring America to issue a policy plan on 9 March calling for U.S. manufacturers to help the EU rapidly expand the deployment of heat pumps. “We’d be fooling ourselves if we did not take a wartime-production view,” says Ari Mutasiak, CEO of Rewiring America.

Mutasiak has been working with climate activist Bill McKibben, who just a few days after war broke out proposed in a blog post that the Biden administration invoke the Defense Production Act to lend U.S. manufacturing might to the effort to speed the replacement of gas-fired boilers with electric heat pumps in Europe. And on 8 March, the Washington Post reported that the White House was taking this suggestion under serious consideration.

There’s a fundamental shortcoming with this approach, though.

The IEA estimates that expanding the use of heat pumps could make only a small dent, saving just 2 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually, a mere 1.3 percent of what Russia provides the EU. If you’re an optimist, maybe double or triple that savings. It still doesn’t move the needle far enough to help much by next winter, which could be the deadline here.

What if in the next few weeks or months Russia were to follow through on its threats to cut off the natural gas that it is sending to EU countries? Or what if EU leaders acted on what seems to many to be a moral obligation to impose a boycott? How could EU officials, engineers, or individual homeowners prepare for such an eventuality?

I posed this question to energy expert and IEEE Spectrum columnist Vaclav Smil, Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba in Canada, who wrote about some of the war’s implications for fossil fuels just a few days after Russia invaded Ukraine. He stressed that there are enormous structural impediments to making the kind of changes necessary to respond to such a natural-gas embargo.

Pressed to consider what could be done if the EU soon loses access to Russian gas entirely, Smil offered a few suggestions. European nations (which he stresses have varying degrees of dependence on Russian gas) would want to look to generate as much electricity as they can using alternative fuels—just as the IEA notes in the “Going Faster and Further” addendum to its 10-point plan, which outlines some temporary fuel-switching options. They could gear up to switch fuels in the central boilers used for district heating, which warms a quarter of EU homes. Also: “You could distribute electric heaters,” says Smil, referring not to heat pumps but to simple electric space heaters.

Such heaters are, of course, not an efficient way to heat your entire home. But small portable units could well help people who are forced to do in a big way next winter what the IEA sees the most effective conservation strategy of all: turn down the thermostat.

The IEA’s 10-point plan calls for reducing temperatures by just 1° C. But if push truly came to shove, the EU as a whole could in theory save enough energy to displace all imported Russian gas by implementing the IEA plan and fuel-switching measures if people also reduced indoor temperatures more drastically—by something like 8° or 9° C, which would be the amount needed according to the IEA’s estimate that each degree lower on everyone’s thermostats would result in an annual savings of 10 billion cubic meters of gas. This prescription glosses over the differences in the use of Russian gas among EU countries, but it gives you an idea of just how drastic the needed temperature reductions would be.

Turning down the heat by that much would be very difficult, to say the least. The IEA indicates average indoor temperatures in the EU are now about 22° C, so we’re talking about temperatures over winter months of just 13° or 14° C (55° to 57° F). That’s darn cold, but most people could manage that hardship, particularly if they used electric heaters to warm the air further in a small space surrounding them.

Space heaters could thus prove immensely helpful in a heating crisis. And unlike heat pumps, which are relatively complex pieces of machinery costing thousands of dollars and requiring skilled contractors to install, electric space heaters are simple, cheap, and easy to use.

Could enough space heaters be produced in the limited time available before next winter? Sure, says Smil: “Germany's Siemens is already EU's largest industrial manufacturing company, and so they could turn to mass-producing electric heaters—they could also tell the Chinese, where the company is well established, ‘We need 10 million heaters,’ and they could make them.” What’s more, space heaters are “rapidly distributable and scalable,” says Smil, should they be needed “in extremis.”

So Rewiring America, Bill McKibben, and various EU energy policymakers are right to be thinking about electric sources of heat and how they could help reduce the EU’s reliance on Russian natural gas. But in their enthusiasm for heat pumps, whose value will take years to manifest to a significant extent, they overlooked what could prove a more realistic option for next winter should a new kind of Cold War challenge the nearly 450 million residents of the EU: the lowly electric space heater.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/russia-europe-natural-gas

....


Good data and statistics.

This is a recommendation from the IEA (International Energy Agency) for european nations to look into heat pumps, electric heaters and greater electrical grid power generation via alt fuels to reduce dependence on russian oil. They're also encouraging europeans to turn their thermostats lower.

As a living space heating issue, better residential insulation could also drastically reduce required heating and gas consumption.

Growing renewable bamboo to produce woodchip fuel for hearths is an old school solution which might sidestep infrastructure and electrical grid concerns.

[1715111768]

1715111768

[1715111768]

1715111768

[hatshepsut93]

These are just some of the many steps. A large part of it will be finding new exporters, obviously, like increasing their LNG capacities to buy gas from the US, building new pipelines for buying gas from other countries, and the EU countries that can should also increase their own fossil fuel production, even if it means breaking their previous climate commitments. They should also reduce their consumption of gas wherever possible. Replacement of boilers with electric heaters is a good example, it needs to happen in many other fields where gas is used.

People shouldn't think that taking an action that would reduce their gas dependency only by 1% is pointless, all these little adjustments will add-up together and help solve this crisis.

[Ozero]

The countries of the European Union are determined to get rid of dependence on Russian energy carriers, and this is the most important thing. Countries that cannot quickly find an alternative to Russian energy carriers will first look for other suppliers. Some, for example, the Baltic republics have already announced that they will not buy them in Russia. Within a few years, Russia will lose the European market for its oil, gas and coal. After the brazen invasion of Ukraine and the applied sanctions, almost the entire world community will refuse to supply energy from Russia, and this will be a big blow to the Russian economy.
At the same time, the rejection of carbon energy sources is already overdue due to uncontrolled climate change, and this problem was recently raised at the G20 summit, where it was decided to switch to alternative sources of "green" energy. Even before Russia's military attack on Ukraine, European countries adopted programs for such a transition. Undoubtedly, Russian aggression will significantly speed up the implementation of such programs in time.

[davis196]

There are many suggestions about alternatives to the Russian oil and gas.
The problem is that all of them require lots of time and money.There aren't any short term solutions.
There's no solution that would solve the problem here and now.
I guess that many European countries will just keep buying Russian oil and gas and they would agree to pay with rubles.
By the way,heat pumps are expensive as hell.
Getting rid of the dependency from Russian fossil fuels will definitely impoverish Europe and slowdown the economic growth of the EU.Meanwhile,the USA will be making more money exporting fuels and heat pumps to Europe.What a great plan.

[NeuroticFish]

They're also encouraging europeans to turn their thermostats lower.

When I see this kind of ideas, I simply cannot take them serious. One will keep the termostat in the range of his comfort; if the weather is cold, it will mean more consumption, but now winter is basically over.
Do you really expect the malls go one degree lower? I'm not. Do you expect the mansions go one degree lower? Again, I'm not.
Even more: summer is coming, everybody will turn on the air conditioning, the electricity (in many cases produced by burning gas) consumption will go over the roof... and some not-too-strong-at-math may go one degree lower (!), since it's advised.

[777Jolami]

Getting rid of the dependence on Russian gas is really not easy, very difficult to solve.  Most European countries have emergency plans in place to deal with gas shortages by prioritizing household supplies and cutting production in energy-intensive sectors.  However, that is only a short-term solution, and ending dependence on Russian gas will take a long time.

[be.open]

Estonian know-how about the hose-assed cow as a source of natural gas cannot be discounted.

[bittraffic]

Caught them unprepared for the type of attack from Russia which they are really dependent on. Now they are scrambling to manufacture heat pumps as much as they could to provide for the demand. So much options to do which could take time before they could live comfortably without cutting the sanctions to Russia.

They might have to look at though if finally established alt fuel sources and heat pumps, will Russia's rise thru their gas ever slow down?
For all the news we've seen, Hungary now considers buying gas with roubles too. It won't be long the neighbors will find it beneficial as well.

[laredo7mm]

Establishing this plan takes time so it's not a current solution. Also, gas is not only required to heat houses but run factories too. How renewable energy will full fill these huge demands? Also, it would cost huge money for building this infrastructure and maintain them. Buying Russian oil and gas is much easier and cheaper than that.

As long as Russia gets to ensure NATO will not come along its border there is nothing to worry about for EU countries. Russia is happy to sell its gas and oil to the EU because it's profitable for them and the EU too. So do not think major natural resource consumption countries in Europe will grant this plan.

[Flexystar]

If our Government take the data into consideration then it would become way cheaper to set up tidal energy projects, windmills, and averagely efficient solar panel based on the geography.

They should subsidies and let every house give the solar panel and one windmill (for space free towns), and create their own energy hubs. That means one two one electricity generating sub station. This way Government can huge money back as they will be having only set up cost and maintenance as the lifetime challenge.

I mean like

((Green Energy Power Station - TOWN-1)). -----Powering---- ((TOWN-1))
((Green Energy Power Station - TOWN-2)). -----Powering---- ((TOWN-2))
....
........((TOWN-x)

We can have self sustaining and fossil free  ecosystem with this. I think, initially it will cost major amount of investment however, with the time that will surely pay off.

To overcome the challenges of natural calamities, power down due to low wind speed, low sunlight, one main station can power up the towns for temporary timings.

With a great plan this could be future.

[be.open]

With a great plan this could be future.

A good plan, as reliable as a Swiss watch. Too bad it only works in green fantasies. Windmills, solar panels, tides - these sources of energy are too volatile, a good dessert, but not a main course. We need something more stable generating energy so that we can seriously rely on it. Of the environmentally friendly and carbon-neutral, this is the energy of a flowing river or the energy of the internal heat of the earth, and with some reservations, nuclear energy.

[hyudien]

Along with the many breakthroughs and innovations I believe there will be a solution for this. Although the most difficult thing is to get started and get used to adapting to a resource that will surely experience a slight difference from the ones we are already using. It will not be the same 100% oil, gas, electricity, etc.

To be honest, not all people can be invited to have the awareness to start these activities, one of the things that have the most impact is transportation fuel. Dependence on electricity to perform daily activities.

Some of the solutions offered by the IEA above I strongly agree. The point is that apart from making people more efficient, they also appreciate how important these alternatives are in the current conditions.

[DrBeer]

1. Total control of European politicians regarding ties (of course financial) with the Kremlin gang. You can talk a lot about bias and "phobias", the fact remains - it was bribery and influence on the tops of European governments that allowed Gazprom to monopolize its position in the EU and then set conditions and engage in fuel terrorism. Like it or not, gas and oil are used by Russia as a "legal" means of terror and pressure
2. Of course, the restoration of nuclear energy.
3. The maximum possible transition to renewable energy sources "green technologies".

[be.open]

1. Total control of European politicians regarding ties (of course financial) with the Kremlin gang. You can talk a lot about bias and "phobias", the fact remains - it was bribery and influence on the tops of European governments that allowed Gazprom to monopolize its position in the EU and then set conditions and engage in fuel terrorism. Like it or not, gas and oil are used by Russia as a "legal" means of terror and pressure
2. Of course, the restoration of nuclear energy.
3. The maximum possible transition to renewable energy sources "green technologies".

Surprisingly, Germany has recently confirmed that it is maintaining its policy of completely getting rid of atomic energy and is going to shut down its last three reactors at the end of the year. France turned out to be smarter in this regard, but it has two very serious problems:
1. Some reactors are already very old, about 40 years old, their service life has been repeatedly extended, and recently there have been reports of safety-threatening traces of corrosion on three reactors, which, apparently, will now have to be urgently shut down.
2. France has lost a significant part of its influence in its former colonies in Africa, such as Mali, is experiencing difficulties with the supply of uranium as a raw material for nuclear power plants. Fans of conspiracy theories can try to look for Putin's long arm here, especially since it seems to be really there.

In general, the current deep problems of Europe cannot be considered without breaking away from Africa, which Europe shamelessly plundered for a long time. In Africa, they say that when Russians come, they build hospitals, and when Europeans come, they bring a lecture on how to live right. Few people understood the wisdom of the USSR, which for half a century made great efforts in Africa, allocated large amounts of money even by modern standards, and then generously wrote off debts, and taught Africans in Moscow at Patrice Lulumba University, forming a local loyal elite. Now these long-term investments are starting to pay off.

[istiak2277]

In general, the current deep problems of Europe cannot be considered without breaking away from Africa, which Europe shamelessly plundered for a long time. In Africa, they say that when Russians come, they build hospitals, and when Europeans come, they bring a lecture on how to live right. Few people understood the wisdom of the USSR, which for half a century made great efforts in Africa, allocated large amounts of money even by modern standards, and then generously wrote off debts, and taught Africans in Moscow at Patrice Lulumba University, forming a local loyal elite. Now these long-term investments are starting to pay off.

France still retains the largest military presence in Africa of any former colonial power. We are still at colonial age? The bitter truth is countries like France, UK, Germany, Spain, USA developed themself on the blood of Asian, Africans and middle eastern country. Despite being one of the richest in the world in natural wealth Africans country still remains poor when so called humanist country developed themself by stealing wealth from those countries.

UN General Assembly votes to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council but when so called humanist country do that same judgement with France, UK and USA.

[Lucius]

1. Total control of European politicians regarding ties (of course financial) with the Kremlin gang. You can talk a lot about bias and "phobias", the fact remains - it was bribery and influence on the tops of European governments that allowed Gazprom to monopolize its position in the EU and then set conditions and engage in fuel terrorism. Like it or not, gas and oil are used by Russia as a "legal" means of terror and pressure

This is unfortunately true, because if the EU really wanted to become independent of gas and oil from Russia, then it could start working on it after the first invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and the fact is that they did nothing. Now, these same politicians are sending minimal quantities of weapons to Ukraine, imposing mostly innocuous sanctions, and at the same time, since the beginning of the war, they have paid Russia as much as EUR 18 billion just for gas.

Therefore, we can conclude that EU politicians (most) are just ordinary hypocrites who do not care who they do business with, it is important that they pay a lower price, which means that more money remains in their pockets.

[be.open]

1. Total control of European politicians regarding ties (of course financial) with the Kremlin gang. You can talk a lot about bias and "phobias", the fact remains - it was bribery and influence on the tops of European governments that allowed Gazprom to monopolize its position in the EU and then set conditions and engage in fuel terrorism. Like it or not, gas and oil are used by Russia as a "legal" means of terror and pressure

This is unfortunately true, because if the EU really wanted to become independent of gas and oil from Russia, then it could start working on it after the first invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and the fact is that they did nothing. Now, these same politicians are sending minimal quantities of weapons to Ukraine, imposing mostly innocuous sanctions, and at the same time, since the beginning of the war, they have paid Russia as much as EUR 18 billion just for gas.

Therefore, we can conclude that EU politicians (most) are just ordinary hypocrites who do not care who they do business with, it is important that they pay a lower price, which means that more money remains in their pockets.

I cannot speak for the whole of Europe, I can only speak for Germany, which is the largest importer of Russian gas and the largest economy in Europe. They cannot take and refuse Russian gas, they simply cannot. Germany's entire energy infrastructure relies on pipeline gas from Russia like a house rests on a foundation. It is impossible with all the desire to completely change the foundation so that the house does not collapse and you can continue to live in it. It is necessary either to completely demolish the house and rebuild it, or to build a new house from scratch nearby in a free place. It is not a question of the degree of corruption of German politicians and officials, the system of pipelines and underground gas storages as a circulatory system for the German economy, and cheap gas from Russia is a guarantee of its economic strength. Take one away and there won't be another.

[Mauser]

Europe is still relying heavily on gas at the moment, changing the dependence on Russia could happen in two forms. First, switching from Russian gas to other suppliers than can supply these large amounts needed. Second, would be to get rid of gas all together and go for other energy sources. Both of these options have issues and can't be accomplished short term on my opinion.
The problem with going for other suppliers and stop trading with Russia is that the contracts are long term. Countries can't just cancel them overnight. There might be repercussions in front of the WTO. Also the gas in Europe is distributed via pipelines, the whole system can't just be changed to rely on ships to bring gas now. Same goes for switching to alternative energy solutions. Heat pumps and renewable energy sources sound good on paper, but who pays for that? Most homes can't afford to buy new systems and heaters just because the politicians want it. Luckily it's spring now in Europe so most heating will only be needed again in the winter.

[Leviathan.007]

These are just some of the many steps. A large part of it will be finding new exporters, obviously, like increasing their LNG capacities to buy gas from the US, building new pipelines for buying gas from other countries, and the EU countries that can should also increase their own fossil fuel production, even if it means breaking their previous climate commitments. They should also reduce their consumption of gas wherever possible. Replacement of boilers with electric heaters is a good example, it needs to happen in many other fields where gas is used.

People shouldn't think that taking an action that would reduce their gas dependency only by 1% is pointless, all these little adjustments will add-up together and help solve this crisis.

The case of dependence on the Russian gas is the most important case when we are talking about the Ukraine-Russia war and the sanctions against Russia, because even if they make Russia under the strongest economic sanctions in the world, where they can't trade with another country and nation in the world, since Europe is demanding the Russian gas and Russia the biggest supplier of the gas for Europe and europian countries the sanctions are nearly useless because still, they do have to trade and deal with Russia, but for achieving that purpose, they need to find another supplier in the first place.

[Desscount]

These are just some of the many steps. A large part of it will be finding new exporters, obviously, like increasing their LNG capacities to buy gas from the US, building new pipelines for buying gas from other countries, and the EU countries that can should also increase their own fossil fuel production, even if it means breaking their previous climate commitments. They should also reduce their consumption of gas wherever possible. Replacement of boilers with electric heaters is a good example, it needs to happen in many other fields where gas is used.

People shouldn't think that taking an action that would reduce their gas dependency only by 1% is pointless, all these little adjustments will add-up together and help solve this crisis.

The case of dependence on the Russian gas is the most important case when we are talking about the Ukraine-Russia war and the sanctions against Russia, because even if they make Russia under the strongest economic sanctions in the world, where they can't trade with another country and nation in the world, since Europe is demanding the Russian gas and Russia the biggest supplier of the gas for Europe and europian countries the sanctions are nearly useless because still, they do have to trade and deal with Russia, but for achieving that purpose, they need to find another supplier in the first place.

That's why I think when Russia received sanctions from European countries they weren't too worried,
On the other hand, European countries are also in a dilemma with such conditions, where they inevitably have to deal with Russia when talking about gas.
We'll see what developments happen next