Electrification versus molecules: the real trade-off.

§ 01First, the starting point

Let's not make it more complicated than it is: where you can electrify, you should electrify. An electric drive or heat pump converts energy more efficiently than a combustion process, renewable electricity is widely available and the accounting for green electricity is mature. If your site has an adequate grid connection and your demand fits within the power and the temperature that are achievable electrically, then electrification is the route.

So the question isn't whether electrification is better. The question is where the limit lies, and what you do with the part of your energy demand that falls on the other side of that limit.

§ 02Five factors that set the limit

The choice between electrification and molecules isn't a matter of preference but of five testable factors. Go through them for every energy stream on your site.

• Available grid capacity. Is there a connection with enough transport capacity, now? In large parts of the Netherlands, companies are in a queue for an upgrade to their connection; the grid operators publish which areas are full. [1] [2] A connection that arrives in a few years is no answer to this year's energy demand.
• Peak power. Electrification is sized for the peak, not the average. A process or construction site with short, high peaks needs a connection or battery capacity that is often out of proportion to the average consumption.
• Temperature. For low and medium temperatures, heat pumps and electric boilers are mature. For high process temperatures, electric alternatives do exist, but often not yet at the scale, the price or the fit an existing process needs.
• Time horizon. A temporary site — construction site, event, bridging period — rarely justifies a fixed grid investment. A permanent process with a long horizon does.

§ 03The problem is called grid congestion

Of the five factors, one dominates the rest in the Netherlands: the grid connection. For several years now, the grid operators have been reporting that in many regions no new or larger connections can be delivered until the grid has been expanded, and that the queues are long. [1] [2] The regulator has introduced rules for congestion management and flexible contracts to make better use of the available capacity. [3] That helps, but it does not change the core: for many sites, electrification at the scale needed is a plan for later, not an option for today.

That puts companies in an awkward position. The will is there, often the budget too, but the grid is not. And everyone around you — clients, auditors, permitting authorities — is not waiting for the grid.

§ 04What you do with the part that cannot be electrified

This is where molecules come in, and where the trade-off gets interesting. For the part of your energy demand that cannot (yet) be electrified, there are three kinds of answer:

• Stay fossil and accept the emissions. Increasingly not an option in tenders and reporting.
• Buy a paper claim — certificates without physical delivery, or a fuel with an origin you cannot demonstrate. Works until someone asks further; see the HVO comparison.
• Use molecules that are demonstrably renewable, with a chain logged per delivery. That is the route renewable gas by way of a mobile chain fits into: deliverable without a grid connection, usable for heat and power, and with a file that holds up under RED III and CSRD. [4]

The key is that the second and third routes look the same from the outside and are completely different on the inside. The difference is in the proof, not in the fuel.

§ 05A mixed strategy is normal, not a compromise

Hardly any site is a hundred per cent electric or a hundred per cent molecules. The realistic strategy is mixed: electrify the streams where the grid, the power and the temperature allow it; use demonstrably renewable molecules for the rest; and record for both, per stream, what you have done. Such an approach has three advantages. It can be carried out today. It can be explained to anyone who asks further. And it is reversible: if the grid is there in three years after all, you scale down the molecule part without a stranded investment — provided you have set that part up to be mobile and flexible.

§ 06When we say "electrify"

To be clear, because a supplier of renewable gas has a stake in this: if your site has an adequate connection, your peaks and temperatures are feasible electrically and your horizon is long enough, then electrification is the more logical route. You will get that answer from the fossil replacement scan too — it was built to give it. For all other situations, the article on site suitability sets out which data you need to make the trade-off concrete.

§ 07References

• Netbeheer Nederland — Capacity map and reports on grid congestion: areas with transport scarcity for consumption and grid injection, queues and expected expansion.Grid operators · nl · ongoingHigh
• TenneT — Reports on congestion on the high-voltage grid and the planning of grid expansion.Transmission system operator · nlHigh
• Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM) — Rules for congestion management, prioritisation of connections and flexible contracts.Regulator · nlHigh
• European Union — Directive (EU) 2023/2413 (RED III) — sustainability criteria and evidence rules for renewable fuels, applicable to the molecule side of a mixed strategy.Regulation · primaryPrimary

Full references (titles, dates, links) to follow.

About the author