ICOS Science Conference 2022: Day 3, Plenary

1. Can Russian gas be replaced in the EU?
NATURAL GAS SUPPLY FROM RUSSIA DERIVED FROM DAILY PIPELINE FLOW DATA
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR FILLING A SHORTAGE OF RUSSIAN SUPPLY
Utrecht, ICOS 2022
Chuanlong Zhou, Biqing Zhu, Steven J. Davis, Zhu Liu, Antoine Halff, Simon Ben Arous, Hugo de Almeida Rodrigues,
Philippe Ciais*

2. Russian-Ukraine related gas issues
Unusual movement
of Russian troops
near the borders of
Ukraine
Oct. 2021
Russia
Invaded
Ukraine
Feb. 2022
Embargo plans
Inflations
Concerns
Mar.-May 2022
In 1990s,
2005-2006,
2007-2008,
2008-2009,
2010,
2013-2014
2015
Russia–Ukraine
gas disputes
Hot summer
Electricity
France Nuclear
Back toCoal
More Concerns
June 2022
Nord Stream 1
The coming winter
15% saving plans
Even More Concerns
July-Sept. 2022
Energy Security,
Climate Changes,
Global Market,
Equality,
…
Next?

3. Outline and Scope
1. Short-term solutions
2. Optimal assumptions
3. Based on Historical data
Quantify
Russian Gas
Gap
Solutions to
Fill the gap
Spatial
Temporal
Sectoral
Problem Identification
Heating
Electricity
Supply
Solution Estimations
Intra-EU gas
transmissions,
Uncertainties,
Challenges,
Climate impacts,
…
Evaluations

4. Supply-storage-consumption Simulation Model
𝐶𝑆𝑖
To Storage
Storage
Supply
Storage of
this country
𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑆𝑖
Outflow
Inflow
Gas network
connected to
other
counties
Output: 𝐶𝑗,𝑆𝑖
,
Where
j is sector,
i is supply source
Consumption
Public heating
House heating
Industrial
Power
Others
ENTSO-E
Eurostat
Energy Balance
THE
E-control
Russian
LNG
Production Norway
Other
countries
Direct Supply (S)
𝑆𝑖
Country
Value available
from dataset
Value evaluated
in the model
Supply-storage-consumption
Simulation Model
Gas pipeline data
Gas used in power sector
Energy balance for other sectors
Data validation
A daily simulation based on physical gas
flow using mass and ratio balance →
Russian Gap
If the supply
were to stop

5. Simulation Network
ENTSO-G network
(operational point based)
Simulation network
(country-based)
Simplify
https://www.entsog.eu/maps

6. Outline and Scope
1. Short-term solutions
2. Optimal assumptions
3. Based on Historical data
Quantify
Russian Gas
Gap
Solutions to
Fill the gap
Spatial
Temporal
Sectoral
Problem Identification
Heating
Electricity
Supply
Solution Estimations
Intra-EU gas
transmissions,
Uncertainties,
Challenges,
Climate impacts,
…
Evaluations

7. Gas Supplies: Trends
←Fig. Weekly natural gas supply share
trends in EU27&UK with EU gas price with
Dutch TTF Natural Gas Calendar price.
Before After War
Russian before/after war -10% vs. -31%
LNG before/after war +7% vs. +16%
EU production before/after war -2% vs. +3%
Other pipeline before/after war +1% vs. +8%
Norwegian +4%
Dutch TTF price after war +101%

8. Before war
After war
Gas Consumptions: Spatial and Sectoral
↑ Fig. Sectoral gas consumptions in 2021.
↑ Fig. Spatial gas consumptions before and after war.
Mean daily consumption
Russian
gas
ratio
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

9. Outline and Scope
1. Short-term solutions
2. Optimal assumptions
3. Based on Historical data
Quantify
Russian Gas
Gap
Solutions to
Fill the gap
Spatial
Temporal
Sectoral
Problem Identification
Heating
Electricity
Supply
Solution Estimations
Intra-EU gas
transmissions,
Uncertainties,
Challenges,
Climate impacts,
…
Evaluations

10. Demand Side: Reduction in Heating
Temperatures are weighted by NUTS3 region population.
↑ Fig. Example of temperature-gas-
consumption (TGC) curves fitting for the
normal and lower consumption.
Temperature-gas-consumption (TGC) curves
↑ Fig. Example of consumptions reduction
for each point (day)
Reduced consumption:
C’ = C ×
𝐶1−𝐶2
𝐶1

11. Demand Side: Substitution in Power Sector
Power
generated
(MWh)
Biomass
Gas
Nuclear
Coal
Mean capacity
75% capacity
95% capacity
↑ Fig. Hourly capacities for coal, gas, nuclear, and biomass based on ENTSO-E from 2019
to 2021.

12. Supply Side: LNG, Production, and Pipeline
Russian Gas Gap (RGG)
↑ Fig. Estimated boosted capacities for LNG, Production, and Pipeline
(based on average growth rate from BP Statistical Review of World
2090 TW h (37% of total consumption)
470 TW h (22% of RGG)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Poland
Ukraine
Italy
Germany
Denmark
Romania
Libya
Azerbaijan
United Kingdom
Other Arabic
Other Africa
Norway
Netherlands
Algeria
Qatar
Others
Asia Pacific
Australia
US
LNG
Production
Pipeline
LNG from US and Australia
LNG from Rest of the world
414 TW h (20% of RGG)
EU Production
Pipeline excluding Russia
104 TW h (5% of RGG)
115 TW h (6% of RGG)
Total from Supply
1103 TW h (53% of RGG)

13. ↑Fig. Gas supply sources and surplus/deflect evaluated for the EU countries based on 2021 scenario.
Supply Source
Domestic Solution
International Solution
Deficit and Surplus

14.  Infrastructure
 LNG terminal
 Gas odorization system
 Political
 International
 Intra-EU
 Social
 Life quality
 Equality
 Economic
 Global gas/LNG market
 Inflations
 Climate
 CO2 Emissions
Challenges in Short-term
Consumption of energy from fossil sources declined in 2020.
Opportunities in Long-term
vs.
Emit 159 MtCO2 per year
~ 6% of 2020 EU CO2 emissions
Renewable needs to grow even faster to replace fossil energy
consumption.
Provide extra 37% RGG
if gas can be redirected
from France to Germany

15. Thank You & Questions
What We Did
↑Figure Summary. Gas supply sources and surplus/deflect
evaluated in this research for the EU countries.
1. We evaluated the spatial-temporal-sectoral Russian
gas gap in the EU based on ENTSO-G pipeline data.
2. We evaluated the capacities from both the demand
and supply sides to fill this cap based on historical data.
Please find more details from
Our paper: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2022-246/
Website: https://eugas.herokuapp.com/
Take-home Message
1. It is theoretically possible to replace Russian gas in
Europe in the short term with certain social, economic,
and climate costs.
2. International and intra-EU collaborations are important.
3. Infrastructure constructions and energy structure
shifting might bring opportunities for both economy
and climate targets.

16. Total consumption in EU+UK in 2021: 5517.598 TWh
Extra CO2 emission from switching to coal for DE only:
330.6 TWh *0.5 (gas power generator efficiency) *(2180-898) pounds/MWh*1e6 *0.000453592
pounds/ton = 0.096 billion tons
Extra CO2 emission from switching to coal for all countries:
884.3 TWh *0.5 (gas power generator efficiency) *(2180-898) pounds/MWh*1e6 *0.000453592
pounds/ton = 0.257 billion tons
EPA’s Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database
(eGRID), released in 2018 with 2016 data, shows that at the
national level, natural gas units have an average emission rate
of 898 pounds CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh), while coal units
have an emissions rate of 2,180 pounds CO2 per MWh. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Emissions and
Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). Available:
https://www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-generation-resource-
integrated-database-egrid
EU CO2 emission in 2020 : 2.54 billion
metric tons
https://www.statista.com/statistics/45001
7/co2-emissions-europe-
eurasia/#:~:text=The%20European%20Uni
on%20produced%20approximately,at%203
.99%20billion%20metric%20tons.

17. Data Validation
Fig. Data comparisons with Eurostat, and BP Energy Review

18. Sectoral Adjustment
←Fig. ENTSO-G distribution (DIS) and final
consumer (FNC) vs. DIS and FNC estimated based
on Eurostat for the counties with DIS and FNC
separation in ENTSO-G