Mediaboss Marketing

Other avenues are available to the EU if it wishes or needs to reduce reliance on Russian gas even more quickly but with notable trade-offs.5 The main near-term option would involve switching away from gas use in the power sector via an increased call on Europes coal-fired fleet or by using alternative fuels primarily liquid fuels within existing gas-fired power plants.

Given that these alternatives to gas use would raise the EUs emissions, they are not included in the 10-Point Plan described above. However, they could displace large volumes of gas relatively quickly. We estimate that a temporary shift from gas to coal- or oil-fired generation could reduce gas demand for power by some 28 bcm before there was an overall increase in the EUs energy-related emissions.

The larger share of this potential decrease in gas demand would be possible through gas-to-coal switching: an additional 120 TWh in coal-fired generation could cut gas demand by 22 bcm in one year. In addition to opportunities to run on biomethane, nearly a quarter of the EUs fleet of gas-fired power plants is capable of using alternative fuels nearly all in the form of liquid fuels. Taking advantage of this capability could displace another 6 bcm of natural gas demand a year, depending on sufficient financial incentives to switch fuels and the availability of those fuels.

If this fuel-switching option were to be fully exercised in addition to the complete implementation of the 10-Point Plan described above, it would result in a total annual reduction in EU imports of gas from Russia of more than 80 bcm, or well over half, while still resulting in a modest decline in overall emissions.

Original post:
A 10-Point Plan to Reduce the European Union's Reliance on Russian Natural Gas Analysis - IEA - IEA