But there are ways to rely less on it
Photograph: Getty Images
Listen to this story
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
T he world is facing its second gas shock in half a decade. After Russia cut flows to Europe in 2022, intending to undermine support for Ukraine, the continent turned to liquefied natural gas (lng) shipped from America and the Middle East, sending prices soaring. Now lng supplies from the Gulf have been cut off, too. Power prices have consequently surged.
Some experts argue that renewables offer a promising way to get off gas, and thereby ensure energy security. They point to Spain, which has pursued huge investments in wind and solar; so far this year gas has set power prices there only 15% of the time, compared with 89% for Italy. Solar’s share of power generation in Pakistan increased from 0.7% in 2019 to 10% in 2024; the country’s import bill for lng for the rest of this year is likely to be $6bn less than it otherwise would have been, according to one analysis.
Unfortunately, the world will remain haunted by the spectre of natural-gas shocks for decades to come. Even in a world dominated by clean energy, natural gas will continue to be a critical part of electricity generation. Solar and wind power, along with batteries, cannot offer complete energy security. Governments can, however, limit the damage that gas shortages can do.
Analysts contend that it is possible to run a cost-effective electricity grid where the vast majority of power comes from renewables in concert with batteries. But a grid that is split between 90% clean energy and 10% fossil fuels does not mean one in which those two sources consistently provide that mix of energy. Instead it is one in which for a tenth of the time, nearly all of the power is derived from fossil fuels.
Chart: The Economist
That is because renewables are at the mercy of Mother Nature. The sun does not always shine, nor does the wind always blow. Batteries are increasingly able to smooth out short-term fluctuations in supply and demand—a cloud passing over a solar array, for example, or the evening peak after the sun goes down—but they cannot keep the lights on for longer periods. Other options are not appealing. Not all countries have the appropriate geography for hydropower, and in any case water is at the mercy of the weather, too; Europe’s crisis in 2022 was worsened by a drought. New nuclear power stations remain prohibitively expensive. Alternative forms of long-duration storage, such as iron-air batteries or hydrogen, are in their infancy. For the moment, analysts’ net-zero projections include a role for natural gas far into the future.
Importers of gas will therefore remain vulnerable to supply disruptions. Governments will have to ensure there is capacity to satisfy all demand, which includes import capacity for LNG, storage facilities and pipelines, as well as power plants. If global gas demand falls, supply may become dominated by a few low-cost producers. The market could become thinner, subject to moments of acute shortage. Beyond seasonal storage, taxpayers may need to stump up for strategic reserves.
Though gas cannot be entirely avoided, there are things governments can do to rely on it less. Grids should become bigger and smarter. That means time-varying prices, which encourage consumers to shift demand to hours when power comes from virtually free sources of energy such as the sun and wind. If prices rise when clean energy is scarce, that will incentivise investment in promising forms of energy storage. Interconnections between grids can reduce exposure to local weather.
Local pricing can also help. At present there is often little incentive for storage and energy-intensive industries to be situated in windier or sunnier parts of a country. As a consequence, grids become congested when it is sunniest or windiest. Allowing prices to reflect local conditions should help alleviate these bottlenecks, meaning that turbines would not need to be turned off when it is windy.
It helps, too, that the costs of relying on natural gas as a backup are far lower than depending on it for everyday energy needs. Britain’s Climate Change Committee, an advisory body, reckons that the additional investment cost of moving from gas to renewables would eventually be offset by substantial fuel savings. There is no getting off gas for a while. But its power to shock can be reduced. ■
논증 분석
유형: diagnosis
핵심 주장
재생에너지가 확산되더라도 천연가스 충격은 수십 년간 지속될 것이나, 스마트 그리드·가격 체계·전략 비축 등을 통해 가스 의존도를 줄일 수 있다.
논리구조
- 전제: 세계는 반십 년 만에 두 번째 가스 충격에 직면해 있다. Russia의 대유럽 가스 차단(2022)에 이어 Gulf LNG 공급까지 중단되며 전력 가격이 급등하고 있다.
- 논거: 일부 전문가들은 재생에너지가 가스 의존에서 벗어나는 해법이라고 주장한다. Spain은 대규모 풍력·태양광 투자로 가스가 전력 가격을 결정하는 비중이 15%에 불과하며, Pakistan은 태양광 비중을 2019년 0.7%에서 2024년 10%로 늘려 LNG 수입비용을 60억 달러 절감할 전망이다.
- 진단: 그러나 재생에너지 중심 그리드에서도 천연가스는 필수적이다. ‘90% 청정에너지·10% 화석연료’ 그리드란 두 에너지가 항상 그 비율로 공급됨을 의미하지 않고, 전체 시간의 10%는 거의 모든 전력을 화석연료에서 얻음을 의미한다.
- 진단: 재생에너지는 자연에 종속된다. 배터리는 단기 변동을 완충하지만 장기 공급 부족을 해소하지 못한다. 수력은 지리·가뭄에 취약하고, 신규 원자력은 비용이 지나치게 높으며, 철-공기 배터리·수소 등 장기 저장 기술은 아직 초기 단계다. 따라서 순배출 제로 시나리오에서도 천연가스는 먼 미래까지 역할을 유지한다.
- 진단: 가스 수입국들은 공급 차질에 계속 취약할 것이다. 글로벌 가스 수요가 감소하면 시장은 소수 저비용 생산국에 집중되어 더욱 얇아지고 급격한 공급 부족에 노출될 수 있다. LNG 수입 인프라, 저장 시설, 전략 비축 등에 대한 정부 투자가 필요하다.
- 처방: 그리드를 더 크고 스마트하게 만들어야 한다. 시간대별 변동 요금제를 도입해 소비자가 태양광·풍력이 풍부한 시간대로 수요를 이전하도록 유도하고, 청정에너지 부족 시 가격 상승이 에너지 저장 투자를 촉진하도록 해야 한다. 그리드 간 상호연결을 확대해 지역 기상 리스크를 분산해야 한다.
- 처방: 지역별 가격 체계(local pricing)를 도입해야 한다. 현재는 저장 시설이나 에너지 집약 산업을 바람·햇빛이 많은 지역에 배치할 유인이 없어 그리드 혼잡이 발생한다. 지역 조건을 반영한 가격 책정은 병목을 해소하고 풍력 발전기가 강풍에도 가동 중단되는 낭비를 줄인다.
- 논거: 천연가스를 백업으로만 사용하는 비용은 주 에너지원으로 의존할 때보다 훨씬 낮다. Britain의 Climate Change Committee는 가스에서 재생에너지로 전환하는 추가 투자비용이 결국 연료 절감액으로 상쇄될 것으로 추산한다.
결론
천연가스에서 완전히 벗어나기까지는 오랜 시간이 필요하지만, 스마트 그리드·변동 요금제·지역 가격 체계·전략 비축 투자를 통해 가스 충격의 파괴력을 줄이는 것은 가능하다.
Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.