This paper uses bottom-up engineering information as a basis for modeling new technologies within the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, a computable general equilibrium model of the world economy. Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), natural gas combined cycle with CCS, and integrated coal gasification with CCS power generation technologies are introduced into the EPPA model. These compete in the electricity sector with conventional fossil generation, nuclear, hydro, wind, and biomass power generation. Engineering cost data are used together with EPPA data, including the underlying Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) and supplementary physical energy accounts, to assure that technologies, when simulated within the model, meet thermodynamic efficiency limits, and that they reflect regional differences in the cost structure of the electric sector. Alternative capital vintaging approaches are investigated and an explicit treatment of market penetration of new technologies is developed. Simulations through 2100 show the introduction of the new technologies and their decline as fuel and input prices, and carbon policies, change. A general result is that NGCC plants with or without capture, while currently less costly methods of abating carbon emissions from the electric sector based on engineering data, play only a limited and short-term role in meeting carbon limits. By 2050 the coal CCS plants, currently the most costly of the three technologies, dominate in the simulated policy scenarios because rising gas prices raise the cost of the gas-based technologies.

© 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

The paper focuses on energy markets in Russia. First, we look at the recent developments in the world energy markets and in Russian natural gas, oil, and electricity sectors. Then we consider different scenarios for a potential development of energy markets, both in Russia and in Russian trading partners. Using the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, which is a general equilibrium model of the world economy, we consider different energy scenarios for the next 20-40 years. Our projections show energy use in Russia growing from 775 mtoe in 2005 to 1200 mtoe in 2050 in primary energy equivalence, while electricity use nearly doubles from about 1000 TWh in 2005 to 1900 TWh in 2050 in our reference projections. The energy system continues to rely heavily on traditional fossil energy. Our long-run reference projection for oil price is a continuous increase from $55/barrel in 2010 to $155/barrel in 2050 and for natural gas from $220/tcm in 2010 to $380/tcm in 2050. The model is not able to capture the volatility in energy prices that is commonly observed. The price projections should be seen as a long run trend around which there will likely continue to be volatility driven by short term events. Achieving the G8 goal of 50% greenhouse gas emissions reduction significantly changes our projections, reducing Russia's fossil fuel production and domestic fuel and electricity use from the projected levels without such a policy.

Recent increases in natural gas reserve estimates and advances in shale gas technology make natural gas a fuel with good prospects to serve a bridge to a low-carbon world. Russia is an important energy supplier as it holds the world largest natural gas reserves and it is the world’s largest exporter of natural gas. Energy was one of the driving forces of Russia’s recent economic recovery from the economic collapse of 1990s. These prospects have changed drastically with a global recession and the collapse of oil and gas prices from their peaks of 2008. An additional factor is an ongoing surge in a liquefied natural gas (LNG) capacity and a development of Central Asia’s and the Middle East gas supplies that can compete with Russian gas in its traditional (European) and potential (Asian) markets. To study the long-term prospects for Russian natural gas, we employ the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, a computable general equilibrium model of the world economy. While we consider the updated reserve estimates for all world regions, in this paper we focus on the results for Russian natural gas trade. The role of natural gas is explored in the context of several policy assumptions: with no greenhouse gas mitigation policy and scenarios of emissions targets in developed countries. Scenarios where Europe takes on an even more restrictive target of 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions relative to 2005 by 2050 and reduces its nuclearbased generation are also considered. Asian markets become increasingly important for natural gas exports and several scenarios about their potential development are considered. We found that over the next 20-40 years natural gas can still play a substantial role in Russian exports and there are substantial reserves to support a development of the gas-oriented energy system both in Russia and in its current and potential gas importers. In the Reference scenario, exports of natural gas grow from Russia’s current 7 Tcf to 10-12 Tcf in 2030 and 15-18 Tcf in 2050. Alternative scenarios provide a wider range of projections, with a share of Russian gas exports shipped to Asian markets rising to 30 percent by 2030 and more than 50 percent in 2050. Patterns of international gas trade show increased flows to the Asian region from the Middle East, Central Asia, Australia and Russia. Europe’s reliance on LNG imports increases, while it still maintains sizable imports from Russia.

Recent research has shown that over the next few decades an effective U.S. climate policy to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions would rely on extensive reductions in energy use and substitution of natural gas for coal in power generation. The second pathway - gas-for-coal - is premised on the fact that natural gas, when combusted, produces 50 percent lower CO2 emissions than coal.

A recent paper by Cornell Professor Robert Howarth and others in Climatic Change Letters calls the gas-for-coal solution into serious question, suggesting that natural gas power generation is twice as greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive as coal. Howarth bases this conclusion in part on his assessment of methane leakage in the production stages of natural gas, with a specific focus on new methods to produce unconventional shale gas. [...] The Howarth study raises some legitimate questions about the uncertainties surrounding associated estimates of methane emissions - but Howarth's conclusions depend on a couple of unsound assumptions. [...]

Reduced energy use and coal-to-gas substitution could provide a bridge to a low carbon future, enabling us to move forward on climate change mitigation while we continue critical research on other more advanced technologies. Energy alternatives require close scrutiny for their range of impacts on the environment - the environmental effects of shale gas are no exception.

It would, however, require much more compelling evidence and analysis to persuade us that we should actually use more coal and less natural gas power generation, a logical conclusion from Howarth's paper. Calculations that test conventional wisdom are important in driving further scrutiny. The preponderance of the evidence, however, continues to support the conclusion that substitution of gas for coal in power generation is an important component of a sensible and effective near-term climate change policy.