Picture courtesy of Snam
5 Simulation Results
ENTSOG focuses its simulations on transmission network-related demand and supply, depending on data availability. For the Dual Gas Model (DGM), the country-specific inputs for final natural gas demand and supply are sourced from the ENTSO-E and ENTSOG TYNDP 2024 Scenarios Report. Values for natural gas demand for power generation are derived from the Dual Hydrogen/Electricity Model (DHEM) simulation results.
It should be noted that the simulations for yearly demand and climatic stress conditions – namely the 2-week Dunkelflaute (CDF) and Peak Demand (PD) – are conducted independently. In the simulations under climatic stress conditions, all underground gas storage facilities are assumed to be at 35 % of their working gas volume, and flexibility from LNG tanks is used as additional supply during the PD scenario and throughout both weeks of the CDF.
Supply stress conditions related to import source dependency (S-1), specifically for natural gas from Russia, are considered in the Dual Gas Model (DGM). However, as the DGM is designed to minimise the use of Russian natural gas, the simulation results show no contribution from Russian pipeline supply in the overall supply mix. As a result, the S-1 scenario for Russian gas is omitted from the analysis.
Infrastructure stress conditions (N-1), referring to the Single Largest Infrastructure Disruption (SLID) for natural gas during Peak Day (PD) demand, are designed to assess the system’s resilience in the event of a failure of the largest gas infrastructure asset entering each country. This assessment excludes underground storage facilities and domestic production. The objective is to evaluate the potential impact of such a disruption on the national level, as well as its broader implications for the European gas system during PD. By simulating SLID under peak conditions, the analysis provides insight into the robustness of cross-border interconnections and the ability of the infrastructure to ensure security of supply under extreme stress.
Furthermore, the results are shaped by the model’s behaviour, which does not account for commercial supply agreements and relies on assumptions regarding infrastructure developments.
The raw simulation results of the TYNDP 2024 Natural Gas System Assessment are provided in TYNDP 2024 Annex E, Analysis tables. All results and maps will be available through the visualisation platform.
5.1 Reference case
5.1.1 Reference weather yearly demand
The analyses show that there is no risk of methane demand curtailment in any scenario except for Cyprus. The results indicate a lack of infrastructure under the Low natural gas infrastructure level in 2030 and 2040.
Figure 11: Reference weather year Results in Low natural gas infrastructure level
Figure 12: Reference weather year Results in Advanced natural gas infrastructure leve
5.1.2 Stressful weather yearly demand
The analyses show that there is no risk of methane demand curtailment in any scenario except for Cyprus. The results indicate a lack of infrastructure under the Low natural gas infrastructure level in 2030 and 2040.
Figure 13: Stressful weather year Results in Low natural gas infrastructure level
Figure 14: Stressful weather year Results in Advanced natural gas infrastructure level
5.1.3 2-week Dunkelflaute demand
In National Trends+ (NT+) scenario, all EU Member States satisfy their methane demand due to the available supply and sufficient interconnection capacities.
However, one country cannot satisfy its methane demand due to an infrastructure limitation:
- Cyprus. The results indicate a lack of infrastructure under the Low natural gas infrastructure level.
Figure 15: 2-week Dunkelflaute results in Low natural gas infrastructure leve
Figure 16: 2-week Dunkelflaute results in Advanced natural gas infrastructure level
5.1.4 Peak Demand
In National Trends+ (NT+) scenario, all EU Member States satisfy their methane demand due to the available supply and sufficient interconnection capacities.
However, one country cannot satisfy its methane demand due to an infrastructure limitation:
- Cyprus. The results indicate a lack of infrastructure under the Low natural gas infrastructure level.
Figure 17: Peak Demand results in Low natural gas infrastructure level
Figure 18: Peak Demand results in Advanced natural gas infrastructure level
5.2 Single Largest Infrastructure Disruption (SLID)
This section investigates the impact of a disruption to the single largest infrastructure in each country during Peak Demand (PD). For PD, the country-specific values of final natural gas demand are sourced from the TYNDP 2024 Scenario Report. The natural gas demand for power generation is based on DHEM simulations during a stressful weather year, specifically the day when the EU recorded the highest total natural gas usage for power generation and hydrogen production. The Single Largest Infrastructure Disruption (SLID) scenario evaluates the curtailed demand following the disruption of the single largest interconnection infrastructure for a given country, excluding domestic production and storage facilities.
The single largest infrastructure depends on the simulation year and the infrastructure level considered.
A detailed table listing the single largest infrastructure and the corresponding risk group for each country included in the assessment is provided in TYNDP 2024 Annex E, Analysis tables. It should be noted that this chapter does not include descriptions of countries where no demand curtailment occurs under the SLID scenario during Peak Demand (PD) event.
1 According to the methodology, the PD for power-to-gas demand at the EU level was identified as 9 January. However, due to the non-simultaneity approach used in the SLID analysis for individual Member States in this report, the peak demand for power generation may vary by country. The varying PD for power demand configurations could change the outcome of the individual Member State SLID impact assessments affecting the level of curtailment according to N-1 Standard. For example, in the case of Ireland, SLID results would show a significant level of demand curtailment in alternative, individual peak day configurations.
5.2.1 Peak Demand
In the National Trends+ (NT+) scenario, the Single Largest Infrastructure Disruption (SLID) impacts are most significant in countries located at the periphery of the EU, where interconnection diversification remains limited due to geographical and infrastructural constraints. These countries are more vulnerable to supply disruptions resulting from their reliance on a limited number of import routes.
Overall, the simulation results indicate a generally robust level of infrastructure cooperation across the EU countries. This resilience is further supported by the projected decline in natural gas demand and the anticipated increase in biomethane production, both of which are key assumptions in the NT+ scenario. These developments contribute to enhancing the system’s flexibility and reducing dependence on single infrastructure elements over time.
- Cyprus, Malta and Bosnia and Herzegovina are exposed to 100 % demand curtailment, as they each have only one interconnection.
- Sweden is exposed to a 4 % demand curtailment in 2030 under the SLID scenario, due to the disruption of its only interconnection with Denmark. By 2040, increased biomethane production contributes to fully meeting the country’s gas demand, eliminating curtailment under the SLID scenario.
- Finland shows a 23 % demand curtailment in 2030 under the SLID scenario, as the disruption corresponds to its main import capacity, with insufficient interconnection capacity available from Estonia to compensate. By 2040, a combination of reduced gas demand and increased biomethane production helps address this supply limitation.
- Northern Ireland faces up to 34 % demand curtailment (equivalent to 1 % of the United Kingdom’s demand) in 2030 under the SLID IE scenario due to the disruption of Interconnector 2, which impacts interconnection between Ireland and Northern Ireland and results in no flow through the South-North CSEP. By 2040, a decrease in gas demand contributes to fully meeting supply needs without curtailment. The disruption of Interconnector 2 also prevents gas flow to the Isle of Man.
- Luxemburg is exposed to 32 % demand curtailment in 2030 and 16 % in 2040 under the SLID scenario. The disruption corresponds to one of two pipelines of the interconnection with Belgium, while the other pipeline of interconnection with Belgium and interconnection with Germany presents infrastructure limitations. The reduction in demand in 2040 compared to 2030 contributes to the lower curtailment level.
- North Macedonia is exposed to 29 % demand curtailment in 2030 and 2 % in 2040 under the SLID scenario. The disruption corresponds to the interconnection with Greece, while limited interconnection capacity from Bulgaria prevents full compensation. The lower demand in 2040 compared to 2030 contributes to the reduced curtailment.
- Greece shows a 2 % demand curtailment in 2030 under the SLID scenario at the Low natural gas infrastructure level, primarily due to internal bottlenecks that limit the ability to supply natural gas from LNG terminal. At the Advanced infrastructure level, planned capacity enhancement projects enable greater imports of Caspian Sea gas, improving the country’s ability to meet demand. By 2040, a decrease in gas demand contributes to fully meeting supply needs without curtailment.
Figure 19: SLID Peak Demand results in Low natural gas infrastructure level
Figure 20: SLID Peak Demand results in Advanced natural gas infrastructure level