109 / 122
Southern Corridor GRIP 2017–2026 |
109
20–40%
<20%
<40%
10–30%
>20%
0–50GWh/d
0–80% of capacity
50–250GWh/d
250–600GWh/d
600–1100GWh/d
>1100GWh/d
<30%
80–99% of capacity
99–100% of capacity
20–40%
<20%
<40%
10–30%
>20%
0–50GWh/d
0–80% of capacity
50–250GWh/d
250–600GWh/d
600–1100GWh/d
>1100GWh/d
<30%
80–99% of capacity
99–100% of capacity
20–40%
<20%
<40%
10–30%
>20%
0–50GWh/d
0–80% of cap
50–250GWh/d
250–600GWh/d
600–1100GWh/d
>1100GWh/d
<30%
80–99% of ca
99–100% of c
20–40%
<20%
<40%
10–30%
>20%
0–50GWh/d
0–80% of cap
50–250GWh/d
250–600GWh/d
600–1100GWh/d
>1100GWh/d
<30%
80–99% of ca
99–100% of c
Figure 7.4.5:
2030 Low Reference
Figure 7.4.7:
2030 Low AZ max
Figure 7.4.6:
2030 Low RU max
Figure 7.4.8:
2030 Low LNG max
Comparing the reference case with the three max cases (RU, AZ, LNG), in 2020, we
note that:
\\
In the case of RU max, we see an important increase of the flows from Ukraine
via Slovakia to Austria, Italy and the Czech Republic at the expense of the flows
to Italy from all other pipeline sources which are reduced while LNG flows to
both Italy and Greece are reduced to zero.
\\
In the case of AZ max, we see a small increase in the exports through TAP to
Italy, compensated by the reductions in the imports from Algeria and
Switzerland.
\\
In the case of LNG max, we see an important increase of the imports to Greece
(in percentage, as the absolute volumes are rather low) and in Italy, at the
expense of the imports from Algeria and to a lesser extent, Libya and Austria.
We also see a reduction of the imports from UA, in central Europe and an in-
crease in the flows from CZ, DE and CH to the SC Region.