“long term” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

It seems clear that what we’re doing right now can sustain things until spring. If we’re willing to pay to do it again next year, and the year after that… at some point it’s going to be financially viable to change the makeup of both energy sources and how it’s consumed.

>at some point it’s going to be financially viable to change the makeup of both energy sources and how it’s consumed

Last spring - which is why heat pumps became very popular in Europe over summer. Things will change even more in the future, though I'm not sure how much.

Nobody should replace Russia in the long term as fossil fuels should go away completely.

North American petroleum and developing solar and nuclear resources probably can.

Russia is being replaced by solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear power in the long term. Being a fossil fuel exporter is not a sustainable business model in the 21st century.

The thermal power available from all Russian gas is a 5 years of chinese PV module production or 10 years of world wind additions at the current (rapidly increasing) rate. We can tighten the belt by 15% while building out enough capacity to replace it entirely.

Once cheap hydrolysers scale production, a huge chunk of the market will start to disappear due to ammonia production switching over.