After an inter-ministerial committee found that Israel’s gas will last only another 20 years, it will be forced to deal with the issue of the day after. Promoting alternative energy source is necessary, but cannot be the basis for a working program
Idan Binyamin. September 08, 2025
On the weekend, Energy and Infrastructure Minister Eli Cohen tweeted that his ministry had approved a new export pipeline to Egypt. Cohen was referring to a gas pipeline that has already been approved many times and requires no further approval, but has been stalled due to various disputes between the gas exporters and the government.
Cohen, as is the habit of most politicians, mentioned only the advantages of approving the pipeline: “[The pipeline] will strengthen our status as a regional energy power, bring in millions of shekels a year to the country, and create places of employment.” But there are also risks. Building the pipeline would weaken Israel’s energy resilience.
Israel relies on gas as a primary energy source. According to Energy Ministry data, about 41 percent of all the energy sources (for electricity, fuel and other uses) are natural gas.
Before Rosh Hashana, an interministerial committee headed by Energy Ministry Director General Yossi Dayan is expected to convene for a summarizing discussion about Israel’s gas economy policy. The Dayan committee is a continuation of previous committees – the Tzemah committee in 2012 and the Adiri committee in 2018 – which examined the Israeli gas economy policy, prepared forecasts and recommended desirable action to the government.
- Follow the sun: Israel must do more to meet its solar energy targets Haaretz Editorial
- Construction intensifies suspected nuclear-linked site in Israel, satellite photos show The Associated Press
- Israel signs record $35 billion gas deal with Egypt Idan Binyamin
But as opposed to previous decisions, this is the first time that the committee found, in an interim report submitted in April, that the gas will not suffice for the period under examination – 25 years. According to Energy Ministry estimates, the gas will only last for the next 20 years.
That has far-reaching consequences for Israel’s electricity economy and for the public’s electricity bill. At present, about 70 percent of Israel’s electricity is produced from gas, about 14 percent from renewable energy and the rest from coal.
Israel relies on gas as a primary energy source. According to Energy Ministry data, about 41 percent of all the energy sources (for electricity, fuel and other uses) are natural gas. The extent of the use of coal is expected to continue to decline in the coming years, and the extent of renewable energy, according to the government’s targets, is supposed to reach 30 percent in 2030. Beyond that, there are no targets.
Even if in this utopian scenario the government asks to advance to a target of 50 percent renewable energy by 2040, we can expect to continue to rely on gas for many years to come. As proof, according to Energy Ministry plans, 13 new gas-fired power plants must be built in the coming decade in order to supply Israel’s energy needs.
And what will happen on the day the gas runs out? Since the committee published its conclusion in the interim report, several of the proposals mentioned in it, which are ostensibly meant to provide electricity for Israel after the gas reservoirs are empty, have been refuted in the media. The main proposals are: a full transition to renewable energy, a transition to nuclear power and the use of hydrogen. The intention of promoting these ideas is welcome and desirable, but relying on them as a work plan is likely to drag Israel into an energy crisis.
100 percent solar energy: Unrealistic
Since solar power accounts for 99 percent of Israel’s renewable energy, the ability to increase the rate of renewable energy production beyond 30 percent is limited. An electricity economy that wants to survive must rely on a variety of energy sources. The assumption that the Israeli electricity economy can switch to 100 percent solar energy only because “we have enough of it” is unrealistic.
Building solar installations with a 1 megawatt capacity requires an area of about 10 dunams (2.5 acres). About 50,000 households consume about 100 MWs, and supplying this energy would require 1,000 dunams. In other words, supplying electricity to all the residents of Jerusalem would require 20,000 dunams – the size of the entire jurisdiction of the central Israeli city of Herzliya – only to provide electricity during daylight hours. If we want electricity in the evening hours, then we have to build facilities for storing electricity (giant batteries).
The chances of approving the construction of a nuclear power plant in Israel – energy that is less polluting than gas and coal – are slim.
The price of these batteries is, in fact, falling quickly: According to Bloomberg, the price of batteries plummeted in the past decade by about 80 percent to about $115 per kilowatt-hour. But even if their price falls, the electricity economy cannot rely entirely on solar panels and batteries. One cloudy day would be enough to turn off the main switch of the entire country. However, every kWh of renewable energy supplied in the end to the grid is one less kWh of production from fossil fuels, and that’s why it’s important.
But every percentage point of increase in renewable energy is harder to achieve because energy consumption in Israel also continues to rise. As is the case in the other OECD countries, energy consumption is increasing because of electric vehicles and the use of artificial intelligence chips that devour energy. In Israel, energy consumption is also increasing because the population continues to grow.
Nuclear energy: A challenging solution
A complementary solution to renewable energy is nuclear energy. It enables a stable and cheap electricity supply from the moment the reactor starts to operate. This type of energy could provide the basis for electricity production in Israel and replace gas. But on the assumption that we must solve all of Israel’s geopolitical problems and sign international nuclear weapons conventions, it is still a challenging technical solution, and its construction is outrageously expensive.
The cost of building a gas-fired power plant is between 1.2 and 1.4 million dollars per installed MW (what the power plant is designed to produce). The cost of building a nuclear power plant is 10 times as high. EDF Energy, which is building a reactor in England with a capacity of 3.2 gigawatts, estimates that it will cost about $62 billion.
It takes four to five years to build a power plant that works on gas from the moment the plans are approved. The construction time for a nuclear station could be three times as long – and this is in countries that have already built several reactors in the past.
The chances of approving the construction of a nuclear power plant in Israel – energy that is less polluting than gas and coal – are slim. Israeli governments have already been dragging their feet on approving gas-fired power plants and even on advancing wind turbines, and every such project is greeted with public opposition and petitions to the court.
So that the chances of finding an area, approving it and building a power plant in 20 years are slim to none. That does not mean that we have to give up, but every such promise without a practical step is throwing sand in the eyes of the public.
ydrogen: More pollution and higher expenses
The great advantage of hydrogen is that its use is clean. If it escapes into the air, nothing happens except for a monetary loss. Additionally, it is not expected to require new investment in power plants. New production units can work today with varied mixtures of hydrogen and gas, and existing plants can be used for that purpose. However, the problem with hydrogen is the cost and the method of production.
There are several ways of producing hydrogen. The common and economically feasible hydrogen is produced by breaking down methane gas, which is called “gray” hydrogen,” and costs $1 to $1.50 per kilo (2.2 pounds). But during the separation process, carbon is emitted into the air, so that the direct use of natural gas would be less polluting.
“Turquoise hydrogen” (which is desirable) is produced by means of renewable energy. It is still expensive and ranges from $4 to $9 per kilo. The estimate of the International Energy Agency is that its cost will fall over the years, as the technology advances. Even if the economic cost is reduced, it will be hard to produce this hydrogen in Israel because it would require additional areas for solar panels.
Another solution is to import hydrogen from other countries. That is also likely to be problematic. Delivering hydrogen in pipelines is complex because the pipes that are used for natural gas (methane) are not suitable for hydrogen. Therefore, even the Energy Ministry, in a plan published for public comment in 2023, referred to the construction of hydrogen valleys – places where hydrogen would be produced and consumed.
It is unclear as yet how the hydrogen would be produced there. One of the solutions proposed at the time in the ministry is the use of blue hydrogen – hydrogen produced from natural gas and whose carbon emissions are absorbed before they evaporate into the air.
This is also a controversial process because it requires more energy, in other words, more gas. That brings us back to the starting point of the shortage of gas. And if we are already trapping carbon in the course of production, why not do so directly from the chimney of a power plant instead of wasting energy and converting gas to hydrogen?
Regarding a claim in the interim report that more gas reservoirs will be located in the sea, there is one consensus: at present, there is no search for new gas fields. The report also proposed already preparing for gas imports, but the source of such imports is not at all clear, given that Israel’s neighbors, Jordan and Egypt, import gas from Israel.
Therefore, if the committee recommends to the government to continue with the present export policy, which estimates suggest would cause Israel’s gas to run out in another 20 years, it also has to clearly reflect the fact that, at the moment, there is no solution for the day after.