Emissions From LNG Are Worse Than From Burning Coal – CleanTechnica – TechnoNews

Join each day information updates from CleanTechnica on e mail. Or comply with us on Google Information!

The fossil gasoline business has a multi-billion-dollar plan to construct new LNG (liquified pure gasoline) terminals within the Gulf of Mexico close to the coasts of Louisiana and Texas. One of many causes for constructing these terminals is a declare that LNG ends in fewer carbon emissions than burning coal, so everybody needs to be pleased and endorse the plan. However what if there’s extra to that declare than meets the attention? Robert Howarth is maybe the foremost skilled on LNG emissions on this planet. He’s a  professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell College. In 2023, The New Yorker cited Howarth as “one of the world’s premier methane scientists.”

In a research revealed on October 3, 2024, within the journal Power Science And Engineering entitled “The greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States,” Howarth agrees that LNG burns cleaner than coal, however argues the greenhouse gasoline emissions related to extracting it, compressing it, and transporting it imply your entire course of ends in a couple of third extra greenhouse gasoline emissions (LNG is actually nothing greater than compressed methane) than burning coal at these finish use areas. Within the introduction to the brand new research, Howarth writes:

“Proponents of elevated exports of LNG from the US to each Europe and Asia have typically claimed a local weather profit, arguing that the choice can be higher use of coal produced domestically in these areas, with elevated emissions of carbon dioxide. In actual fact, although carbon dioxide emissions are higher from burning coal than from burning pure gasoline, methane emissions can greater than offset this distinction. As a greenhouse gasoline, methane is greater than 80 occasions extra highly effective than carbon dioxide when thought-about over a 20 12 months interval, and so even small methane emissions can have a big local weather impression.

“Clearly, greenhouse gas emissions from LNG must be larger than from the natural gas from which it is made, because of the energy needed to liquefy the gas, transport the LNG, and regasify it. The liquefaction process alone is highly energy-intensive. A life cycle assessment is required to determine the full magnitude of these LNG greenhouse gas emissions. My analysis builds on earlier life cycle assessments for LNG. Of these, only those since 2015 have analyzed LNG export from the United States, and their focus was on export to China. My focus here is on exports from the United States to Europe as well as to China, using the most recent data on methane emissions from shale gas development in the United States.”

LNG Dirtier Than Coal

In keeping with The Guardian, coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels when burned for vitality. For years, oil and gasoline producers have promoted methane gasoline as a “bridge” gasoline and even a “climate solution” as a result of it ends in decrease carbon dioxide emissions when burned. That declare conveniently ignores the impression of methane itself on the setting, making the business argument fully dishonest as a result of it promotes a false equivalency between coal and methane. It’s a shell sport, in different phrases, by which the business cherry picks its knowledge to “prove” one thing that’s demonstrably inaccurate. “The idea that coal is worse for the climate is mistaken. LNG has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fuel,” says Howarth.

“To think we should be shipping around this gas as a climate solution is just plain wrong. It’s greenwashing from oil and gas companies that has severely underestimated the emissions from this type of energy,” Howarh informed The Guardian. Drilling, transferring, cooling, and delivery gasoline from one nation to a different makes use of a lot vitality that the precise last burning of gasoline in individuals’s properties and companies solely accounts for a couple of third of the whole emissions from this course of, his analysis finds. These prodigious emissions imply there’s “no need for LNG as an interim energy source,” the research says, including that “ending the use of LNG should be a global priority.”

Earlier authorities and business estimates have assumed that LNG is significantly decrease emitting than coal, providing the promise that it may substitute it in international locations equivalent to China, in addition to aiding European allies menaced by the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, a serious gasoline producer. “US LNG exports can help accelerate environmental progress across the globe, enabling nations to transition to cleaner natural gas to reduce emissions and address the global risks of climate change,” Dustin Meyer, director of market growth on the American Petroleum Institute, has stated.

However scientists have decided that LNG growth isn’t appropriate with the world avoiding harmful international heating, with researchers discovering lately the leakage of methane — a major part of so-called pure gasoline and a potent planet heating agent — from drilling operations is way increased than official estimates. Howarth’s paper finds that as a lot as 3.5% of the gasoline delivered to prospects leaks to the environment unburned, far more than beforehand assumed. Methane is about 80 occasions extra highly effective as a greenhouse gasoline than carbon dioxide, although it persists for much less time within the environment. Scientists have warned repeatedly that rising international methane emissions threat blowing aside agreed upon local weather targets.

Half Of LNG Emissions End result From Processing

Howarth’s analysis discovered that in LNG manufacturing, round half of the whole emissions happen through the lengthy journey taken by gasoline as it’s pushed by means of pipelines to coastal terminals after it’s initially drilled, normally by way of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, from areas such because the USA’s huge shale deposits. The vitality used to do that, together with the leaks, causes air pollution that’s exacerbated as soon as the gasoline will get to the export services. There, it’s supercooled to -162°C (-260°F) to turn into a liquid, which is then loaded into enormous storage containers on tankers. The tankers then journey lengthy distances to ship the product to consumer international locations, the place it’s turned again right into a gasoline after which burned.

“This whole process is much more energy intensive than coal,” stated Howarth. “The science is pretty clear here. It’s wishful thinking that the gas miraculously moves overseas without any emissions.” His analysis prompted one thing of a firestorm earlier than its publication, with a draft of the research highlighted by local weather campaigners equivalent to Invoice McKibben to the extent it was reportedly a consider a choice earlier this 12 months by the Biden administration to pause all new export permits for LNG initiatives.

This pause has enraged the oil and gasoline business and its political allies. Final month, 4 congressional Republicans wrote to the US vitality division demanding correspondence between it and Howarth over what they known as his “flawed” and “erroneous” research. Methane strain teams additionally argue the paper overstates emissions from LNG, a declare echoed by some vitality specialists. “It’s hard to swallow,” stated David Dismukes, a number one Louisiana vitality marketing consultant and researcher. “Does gas have a climate impact? Absolutely. But is it worse than coal? Come on.” Dismukes, Louisiana — want we are saying extra?

An Improve In Peer Evaluation

Howarth stated the results of this uncommon scrutiny was “more peer review than I’ve ever had before,” with 5 rounds of assessment being performed by eight different scientists. Howarth stated, “I don’t consider the criticism valid at all. It feels like a political job.” Howarth stated the US has a “huge choice” to make within the presidential election, with Donald Trump vowing to undo Biden’s pause on his first day again within the White Home to permit a raft of recent LNG initiatives. Kamala Harris, in the meantime, has backed away from a earlier plan to ban fracking however has promised motion on the local weather disaster.

Greater than 125 local weather, environmental, and well being scientists wrote to the Biden administration final month to defend Howarth’s analysis and urge a continuation of the pause on LNG exports. The Howarth paper’s findings are “plausible,” stated Drew Shindell, a local weather scientist at Duke College, who was not concerned within the analysis. “Bob’s study adds to a lot of literature now that shows the industry’s argument for gas is undermined by the option to go to renewables,” Shindell stated. “The debate isn’t really about whether gas is slightly better or worse than coal, though. It should be about how both are terrible and that we need to get rid of both of them.” Amen to that.