RT, November 13, 2023: Liquefied natural gas (LNG) – which Germany has been increasingly using to cope with the energy crisis since the cut in Russian gas supplies – could be much worse for the environment than burning coal, Welt reported on Monday, citing the latest US study.
Prior to the Ukraine conflict, the EU’s largest economy met up to 40% of its demand with gas from Russia. Last year, however, Berlin reduced its reliance on Russian energy by replacing it with imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) – particularly from the US – which became the main source of the fuel for the country.
"Across all scenarios considered, total greenhouse gas emissions from LNG are larger than those from coal, ranging from 24% to 274% greater," said the author of the study, methane researcher Robert W. Howarth from Cornell University.
He identified methane leaks in the LNG supply chain, which includes various stages from fracking and liquefaction to transporting superchilled gas by sea and generating power, as the cause for environmental damage. Methane is a particularly aggressive greenhouse gas.
Read more
"But using LNG brings new – and often worse – climate problems, making it a terrible choice for the future. LNG is primarily made up of methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than CO2 in the short term and 30 times worse in the long term."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.transportenvironment.org/challenges/ships/liquefied-natural-gas-lng/#:~:text=But%20using%20LNG%20brings%20new,worse%20in%20the%20long%20term.
My bottom jaw just hit the floor, CS.
Fairbanks, Alaska has terrible air quality in the winter time. There has been a very strong push for the last few decades to solve this problem by liquifying natural gas from the Prudhoe Bay oilfield area in order to ship it-- by truck no less-- to Fairbanks.
The plans for shipment I always knew were ridiculous and uneconomical, so I knew this solution was never going to happen. I had, however, assumed if the LNG could have been shipped, as our fuel source for heating homes, etc., it would have improved our air quality.
Fairbanks local government has wasted many millions creating LNG infrastructure never to arrive in Fairbanks by any reasonable calculation. I knew this was stupid. I now learn it is even more stupid than I ever dreamed. I'm aghast.
There seems to be plenty of natural gas available from sources other than the North slope. Currently, Alaska ships natural gas from Kenai. Why not ship or pipe some of that gas, or gas from anywhere else, to Fairbanks?
DeleteAlternatively, why not use the gas where it is produced to generate electricity and send the power to Fairbanks by cable.
DeleteThe reasons are economical for the most part.
DeleteFairbanks has a population of around 100,000. Thus the market for energy cannot exceed 100,000 at best.
How much does it cost to build up the infrastructure one way or another? A lot. What kind of return on investment? Not much.
It doesn't pencil out.
The big oil companies who control Alaska are well aware of world markets for Alaska's natural gas. However, supplying the world market also does not pencil out in terms of the "name of the game" which is of course, profit.
The big oil companies are not stupid. They carefully studied the problem from every conceivable angle. I watched this over many years. Finally, they concluded a pipeline or any other way of getting the gas out of Alaska was NO GO.
The people of Alaska, and their elected representatives, however, are stupid. Guess what? For an exorbitant amount of money, the state government purchased the above-mentioned plans from the oil companies. Wouldn't want them to go to waste! These were the plans by which the oil companies had concluded a pipeline wasn't economically feasible.
It's always this way. It is hard, and a bit embarrassing, to watch it happen over and over. People refuse to be realistic. (Also, any time the government does something, money is changing hands. The "in-crowd" with crony ties to the politicians will have money slapped into their outreached hands. That isn't exactly stupid-- of them, or for them. They thrive this way.)
"People refuse to be realistic."
DeleteThey make the mistaken assumption that the world is ruled by more or less decent people like themselves, not professional liars and swindlers.
The problem with methane, it seems, is that it cannot be handled without huge leaks. Why is this? Would it not be possible to end the leaks by imposing heavy fines on pipelines or users responsible for leaks. Leaks can surely be reliably detected with drones or satellites.
Delete