Emissions From LNG Are Worse Than From Burning Coal

Join every 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 fuel) 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 leads to fewer carbon emissions than burning coal, so everybody needs to be comfortable and endorse the plan. However what if there may be extra to that declare than meets the attention? Robert Howarth is maybe the foremost knowledgeable on LNG emissions on the earth. He’s a  professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell College. In 2023, The New Yorker cited Howarth as “one of many world’s premier methane scientists.”

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

“Proponents of elevated exports of LNG from the USA to each Europe and Asia have usually claimed a local weather profit, arguing that the choice can be better use of coal produced domestically in these areas, with elevated emissions of carbon dioxide. In reality, regardless that carbon dioxide emissions are better from burning coal than from burning pure fuel, methane emissions can greater than offset this distinction. As a greenhouse fuel, methane is greater than 80 instances extra highly effective than carbon dioxide when thought of over a 20 yr interval, and so even small methane emissions can have a big local weather influence.

“Clearly, greenhouse fuel emissions from LNG have to be bigger than from the pure fuel from which it’s made, due to the vitality wanted to liquefy the fuel, transport the LNG, and regasify it. The liquefaction course of alone is very energy-intensive. A life cycle evaluation is required to find out the complete magnitude of those LNG greenhouse fuel emissions. My evaluation builds on earlier life cycle assessments for LNG. Of those, solely these since 2015 have analyzed LNG export from the USA, and their focus was on export to China. My focus right here is on exports from the USA to Europe in addition to to China, utilizing the latest information on methane emissions from shale fuel improvement in the USA.”

LNG Dirtier Than Coal

In line with The Guardian, coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels when burned for vitality. For years, oil and fuel producers have promoted methane fuel as a “bridge” gasoline and even a “local weather resolution” as a result of it leads to decrease carbon dioxide emissions when burned. That declare conveniently ignores the influence of methane itself on the setting, making the business argument utterly dishonest as a result of it promotes a false equivalency between coal and methane. It’s a shell sport, in different phrases, during which the business cherry picks its information to “show” one thing that’s demonstrably inaccurate. “The concept coal is worse for the local weather is mistaken. LNG has a bigger greenhouse fuel footprint than another gasoline,” says Howarth.

“To suppose we needs to be transport round this fuel as a local weather resolution is simply plain fallacious. It’s greenwashing from oil and fuel corporations that has severely underestimated the emissions from this sort of vitality,” Howarh informed The Guardian. Drilling, shifting, cooling, and transport fuel from one nation to a different makes use of a lot vitality that the precise ultimate burning of fuel in individuals’s houses and companies solely accounts for a few third of the overall emissions from this course of, his analysis finds. These prodigious emissions imply there may be “no want for LNG as an interim vitality supply,” the research says, including that “ending using LNG needs to be a world precedence.”

Earlier authorities and business estimates have assumed that LNG is significantly decrease emitting than coal, providing the promise that it might substitute it in international locations reminiscent of China, in addition to aiding European allies menaced by the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, a serious fuel producer. “US LNG exports will help speed up environmental progress throughout the globe, enabling nations to transition to cleaner pure fuel to scale back emissions and tackle the worldwide dangers of local weather change,” Dustin Meyer, director of market improvement on the American Petroleum Institute, has stated.

However scientists have decided that LNG enlargement just isn’t suitable with the world avoiding harmful international heating, with researchers discovering in recent times the leakage of methane — a main element of so-called pure fuel and a potent planet heating agent — from drilling operations is way greater than official estimates. Howarth’s paper finds that as a lot as 3.5% of the fuel delivered to prospects leaks to the environment unburned, way more than beforehand assumed. Methane is about 80 instances extra highly effective as a greenhouse fuel than carbon dioxide, regardless that 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 Outcome From Processing

Howarth’s analysis discovered that in LNG manufacturing, round half of the overall emissions happen through the lengthy journey taken by fuel as it’s pushed by means of pipelines to coastal terminals after it’s initially drilled, often through 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 fuel will get to the export amenities. There, it’s supercooled to -162°C (-260°F) to turn out to be 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 fuel after which burned.

“This entire course of is way more vitality intensive than coal,” stated Howarth. “The science is fairly clear right here. It’s wishful pondering that the fuel miraculously strikes abroad with none emissions.” His analysis precipitated one thing of a firestorm earlier than its publication, with a draft of the research highlighted by local weather campaigners reminiscent of Invoice McKibben to the extent it was reportedly a consider a resolution earlier this yr by the Biden administration to pause all new export permits for LNG initiatives.

This pause has enraged the oil and fuel 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 “misguided” research. Methane stress teams additionally argue the paper overstates emissions from LNG, a declare echoed by some vitality specialists. “It’s exhausting to swallow,” stated David Dismukes, a number one Louisiana vitality marketing consultant and researcher. “Does fuel have a local weather influence? Completely. However is it worse than coal? Come on.” Dismukes, Louisiana — want we are saying extra?

An Enhance In Peer Evaluate

Howarth stated the results of this uncommon scrutiny was “extra peer evaluate than I’ve ever had earlier than,” with 5 rounds of evaluate being performed by eight different scientists. Howarth stated, “I don’t think about the criticism legitimate in any respect. It appears like a political job.” Howarth stated the US has a “enormous selection” 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 latest 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 “believable,” stated Drew Shindell, a local weather scientist at Duke College, who was not concerned within the analysis. “Bob’s research provides to lots of literature now that exhibits the business’s argument for fuel is undermined by the choice to go to renewables,” Shindell stated. “The talk isn’t actually about whether or not fuel is barely higher or worse than coal, although. It needs to be about how each are horrible and that we have to eliminate each of them.” Amen to that.