[HN Gopher] Liquefied natural gas carbon footprint is worse than...
___________________________________________________________________
Liquefied natural gas carbon footprint is worse than coal
Author : bikenaga
Score : 22 points
Date : 2024-10-04 15:21 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (phys.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Study:
| https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3...
| maeil wrote:
| Is this the same LNG used as fuel in some cars? Wondering because
| the comparison here is coal rather than oil.
| erik_seaberg wrote:
| I once drove a shuttle that ran on compressed natural gas from
| the airport, but liquefied sounds more demanding to handle.
| TheBill wrote:
| Very very few LNG cars and trucks out there, as filling
| infrastructure is limited compared to CNG. In US it's something
| like 2% of total CNG+LNG fleet.
|
| Interviewed with a midwestern company doing CNG truck
| conversions and building fueling infrastructure back in
| 2014/15. Diesel prices coming down crushed them, and they sold
| off the majority of their fueling station biz in 2019, to focus
| on renewable CNG from dairy & hog farms.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| I feel like the headline is incredibly misleading, because the
| actual study is about the _exporting_ of LNG, not simply the
| _use_ of it.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Its an important point, with the conclusion being that the LNG
| export market isn't sustainable when GHG emissions are
| accounted for. The good news is that the demand for LNG exports
| from the US appears to be on the decline. The bad news is that
| renewables, batteries, and transmission must ramp much faster
| to destroy demand for this shipped energy in the markets
| currently importing and consuming LNG. Coal is rapidly on the
| decline, natural gas will be right behind it (hopefully, based
| on manufacturing and deployment rates).
|
| https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-lng-export-do...
| ("Reuters: US LNG export dominance tested as Europe's demand
| wilts")
|
| https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61683 ("EIA:
| The United States was the world's largest liquefied natural gas
| exporter in 2023")
|
| > The countries that imported the most U.S. LNG were the
| Netherlands, France, and the UK, with a combined 35% (4.2
| Bcf/d) of all U.S. LNG exports. LNG imports increased in the
| Netherlands after the Gate LNG regasification terminal was
| expanded and two new floating storage and regasification units
| (FSRUs) were commissioned. Germany began importing LNG in 2023
| when three new FSRUs were commissioned. We expect another four
| terminals (three of which are FSRUs) to come online between
| 2024 and 2027.
|
| Due to the EU pricing GHG emissions, this is likely to update
| and send price signals against LNG consumption (based on
| updated LNG emissions impact information available).
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| > The bad news is that renewables, batteries, and
| transmission must ramp much faster to destroy demand for this
| shipped energy in the markets currently importing and
| consuming LNG.
|
| It's not simple. If a country/company has made capital
| investments in LNG procession or consumption (say an LNG
| electric power plant), they will want to get their returns on
| that investment. If the prices of renewables are much lower
| than LNG, then, those plants will not be able to sell their
| electricity, and go bankrupt.
|
| But that doesn't mean a loss of the capitalists. Many global
| south countries have built plants using foreign loans that
| will need to be paid whether the plant produces or goes
| bankrupt. So many countries will attempt to keep these LNG
| plants going for as long as possible.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| It's true, and unfortunate for unsophisticated investment
| into fossil fuel assets that will likely end up stranded.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01356-y
| incrudible wrote:
| Arguably, but the resolution is in the first paragraph. When it
| comes to energy and emissions the whole situation must be taken
| into account. For example, a country like Germany that bet big
| on renewables needs natural gas to buffer the volatility, and
| ever since the Russian invasion they rely a lot more on LNG.
| That said, coal ouput can't be quickly regulated like natural
| gas, so the situation is even more complicated.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > Arguably, but the resolution is in the first paragraph.
|
| True, but how many people read articles versus responding to
| just the headlines?
|
| It's visible even on HN.
| Ekaros wrote:
| And seemingly also process of liquifying it seems bad. So you
| are better off likely not doing it, but just using it as
| straight up natural gas.
| robocat wrote:
| Misleading headline: Some LNG is worse then coal. Or maybe on
| average across the world?
|
| Sweeping statements are just not that helpful.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-04 23:02 UTC)