5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States

      1
      Energy Science & Engineering
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from the United States have risen dramatically since the LNG‐export ban was lifted in 2016, and the United States is now the world's largest exporter. This LNG is produced largely from shale gas. Production of shale gas, as well as liquefaction to make LNG and LNG transport by tanker, is energy‐intensive, which contributes significantly to the LNG greenhouse gas footprint. The production and transport of shale gas emits a substantial amount of methane as well, and liquefaction and tanker transport of LNG can further increase methane emissions. Consequently, carbon dioxide (CO 2) from end‐use combustion of LNG contributes only 34% of the total LNG greenhouse gas footprint, when CO 2 and methane are compared over 20 years global warming potential (GWP 20) following emission. Upstream and midstream methane emissions are the largest contributors to the LNG footprint (38% of total LNG emissions, based on GWP 20). Adding CO 2 emissions from the energy used to produce LNG, total upstream and midstream emissions make up on average 47% of the total greenhouse gas footprint of LNG. Other significant emissions are the liquefaction process (8.8% of the total, on average, using GWP 20) and tanker transport (5.5% of the total, on average, using GWP 20). Emissions from tankers vary from 3.9% to 8.1% depending upon the type of tanker. Surprisingly, the most modern tankers propelled by two‐ and four‐stroke engines have higher total greenhouse gas emissions than steam‐powered tankers, despite their greater fuel efficiency and lower CO 2 emissions, due to methane slippage in their exhaust. Overall, the greenhouse gas footprint for LNG as a fuel source is 33% greater than that for coal when analyzed using GWP 20 (160 g CO 2‐equivalent/MJ vs. 120 g CO 2‐equivalent/MJ). Even considered on the time frame of 100 years after emission (GWP 100), which severely understates the climatic damage of methane, the LNG footprint equals or exceeds that of coal.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain

          Methane emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas supply chain were estimated using ground-based, facility-scale measurements and validated with aircraft observations in areas accounting for ~30% of U.S. gas production. When scaled up nationally, our facility-based estimate of 2015 supply chain emissions is 13 ± 2 Tg/y, equivalent to 2.3% of gross U.S. gas production. This value is ~60% higher than the U.S. EPA inventory estimate, likely because existing inventory methods miss emissions released during abnormal operating conditions. Methane emissions of this magnitude, per unit of natural gas consumed, produce radiative forcing over a 20-year time horizon comparable to the CO2 from natural gas combustion. Significant emission reductions are feasible through rapid detection of the root causes of high emissions and deployment of less failure-prone systems.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            How green is blue hydrogen?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Energy Science & Engineering
                Energy Science & Engineering
                Wiley
                2050-0505
                2050-0505
                October 03 2024
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology Cornell University Ithaca New York USA
                Article
                10.1002/ese3.1934
                5a25d5db-fc73-4ec3-a3c6-068155169290
                © 2024

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article