4 ms·

Liquefied Natural Gas was expected to be a lower-emission alternative fuel compared to bunker fuel. The proportion of LNG fuelled cargo tankers out there right

Liquefied Natural Gas was expected to be a lower-emission alternative fuel compared to bunker fuel. The proportion of LNG fuelled cargo tankers out there right now is about 2% but for new orders, about 30% of them are LNG fuelled so that small percentage will grow rapidly. However, for United States LNG in particular, the LNG production chain actually has very high emissions of methane. The industry has been fighting to keep that as unclear and unquantified as absolutely possible, and there's a good reason for that - when you take into account the methane emissions along the whole value chain from drilling through liquefaction, LNG's climate impact (in terms of global warming) is no better than coal. I'm sure it's beneficial compared to bunker fuel, but the climate benefit is much much slimmer than first believed.

Telemakhos 2y ago
> However, for United States LNG in particular, the LNG production chain actually has very high emissions of methane. I thought LNG was methane. What am I missing here?
- ethangk 2y ago
  I’d assume they’re talking about methane leaks throughout the supply chain
- XorNot 2y ago
  No you've got the gist of it: the point is that numbers for CO2 emissions of LNG assume a leak-free supply chain. That's not possible in practice: LNG leaks at almost every single step, and monitoring of it has been inconsistent and poorly implemented. Add in the significantly higher greenhouse effect of methane in the atmosphere, and you lose essentially all the potential benefits (not to mention the ultimate issue of continuing to add sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere - it's still a fossil fuel).
- gwbas1c 2y ago
  Methane leaks. Unburnt methane has a global warming potential 28 times higher than CO2. (This is why landfills will burn methane buildup, even if they aren't using it to generate electricity or capturing it to resell.)
dylan604 2y ago
NASA has been showing methane leaks from satellites built for purpose.[0] I'll give you three guesses as to where the location of the leaks are located, but you'll only need one. Better read the data now before it gets stricken from the record. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/methane-super-emitters-mapped-by-nasas-new-earth-space-mission/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/methane-supe...
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  Except most emissions are not leaks. A leak implies an unintended or unwanted behaviour. But most emissions are from indented behaviour of the system. The equipment is. designed to vent to atmosphere as part of normal operation, and it’s not worth it for them to burn it until they have to pay for this pollution.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    I see you and I have a difference of what we consider a leak. You seem to only consider it a leak in the equipment being used. I consider it when humans punch a hole in the ground and the gas is released by that human activity.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - lurk2 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - dylan604 2y ago
        I'm not being obtuse at all. That methane would not be leaking in these locations if humans did not attempt to extract it. Regardless if the leaks from faulty plumbing or just not making the hole the right way so the methane in the air is a direct result of that human activity, it is still methane leaking into the air
Dylan16807 2y ago
> LNG's climate impact (in terms of global warming) is no better than coal. I'm sure it's beneficial compared to bunker fuel, Why are you sure of that? Oils release an amount of CO2 that's midway between natural gas and coal. So unless bunker fuel is causing some other big release of greenhouse gasses, if natural gas is near coal then it's worse than bunker fuel. On top of that, doesn't the sulfur pollution from bunker fuel have a cooling effect?
- iamthemonster 2y ago
  Hmm maybe I shouldn't be so sure of myself then. The comparison between LNG and coal that I was referencing was the comparison between coal and LNG's lifecycle emissions on the basis of like-for-like electricity generation (so it was slightly apples&oranges for me to say that). I'd assumed that a main engine's efficiency with bunker fuel was awful and with LNG was much better, meaning LNG had emissions as a shipping fuel. But I think taking into account the methane emissions of upstream production (which varies incredibly wildly depending on the production environment) LNG from most of the world (particularly the USA) will be a worse shipping fuel on a global warming basis than bunker fuel. Thanks for picking that up. The cooling effect of sulphur dioxide emissions (which make sulphates in the atmosphere) is a whole Pandora's box that I'm unqualified to open but yes, there's a significant cooling effect from the SO2 emissions of bunker fuel and the 2020 rules change on VLSFO dramatically slashed the shipping industry's SO2 emissions (noting that SO2 emissions have also been falling across the board, and shipping is only one component of that). https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/sulfur-dioxide-emissions-from-shipping-dropped-sharply-with-the-introduction-of-new-rules-in-2020 https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/sulfur-dioxide-emis...

Telemakhos 2y ago

> However, for United States LNG in particular, the LNG production chain actually has very high emissions of methane. I thought LNG was methane. What am I missing here?

ethangk 2y ago
I’d assume they’re talking about methane leaks throughout the supply chain
XorNot 2y ago
No you've got the gist of it: the point is that numbers for CO2 emissions of LNG assume a leak-free supply chain. That's not possible in practice: LNG leaks at almost every single step, and monitoring of it has been inconsistent and poorly implemented. Add in the significantly higher greenhouse effect of methane in the atmosphere, and you lose essentially all the potential benefits (not to mention the ultimate issue of continuing to add sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere - it's still a fossil fuel).
gwbas1c 2y ago
Methane leaks. Unburnt methane has a global warming potential 28 times higher than CO2. (This is why landfills will burn methane buildup, even if they aren't using it to generate electricity or capturing it to resell.)

dylan604 2y ago

NASA has been showing methane leaks from satellites built for purpose.[0] I'll give you three guesses as to where the location of the leaks are located, but you'll only need one. Better read the data now before it gets stricken from the record. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/methane-super-emitters-mapped-by-nasas-new-earth-space-mission/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/methane-supe...

_aavaa_ 2y ago
Except most emissions are not leaks. A leak implies an unintended or unwanted behaviour. But most emissions are from indented behaviour of the system. The equipment is. designed to vent to atmosphere as part of normal operation, and it’s not worth it for them to burn it until they have to pay for this pollution.
- dylan604 2y ago
  I see you and I have a difference of what we consider a leak. You seem to only consider it a leak in the equipment being used. I consider it when humans punch a hole in the ground and the gas is released by that human activity.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - lurk2 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dylan604 2y ago
      I'm not being obtuse at all. That methane would not be leaking in these locations if humans did not attempt to extract it. Regardless if the leaks from faulty plumbing or just not making the hole the right way so the methane in the air is a direct result of that human activity, it is still methane leaking into the air

Dylan16807 2y ago

> LNG's climate impact (in terms of global warming) is no better than coal. I'm sure it's beneficial compared to bunker fuel, Why are you sure of that? Oils release an amount of CO2 that's midway between natural gas and coal. So unless bunker fuel is causing some other big release of greenhouse gasses, if natural gas is near coal then it's worse than bunker fuel. On top of that, doesn't the sulfur pollution from bunker fuel have a cooling effect?

iamthemonster 2y ago
Hmm maybe I shouldn't be so sure of myself then. The comparison between LNG and coal that I was referencing was the comparison between coal and LNG's lifecycle emissions on the basis of like-for-like electricity generation (so it was slightly apples&oranges for me to say that). I'd assumed that a main engine's efficiency with bunker fuel was awful and with LNG was much better, meaning LNG had emissions as a shipping fuel. But I think taking into account the methane emissions of upstream production (which varies incredibly wildly depending on the production environment) LNG from most of the world (particularly the USA) will be a worse shipping fuel on a global warming basis than bunker fuel. Thanks for picking that up. The cooling effect of sulphur dioxide emissions (which make sulphates in the atmosphere) is a whole Pandora's box that I'm unqualified to open but yes, there's a significant cooling effect from the SO2 emissions of bunker fuel and the 2020 rules change on VLSFO dramatically slashed the shipping industry's SO2 emissions (noting that SO2 emissions have also been falling across the board, and shipping is only one component of that). https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/sulfur-dioxide-emissions-from-shipping-dropped-sharply-with-the-introduction-of-new-rules-in-2020 https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/sulfur-dioxide-emis...