Emissions From LNG Are Worse Than From Burning Coal – CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

---

The fossil fuel industry has a multi-billion-dollar plan to build new LNG (liquified natural gas) terminals in the Gulf of Mexico near the coasts of Louisiana and Texas. One of the reasons for building those terminals is a claim that LNG results in fewer carbon emissions than burning coal, so everyone should be happy and endorse the plan. But what if there is more to that claim than meets the eye? Robert Howarth is perhaps the foremost expert on LNG emissions in the world. He is a  professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University. In 2023, The New Yorker cited Howarth as “one of the world’s premier methane scientists.”

In a study published on October 3, 2024, in the journal Energy Science And Engineering entitled “The greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States,” Howarth agrees that LNG burns cleaner than coal, but argues the greenhouse gas emissions associated with extracting it, compressing it, and transporting it mean the entire process results in about a third more greenhouse gas emissions (LNG is literally nothing more than compressed methane) than burning coal at those end use locations. In the introduction to the new study, Howarth writes:

“Proponents of increased exports of LNG from the United States to both Europe and Asia have often claimed a climate benefit, arguing that the alternative would be greater use of coal produced domestically in those regions, with increased emissions of carbon dioxide. In fact, even though carbon dioxide emissions are greater from burning coal than from burning natural gas, methane emissions can more than offset this difference. As a greenhouse gas, methane is more than 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide when considered over a 20 year period, and so even small methane emissions can have a large climate impact.

“Clearly, greenhouse gas emissions from LNG must be larger than from the natural gas from which it is made, because of the energy needed to liquefy the gas, transport the LNG, and regasify it. The liquefaction process alone is highly energy-intensive. A life cycle assessment is required to determine the full magnitude of these LNG greenhouse gas emissions. My analysis builds on earlier life cycle assessments for LNG. Of these, only those since 2015 have analyzed LNG export from the United States, and their focus was on export to China. My focus here is on exports from the United States to Europe as well as to China, using the most recent data on methane emissions from shale gas development in the United States.”

LNG Dirtier Than Coal

According to The Guardian, coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels when burned for energy. For years, oil and gas producers have promoted methane gas as a “bridge” fuel and even a “climate solution” because it results in lower carbon dioxide emissions when burned. That claim conveniently ignores the impact of methane itself on the environment, making the industry argument completely dishonest because it promotes a false equivalency between coal and methane. It’s a shell game, in other words, in which the industry cherry picks its data to “prove” something that is demonstrably inaccurate. “The idea that coal is worse for the climate is mistaken. LNG has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fuel,” says Howarth.

“To think we should be shipping around this gas as a climate solution is just plain wrong. It’s greenwashing from oil and gas companies that has severely underestimated the emissions from this type of energy,” Howarh told The Guardian. Drilling, moving, cooling, and shipping gas from one country to another uses so much energy that the actual final burning of gas in people’s homes and businesses only accounts for about a third of the total emissions from this process, his research finds. Those prodigious emissions mean there is “no need for LNG as an interim energy source,” the study says, adding that “ending the use of LNG should be a global priority.”

Previous government and industry estimates have assumed that LNG is considerably lower emitting than coal, offering the promise that it could replace it in countries such as China, as well as aiding European allies menaced by the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, a major gas producer. “US LNG exports can help accelerate environmental progress across the globe, enabling nations to transition to cleaner natural gas to reduce emissions and address the global risks of climate change,” Dustin Meyer, director of market development at the American Petroleum Institute, has said.

But scientists have determined that LNG expansion is not compatible with the world avoiding dangerous global heating, with researchers finding in recent years the leakage of methane — a primary component of so-called natural gas and a potent planet heating agent — from drilling operations is far higher than official estimates. Howarth’s paper finds that as much as 3.5% of the gas delivered to customers leaks to the atmosphere unburned, much more than previously assumed. Methane is about 80 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, even though it persists for less time in the atmosphere. Scientists have warned repeatedly that rising global methane emissions risk blowing apart agreed upon climate goals.

Half Of LNG Emissions Result From Processing

Howarth’s research found that during LNG production, around half of the total emissions occur during the long journey taken by gas as it is pushed through pipelines to coastal terminals after it is initially drilled, usually via hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, from areas such as the USA’s vast shale deposits. The energy used to do this, along with the leaks, causes pollution that is exacerbated once the gas gets to the export facilities. There, it is supercooled to -162°C (-260°F) to become a liquid, which is then loaded into huge storage containers on tankers. The tankers then travel long distances to deliver the product to client countries, where it is turned back into a gas and then burned.

“This whole process is much more energy intensive than coal,” said Howarth. “The science is pretty clear here. It’s wishful thinking that the gas miraculously moves overseas without any emissions.” His research caused something of a firestorm before its publication, with a draft of the study highlighted by climate campaigners such as Bill McKibben to the extent it was reportedly a factor in a decision earlier this year by the Biden administration to pause all new export permits for LNG projects.

This pause has enraged the oil and gas industry and its political allies. Last month, four congressional Republicans wrote to the US energy department demanding correspondence between it and Howarth over what they called his “flawed” and “erroneous” study. Methane pressure groups also argue the paper overstates emissions from LNG, a claim echoed by some energy experts. “It’s hard to swallow,” said David Dismukes, a leading Louisiana energy consultant and researcher. “Does gas have a climate impact? Absolutely. But is it worse than coal? Come on.” Dismukes, Louisiana — need we say more?

An Increase In Peer Review

Howarth said the result of this unusual scrutiny was “more peer review than I’ve ever had before,” with five rounds of review being conducted by eight other scientists. Howarth said, “I don’t consider the criticism valid at all. It feels like a political job.” Howarth said the US has a “huge choice” to make in the presidential election, with Donald Trump vowing to undo Biden’s pause on his first day back in the White House to allow a raft of new LNG projects. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, has backed away from a previous plan to ban fracking but has promised action on the climate crisis.

More than 125 climate, environmental, and health scientists wrote to the Biden administration last month to defend Howarth’s research and urge a continuation of the pause on LNG exports. The Howarth paper’s findings are “plausible,” said Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University, who was not involved in the research. “Bob’s study adds to a lot of literature now that shows the industry’s argument for gas is undermined by the option to go to renewables,” Shindell said. “The debate isn’t really about whether gas is slightly better or worse than coal, though. It should be about how both are terrible and that we need to get rid of both of them.” Amen to that.