Thread by @arvindpawan1

🚨New Paper Alert🚨A common justification for LNG expansion is potential for emissions reductions through coal to gas switching in power sector.

Is this claim true? @LydiaYang21, @S_HastingsSimon & I explore.

Short answer: Yes & No. 1/
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…

Near-term (<~2035)
LNG expansion aligned with Paris goals since there is more coal than LNG

Long-term (>2040)
a) Not compatible with 1.5/2°C goals: less coal globally to substitute with LNG
b) Compatible with business-as-usual 3°C trajectory as world still has lot of coal 2/

Caveats: Much of the LNG infrastructure is yet to be built.
1) Large-scale CCS can significantly extend utility of LNG infrastructure.
2) Low supply chain #methane leakage (<1%) critical to maximize benefits of LNG.3/

Cumulative emissions under different scenarios here - lifetime of an LNG plant is much less important to total emissions than low supply chain #methane leakage.

To wit, if you have a choice between shutting terminal 5 years early vs. reducing #methane, choose the latter. 4/

If you take all LNG & use it for coal-to-gas switching, coal generation falls. But,

In a world on 1.5/2°C path, you reach zero residual coal gen by 2030/2038, respectively. After that, no more coal to substitute for, and maximum emissions reduction potential is achieved. 5/

Final thoughts:
1) LNG is a critical & useful resource in near- to medium-term, both for climate & energy security
2) Long-term use depends on growth in non-power uses & climate policy

We think LNG expansion is an insurance against 3°C world, with risk being stranded assets./End

We have a companion paper in review now but a pre-print is available: here we look at physical limits -
pipeline infrastructure, gas availability, and coal fleet age - on the potential for coal to gas transition. eartharxiv.org/repository/vie…

I know @SEI_Erickson was waiting for this to be published.