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.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For the first time, we use a large-scale controlled study of O&G #methane emissions to answer a basic question: How effective are commonly used Leak Detection & Repair (LDAR) programs?
EPA has proposed regulations to reduce #methane emissions from O&G sector. If global energy sector methane were a country, it would be the third largest emitter behind only China & US.
LDAR program are where O&G operators survey their facilities with IR cameras to find and fix leaks (see NYT article for videos).
But, we didn't really know if these LDAR programs are effective in reducing #methane, beyond anecdotal evidence. Until now! 3/ nytimes.com/interactive/20…
First, why is #methane fee a great idea? Recent data show that #methane emissions from operators vary by many orders of magnitude. So it makes sense that under a fee, responsible operators will be rewarded and those with high emissions will be penalized.
Good summary of what went wrong with the TX grid. I am going to try to explain what happened on the natural gas supply chain.
TL;DR: Combination of extended cold, unique basin properties, old pipes, and gas/electricity dependence. Thread. 1/ bloomberg.com/news/features/…
First, here's the natural gas supply chain. The parts that failed were in 3 areas:
1) oil & gas wells 2) Gathering lines 3) Equipment malfunction at power plants 4) Outage cut power to compressor stations that moved gas
+Other long-term issues like limited storage in TX. 2/
1) Why did O&G wells fail?
Permian basin is a liquids-rich basin. In addition to gas, wells also produce oil & water. For e.g., for every barrel of oil produced, you bring up 2-3 barrels of water.
In extended cold, water freezes and blocks the flow of gas from the well.
Today's @Ben_Geman generate shows that #methane venting and flaring in TX and ND reached record highs in 2019.
This has serious implications for the lifecycle GHG emissions of natural gas power plants. US average leakage rate masks a lot of variation. 1/ axios.com/venting-flarin…
So, Alan Strayer - UG student in our lab, painstakingly traced gas flow from production basins to power plants to estimate state-specific leakage rates.
US avg. leak rate is ~2%, but states in the Midwest/SW have far higher leakage while states in NE/SE are lower. 2/
Part of this is because of high venting/flaring as @Ben_Geman reports, in the Permian & Bakken basins, but also Canadian imports.
Looking at power plants by state, we see that states in MW/SW have higher emissions intensity than plants in the NE. 3/
Folks citing direct employment numbers in the gas industry in PA to suggest Biden is wrong on his "no fracking ban" policy don't get the ecosystem of people in these communities. It's not just a job - it's family, it's small businesses, & entire communities that will be affected.
I have been in these towns, I collect data in these towns, & it's not hard to see how entire community revolves around an industry.
It's not just a job, it's a way of life.
To suggest that it's only 10K jobs or votes is patronizing, elitist, reductive, and importantly, wrong.
I am one of the few in this country to engage with this issue intellectually while also forging a personal connection with these towns & workers.
And I have come to understanding their perspective, their hopes & challenges, and how we should really talk about energy transition.
🚨New Paper Alert🚨In a first study of this kind, we *empirically* show that leak detection and repair programs - a common methane policy tool - are indeed effective at reducing emissions over many years of implementation. We also found a few surprises. 1/ iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…
First, emissions reduced by 44% between two LDAR surveys conducted over a period of 0.5 - 2 years from the initial survey.
Compare this to EPA (or other state policy) assumptions that annual surveys reduce leaks by 40%. Pretty close. But, note I said emissions, not leaks. 2/
Important context:
Methane emissions consists of leaks (unintentional, fixable) and vents (intentional, not fixable). Leak detection policies only target leaks.
But, some vents can be fixed because they vent far more than what they were designed for. These anomalous vents. 3/