What Next For Energy? King Coal, Queen Gas, Or A Renewables Transition

Forbes

12-05-2025

MALLNOW, GERMANY - MAY 24: A compressor station of the Jagal natural gas pipeline stands on May 24, ... More 2023 near Mallnow, Germany. The Jagal is the German extension of the Yamal-Europe pipeline that transports Russian natural gas to Germany via Poland, though no Russian gas has arrived at Mallnow since last year due to sanctions stemming from Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine. (Photo by)
'Natural gas is queen,' gushed Exelon energy executive John Rowe at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. It was 2011, shortly after the Fukishima disaster boosted concerns about nuclear energy, and anxiety over global warming spawned scrutiny of king coal. Natural gas, which has lower emissions than coal when burned, was seen as the answer to a safe, cheap, and clean energy future. Largely due to a new way of extracting gas called fracking, the US grew from being a minor global player in 2014 to become the world's largest gas producer by 2023.
WOLLONGONG, AUSTRALIA - FEBRUARY 01: A general view of the steelworks and coal loading facility in ... More Port Kembla on February 01, 2021 in Wollongong, Australia. Coal mining operations are set to expand in the Illawarra region following the recent move to reopen the area;s oldest mine. Wollongong Coal's application to expand operations to extract an additional 3.7 million tonnes of metallurgical coal at its currently dormant Russell Vale colliery over the next five years was approved by the The Independent Planning Commission (IPC) in December 2020. South 32 has also submitted plans to the IPC to extend its Dendrobium underground mine west of Wollongong. Both mines encroach on the water catchment area of Greater Sydney, with concerns raised over the expected impact and damage to Sydney's water supply. (Photo by)
As the US aimed to increase its fossil fuel exports, natural gas was rebranded from 'queen' to promoting 'freedom.' Referencing the 75th anniversary of the US helping to liberate Europe from Nazi occupation, US Energy Secretary Rick Perry raved: 'the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent ... And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it's in the form of liquefied natural gas.' US Undersecretary of Energy Mark Menezes effused, 'Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America's allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy.' (In a spoof on the rebranding of natural gas, Slate News joked: 'Spreading freedom gas sounds like what happens when you're newly single and suddenly have the apartment to yourself.')
So, if it produces less pollution when burned, promotes freedom in Europe, and even guarantees US energy independence, what's the problem with natural gas? Turns out a lot according to Cornell professor Robert Howarth, who, in addition to being my colleague, proudly bears his title as the 'Climate Scientist Fossil-Fuel Companies Can't Stand.'
Let's start with the basics. Natural gas is almost completely composed of methane. Although we hear a lot about CO2 and global warming, methane is actually 80 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2 over the first 20 years after it's emitted. In other words, methane warms the atmosphere a lot faster than CO2 in the near-term. Although methane's potency goes down over time, scientists agree that we need to draw down emissions immediately–which means the next twenty years are critical.
A hydraulic fracturing operation at a Marcellus Shale well
Natural gas can be extracted by conventional wells or by fracking–either way its emissions when burned are lower than those of coal. But natural gas produced via fracking goes through a series of stages from buried in the ground to burned at the power plant. And, at each stage, methane can leak into the atmosphere as 'fugitive emissions.' For example, methane escapes when rocks are injected with high-volume water to open up passages for methane extraction and escapes into the atmosphere through equipment leaks, including pressure relief valves that vent gas as a safety precaution. In both conventional and fracked natural gas, additional fugitive emissions occur during transport, storage, and distribution.
Back in 2011, when Howarth first tried to estimate the total amount of methane emissions from ground to power plant, there wasn't a lot of data to draw on. Using the best figures available, Howarth and colleagues estimated that during the life cycle of a typical fracked gas well, 3.6 to 7.9% of the total production escapes to the atmosphere as methane. Recognizing the influence of Howarth and fellow Cornell scientist Tony Ingraffea on fracking policy, Time Magazine named them, along with actor and anti-fracking activist Mark Ruffalo, people who mattered. (Others on the 2011 list included Jeff Bezos, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Il.)
MARSEILLE, FRANCE - 2024/06/04: The LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) Tanker FSRU Toscana arrives at the ... More French Mediterranean port of Marseille. (Photo by Gerard Bottino/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Fast forward to 2024, and Howarth came out with another controversial paper–this time questioning the wisdom of expanding LNG export facilities in Louisiana and Texas. As with his earlier work on fracking, Howarth painstakingly calculated fugitive emissions throughout the life cycle of LNG from extraction to burning in Europe or China. Emissions come from the energy required to convert natural gas into LNG, as well as from burning fuel and evaporation of LNG during transport. Given the magnitude of these and other LNG emissions, Howarth concluded: 'With an even greater greenhouse gas footprint than natural gas, ending the use of LNG should be a global priority. I see no need for LNG as an interim energy source, and note that switching from coal to LNG requires massive infrastructure expenditures, for ships and liquefaction plants and the pipelines that supply them. A far better approach is to use financial resources to build a fossil‐fuel‐free future as rapidly as possible.'
Not surprisingly, the oil industry and some scientists were not happy with Howarth's findings and the vitriol began to flow, questioning his credibility and motives.
Maroš Šefčovič,Vice-President of the European Commission attends at the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) ... More Ministerial meeting during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) held at Expo City in Dubai, United Arab Emirates on December 4,2023.
The LNG Ogun, a gas carrier that sails under the Bermuda flag, is pictured behind some wind turbines ... More on a breakwater, leaving the Port of Bilbao bound for the port of Bonny, in Nigeria, after her stopover at the Bizkaia Bay regasification plant Gas (BBG) in Zierbena, 20 km away from Bilbao, on December 21, 2022. - Bahia de Bizkaia Gas liquefied natural gas regasification plant gets LNG from tankers from all over the world and transform it into natural gas for domestic, commercial and industrial consumption as well as for the electricity generation. (Photo by ANDER GILLENEA / AFP) (Photo by ANDER GILLENEA/AFP via Getty Images)
A battle rages not only over the scale of methane emissions from natural gas, but also over the economic outlook for LNG. According to Shell Oil, 'Global demand for LNG is forecast to rise by around 60% by 2040.' The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IIEFA) has a totally different take: 'Lackluster demand growth combined with a massive wave of new export capacity is poised to send global liquefied natural gas (LNG) markets into oversupply within two years.' IIEFA cites the 20% decline in Europe's gas consumption over the past two years, and smaller declines in Japan and Korea driven by the transition to nuclear and renewables.
Not surprisingly, the Trump administration sees LNG as a card to play in its tariff wars, hoping LNG exports will eliminate trade deficits with Europe. But, according to the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, 'Whatever Trump may think he is gaining in the short-term by pushing more US LNG exports to EU countries, it will hardly be a sustainable solution to bridging the US-EU trade.' Unfortunately for trade deficits, European utilities (not politicians) actually purchase gas. They are wary of entering into long-term contracts with US LNG suppliers as LNG demand declines, and of being exposed to international methane reduction agreements that the Trump administration is likely to ignore. The LNG trade issue is complicated by gas prices, which Trump has promised to lower, thus counteracting his goal of reducing the trade deficit.
NOCHTEN, GERMANY - APRIL 30: In this aerial view the Boxberg coal-fired power plant stands behind ... More the newly inaugurated PV-Park Boxberg solar energy park on April 30, 2024 in Nochten, Germany. LEAG, the energy company that owns both, is building what it claims will be Germany's biggest concentration of green energy production, with solar energy parks and wind farms that will have a capacity of seven gigawatts by 2030 under the so-called GigawattFactory project. The Boxberg solar park stands on recultivated land of a former open-pit coal mine. The region of southern Brandenburg and northern Saxony has long been heavily dependent on coal. Germany is seeking to shutter its coal-fired energy production by 2038. (Photo by)
As scientists and oil executives continue to clash over the methane emissions of LNG–and over future demand for LNG–the point remains that we need to go beyond the emissions from simply burning gas or coal to understand their climate footprint. We need to take into account the fugitive emissions of their entire life cycle, from extraction to transport to burning, and even closing down wells and mines. And we need to compare the costs of building new LNG infrastructure to hastening the transition to renewables.
1 The authors of the Nature study also point out the annual financial costs of fugitive emissions: roughly $1 billion in lost commercial gas and $9.3 billion in social costs, such as declining coastal property values due to fire or sea level rise.