Latest news with #RobertHowarth
DW
a day ago
- Politics
- DW
What is Liquified Natural Gas? – DW – 07/14/2025
Louisiana is the latest US state to label LNG as "green" energy. But how can a fossil fuel that emits many planet-heating greenhouse gases be clean? The Gulf Coast state of Louisiana, home to the largest liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility in the US, has recently rebranded the fossil fuel as "green" energy. It is the fourth Republican majority state after Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee to have taken this step and comes as US President Donald Trump rolls back renewable energy subsidies and incentives in favor of oil and gas. The US is the world's biggest exporter of LNG, much of which has been shipped to Europe since 2022, when Russian gas supply was slashed following the invasion of Ukraine. That hasn't stopped the European Union from also classifying natural gas-powered electricity, now sourced largely from imported LNG, as green energy in some contexts. The reasoning is that it is a more sustainable way to transition to renewables like solar and wind since it has a lower carbon footprint than coal. But critics point to a leaky and energy-intensive supply chain that releases a lot of planet-heating methane into the atmosphere. Though it also contains small amounts of ethane, propane, butane and nitrogen, Liquid Natural Gas is more than 90% methane. Methane accumulates in the atmosphere for only around 12 years, as opposed to CO2 that persists for centuries, but it has an outsized impact on the climate. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video For one thing, LNG is around 85 times more powerful than CO2 over a 20-year period. Scientists estimate that while methane only accounts for 3% of greenhouse gas emissions since 1750 — the beginning of industrialization — it is responsible for 25-30% of the subsequent global warming. One 2024 study concludes that LNG has a 33% larger greenhouse gas footprint than coal over 20 years, due in part to methane leakages in the supply chain and energy-intensive processing and shipping. "Natural gas and shale gas are all bad for the climate. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is worse," said Robert Howarth, lead author of the study and professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University. In the United States, LNG is made up of gas that is mined from underground shale using a method called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. This in itself is a controversial process, which critics say pollutes water supplies and air, as well as devastating habitat and biodiversity. Once it has been pulled from underground, the gas is piped to coastal processing plants and supercooled to around -161 degrees Celsius (-258 degrees Fahrenheit) to create a clear, colorless liquid. This liquified gas is much more compact, having been reduced to around 1/600th of its original volume. As such, it can be stored and transported long distances on "cryogenic" LNG tankers that keep the gas very cold, including to locations not accessible by pipelines. When the LNG arrives at purpose-built terminals, it is regasified and piped into the existing gas network. So while European countries once received most of their gas directly from Russia via land and sea pipelines, many have been building LNG terminals to ship gas primarily from the US, but also Qatar and from the US dropped by 19% in 2024 from the highs of the previous year. However, Russian supplies entring the bloc in 2024 went up by 18%. That is despite a commitment to phase-out imports from the country by 2027. Natural gas has long been touted as a "bridge" fuel to a fossil-free energy system because it has around half the carbon emissions of coal. This premise has helped governments claim that LNG is a relatively clean energy source. But beyond the potent methane emissions associated with shale gas fracking in the US — the source of most LNG in the country — supercooling, shipping and regasification require a lot of emission-intensive energy. Designating LNG as a green component of a climate-neutral energy future will be difficult as coal plants close and methane becomes the biggest greenhouse gas polluter. Methane is likely responsible for as much as 50% of temperature rise in the last decade, said Howarth at a Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany in June 2025. LNG is also expensive. Experts claim that energy produced using LNG costs up to five times more than renewables like solar and wind. So, where does this leave the decision by US states like Louisiana to relabel LNG as green and climate-friendly? As the window rapidly closes on keeping temperature rise below 2 degrees and avoiding "irreversible climate catastrophe" — already becoming evident in more extreme heatwaves and wildfires globally — Howarth cautions that Liquified Natural Gas has no place in a clean energy future. "LNG has the largest greenhouse gas footprint of any fossil fuel," he said. "There's simply no room for that." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Euronews
03-07-2025
- Business
- Euronews
EU now imports more LNG than pipeline gas: Is it bad for the climate?
The first quarter of 2025 has marked a significant shift in EU gas imports. For the first time, the bloc seems to be importing more liquefied natural gas (LNG) than natural gas through pipelines: 8.4 million tonnes compared with 8.2 million tonnes, according to Eurostat data. The quantity of LNG imports soared by 12%, compared to Q1 2024, which also meant a sharp increase in money spent on these imports. This figure soared by 45%, totalling €5.3 billion. This shift was driven by the recent expansion or reactivation of LNG regasification facilities in countries like Poland, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, Croatia, Italy, Belgium and Greece following the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. More expensive and questionable environmentally: the dark side of LNG LNG implies higher upfront operational costs because it needs to be frozen to -162°C to be transported, becoming 600 times smaller in volume before it's regassified. Also, transporting it requires specially equipped trucks or cargo ships, which have a much bigger environmental impact than common pipelines. A study by New York's Cornell University quantified LNG's carbon footprint as 33% higher than coal. "The emissions of methane and carbon dioxide released during LNG's extraction, processing, transportation and storage account for approximately half of its total greenhouse gas footprint," says the study's author, Robert Howarth. Compared to pipeline gas, the International Energy Agency claimed LNG has a 67% larger carbon footprint (12 g CO2/MJ pipeline vs 20 g CO2/MJ). However, the International Energy Agency (IEA) insisted that there's room to bring emissions down by about 60% by reducing leaks and flaring, as well as using carbon capture. Why was the EU forced to resort to LNG? LNG is an extremely flexible resource, due to the possibility of signing short-term contracts, allowing for quicker adjustments to market downturns and volatility. The fact that importing LNG doesn't require pipelines also makes it more resilient to logistical issues like infrastructural damage or blockades, mitigating the impact of geopolitical shocks. The EU used to import a lot of natural gas from Russia via pipeline, but that dramatically changed after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. First, Moscow shut down its Nord Stream 1 pipeline to Europe, which was also badly damaged, later, in an underwater sabotage by unknown attackers, along with Nord Stream 2 (which was never launched). Additionally, almost no Russian gas is coming to Europe through Ukraine, as Kyiv didn't renew the necessary transit contracts in January. Russia remains the EU's second LNG provider after the US The share of Russian natural gas in total EU energy imports fell dramatically from 41% in 2021 to around 18% in 2024, according to EU Commission data. Faced with pipeline cuts, the EU was forced to pivot to liquefied gas. In 2025, the US continues to be the EU's largest LNG partner, accounting for just over half of all imports in value (50.7%), followed by Russia (17%) and Qatar (10.8%). Russia's imports, however, are still relevant, and the EU can't afford to cut them completely just yet. The bloc opted for sideline measures like a ban on future investments in LNG projects in Russia as well as a ban on the use of EU ports for the transhipment of Russian LNG, and on the provision of goods, technology and services for Russian LNG projects. Recently, the EU set 2027 as its deadline to stop all Russian energy imports, including LNG. Whether it will meet it or not, member states are rushing to diversify their gas partners, primarily boosting pipeline imports from Norway — which sells the EU over half of its natural gas imports — Azerbaijan and Algeria. Germany backs extraction agreement with the Netherlands "Energy prices are higher in the EU than in most other industrialised economies, presenting a fundamental competitiveness challenge," a recent Bruegel report read. Countries like Germany and Romania are responding by launching plans to boost gas extraction. On Wednesday, Berlin backed a cross-border agreement with the Netherlands for cross-border extraction in the North Sea. Bucharest is headed to the Black Sea with an ambitious project called Neptun Deep. This marks Romania's biggest energy project in two decades, and should become operational in 2027, to exploit the estimated 100 billion cubic meters of gas reserves. In Q1 2025, the EU spent 19% more on natural gas imports compared to the same period last year, although it bought 12% less in quantity. Regarding all energy imports, Eurostat notes that costs "increased slightly by 0.3%, while the volume decreased by 3.9%".
