美国出口液化天然气(LNG)的温室气体足迹

IF 3.5 3区 工程技术 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS Energy Science & Engineering Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1002/ese3.1934
Robert W. Howarth
{"title":"美国出口液化天然气(LNG)的温室气体足迹","authors":"Robert W. Howarth","doi":"10.1002/ese3.1934","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from the United States have risen dramatically since the LNG-export ban was lifted in 2016, and the United States is now the world's largest exporter. This LNG is produced largely from shale gas. Production of shale gas, as well as liquefaction to make LNG and LNG transport by tanker, is energy-intensive, which contributes significantly to the LNG greenhouse gas footprint. The production and transport of shale gas emits a substantial amount of methane as well, and liquefaction and tanker transport of LNG can further increase methane emissions. Consequently, carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) from end-use combustion of LNG contributes only 34% of the total LNG greenhouse gas footprint, when CO<sub>2</sub> and methane are compared over 20 years global warming potential (GWP<sub>20</sub>) following emission. Upstream and midstream methane emissions are the largest contributors to the LNG footprint (38% of total LNG emissions, based on GWP<sub>20</sub>). Adding CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from the energy used to produce LNG, total upstream and midstream emissions make up on average 47% of the total greenhouse gas footprint of LNG. Other significant emissions are the liquefaction process (8.8% of the total, on average, using GWP<sub>20</sub>) and tanker transport (5.5% of the total, on average, using GWP<sub>20</sub>). Emissions from tankers vary from 3.9% to 8.1% depending upon the type of tanker. Surprisingly, the most modern tankers propelled by two- and four-stroke engines have higher total greenhouse gas emissions than steam-powered tankers, despite their greater fuel efficiency and lower CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, due to methane slippage in their exhaust. Overall, the greenhouse gas footprint for LNG as a fuel source is 33% greater than that for coal when analyzed using GWP<sub>20</sub> (160 g CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent/MJ vs. 120 g CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent/MJ). Even considered on the time frame of 100 years after emission (GWP<sub>100</sub>), which severely understates the climatic damage of methane, the LNG footprint equals or exceeds that of coal.</p>","PeriodicalId":11673,"journal":{"name":"Energy Science & Engineering","volume":"12 11","pages":"4843-4859"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ese3.1934","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States\",\"authors\":\"Robert W. Howarth\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ese3.1934\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from the United States have risen dramatically since the LNG-export ban was lifted in 2016, and the United States is now the world's largest exporter. This LNG is produced largely from shale gas. Production of shale gas, as well as liquefaction to make LNG and LNG transport by tanker, is energy-intensive, which contributes significantly to the LNG greenhouse gas footprint. The production and transport of shale gas emits a substantial amount of methane as well, and liquefaction and tanker transport of LNG can further increase methane emissions. Consequently, carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) from end-use combustion of LNG contributes only 34% of the total LNG greenhouse gas footprint, when CO<sub>2</sub> and methane are compared over 20 years global warming potential (GWP<sub>20</sub>) following emission. Upstream and midstream methane emissions are the largest contributors to the LNG footprint (38% of total LNG emissions, based on GWP<sub>20</sub>). Adding CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from the energy used to produce LNG, total upstream and midstream emissions make up on average 47% of the total greenhouse gas footprint of LNG. Other significant emissions are the liquefaction process (8.8% of the total, on average, using GWP<sub>20</sub>) and tanker transport (5.5% of the total, on average, using GWP<sub>20</sub>). Emissions from tankers vary from 3.9% to 8.1% depending upon the type of tanker. Surprisingly, the most modern tankers propelled by two- and four-stroke engines have higher total greenhouse gas emissions than steam-powered tankers, despite their greater fuel efficiency and lower CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, due to methane slippage in their exhaust. Overall, the greenhouse gas footprint for LNG as a fuel source is 33% greater than that for coal when analyzed using GWP<sub>20</sub> (160 g CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent/MJ vs. 120 g CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent/MJ). Even considered on the time frame of 100 years after emission (GWP<sub>100</sub>), which severely understates the climatic damage of methane, the LNG footprint equals or exceeds that of coal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy Science & Engineering\",\"volume\":\"12 11\",\"pages\":\"4843-4859\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ese3.1934\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy Science & Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1934\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Science & Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1934","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自2016年液化天然气(LNG)出口禁令解除以来,美国的液化天然气(LNG)出口量急剧上升,目前美国已成为世界上最大的出口国。这些液化天然气主要产自页岩气。页岩气的生产、液化成液化天然气以及液化天然气的油轮运输都是能源密集型的,这大大增加了液化天然气的温室气体足迹。页岩气的生产和运输也会排放大量甲烷,液化天然气的液化和槽车运输会进一步增加甲烷排放量。因此,如果将二氧化碳和甲烷排放后 20 年的全球升温潜能值(GWP20)进行比较,液化天然气终端燃烧产生的二氧化碳(CO2)仅占液化天然气温室气体总足迹的 34%。上游和中游甲烷排放是液化天然气足迹的最大贡献者(根据 GWP20 计算,占液化天然气总排放量的 38%)。加上用于生产液化天然气的能源所产生的二氧化碳排放量,上游和中游的总排放量平均占液化天然气温室气体足迹总量的 47%。其他重要的排放是液化过程(平均占总量的 8.8%,采用 GWP20)和槽车运输(平均占总量的 5.5%,采用 GWP20)。油轮的排放量从 3.9% 到 8.1% 不等,取决于油轮的类型。令人惊讶的是,由二冲程和四冲程发动机推动的最现代化油轮,尽管燃料效率更高、二氧化碳排放量更低,但其温室气体排放总量却高于蒸汽动力油轮,原因是其废气中存在甲烷滑移。总体而言,使用 GWP20 进行分析,液化天然气作为燃料来源的温室气体足迹比煤炭高出 33%(160 克二氧化碳当量/兆焦比 120 克二氧化碳当量/兆焦)。即使考虑到排放后 100 年的时间框架(GWP100),即严重低估甲烷对气候的破坏,液化天然气的足迹也等于或超过煤炭。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from the United States have risen dramatically since the LNG-export ban was lifted in 2016, and the United States is now the world's largest exporter. This LNG is produced largely from shale gas. Production of shale gas, as well as liquefaction to make LNG and LNG transport by tanker, is energy-intensive, which contributes significantly to the LNG greenhouse gas footprint. The production and transport of shale gas emits a substantial amount of methane as well, and liquefaction and tanker transport of LNG can further increase methane emissions. Consequently, carbon dioxide (CO2) from end-use combustion of LNG contributes only 34% of the total LNG greenhouse gas footprint, when CO2 and methane are compared over 20 years global warming potential (GWP20) following emission. Upstream and midstream methane emissions are the largest contributors to the LNG footprint (38% of total LNG emissions, based on GWP20). Adding CO2 emissions from the energy used to produce LNG, total upstream and midstream emissions make up on average 47% of the total greenhouse gas footprint of LNG. Other significant emissions are the liquefaction process (8.8% of the total, on average, using GWP20) and tanker transport (5.5% of the total, on average, using GWP20). Emissions from tankers vary from 3.9% to 8.1% depending upon the type of tanker. Surprisingly, the most modern tankers propelled by two- and four-stroke engines have higher total greenhouse gas emissions than steam-powered tankers, despite their greater fuel efficiency and lower CO2 emissions, due to methane slippage in their exhaust. Overall, the greenhouse gas footprint for LNG as a fuel source is 33% greater than that for coal when analyzed using GWP20 (160 g CO2-equivalent/MJ vs. 120 g CO2-equivalent/MJ). Even considered on the time frame of 100 years after emission (GWP100), which severely understates the climatic damage of methane, the LNG footprint equals or exceeds that of coal.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Energy Science & Engineering
Energy Science & Engineering Engineering-Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
7.90%
发文量
298
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Energy Science & Engineering is a peer reviewed, open access journal dedicated to fundamental and applied research on energy and supply and use. Published as a co-operative venture of Wiley and SCI (Society of Chemical Industry), the journal offers authors a fast route to publication and the ability to share their research with the widest possible audience of scientists, professionals and other interested people across the globe. Securing an affordable and low carbon energy supply is a critical challenge of the 21st century and the solutions will require collaboration between scientists and engineers worldwide. This new journal aims to facilitate collaboration and spark innovation in energy research and development. Due to the importance of this topic to society and economic development the journal will give priority to quality research papers that are accessible to a broad readership and discuss sustainable, state-of-the art approaches to shaping the future of energy. This multidisciplinary journal will appeal to all researchers and professionals working in any area of energy in academia, industry or government, including scientists, engineers, consultants, policy-makers, government officials, economists and corporate organisations.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Floor Heave Mechanism and Control Technique of Water-Rich Soft-Rock Roadway in Thick Coal Seam An Ultra-Short-Term Multi-Step Prediction Model for Wind Power Based on Sparrow Search Algorithm, Variational Mode Decomposition, Gated Recurrent Unit, and Support Vector Regression Experimental Study on Mechanical Properties of Artificial Cores Saturated With Ice: An Analogical Simulation to Natural Gas Hydrate Bearing Sediments Integrated Method of Future Capacity and RUL Prediction for Lithium-Ion Batteries Based on CEEMD-Transformer-LSTM Model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1