The truth about LNG
More and more gigantic tankers carrying LNG, liquefied natural gas, are crisscrossing the oceans - and we're building infrastructure to trade ever larger amounts. But shouldn't we be moving AWAY from fossil fuels?
#PlanetA #LNG #naturalgas
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
Follow Planet A on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@dw_planeta?la...
Credits:
Reporter: Malte Rohwer-Kahlmann
Video Editor: Neven Hillebrands
Supervising Editor: Joanna Gottschalk
Factcheck: Jeannette Cwienk
Thumbnail: Em Chabridon
Read More (Links):
LNG oversupply: globalenergymonitor.org/wp-co...
Gas infrastructure tracker: globalenergymonitor.org/proje...
Shell LNG Outlook: www.shell.com/what-we-do/oil-...
Emissions from LNG carrier ships:
pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021...
LNG worse than coal? (NOT peer-reviewed yet): www.research.howarthlab.org/p...
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
00:41 What is LNG?
01:29 LNG boom
03:47 LNG's climate impact
08:05 Stranded assets?
10:28 Conclusion
What do you make of the LNG hype?
If hydrogen and carbon capture ever become a thing, much of the LNG infrastructure can be repurposed to move hydrogen. But that's a big "IF" on both counts.
Me neighbor car running on it in CNG form :)
I don't think it really matters about calling it "hype" or anything else. Here is what I think matters: You don't make your enemies wealthy because you think something is a bad idea. Europeans have made Russia a lot of money who is now attacking Europe and EUROPE doesn't seem to want to put the money into defending Ukraine properly, and the country that HAS put a lot of money into protecting Ukraine is a country producing LNG. So, WHATEVER your logic is, it's pretzel logic, because war is WAY WORSE than LNG. Get a clue?? Either that or send troops into Ukraine and deal with it.
Rubbish. Used to be so cheap here in Australia, but all that has changed, for the worse!. We were paying like .75 cpl, yet were selling it to Japan for 5 cpl. Back in the '80s, gas (LPG/LNG), it's just 'gas', but we only paid like,15cpl 😥
@@microcomputermaster Well, that is only if we go for hydrogen from natural gas and capture the CO2 for so called blue hydrogen. There are a whole range of issues with hydrogen, but if it ever becomes a big thing it would be in the green form. Say: cover a good part of the dessert of Dubai with solar panels just to produce hydrogen and liquify that.
It's really cringe looking at countries like Germany spend billions on LNG and other natural gas infrastructure, but not nuclear.
Look at the millions of litres of contaminated water Tepco are dumping into the Pacific after their nuclear accident! Tell me what the outcome there will be?
Haven't you seen Germany in 1920s? It was always Cringe
Lng is the base of their industrial model. They use it for manufacturing the vast number of chemicals, plastics, and metals that they need to make their manufacturing model work not just for energy.
Japan and Soviet Union through their callousness completed ruined the reputation of the only clean viable nuclear energy.
Uneducated zealots managed to scare the rest of poorly educated population into thinking that German nuclear power plants would be run by the crew from Chernobyl and would also be at risk of tsunami from Pacific ocean.
The problem I have with German ‘environmentalists’ are that the same people bemoaning the problems of lng have shut down their nuclear power plants. In their own arrogance, they shot themselves in the foot.
🤔 Here is a video we made on Germany's nuclear exit. 👇 ☢️ "Is Germany's nuclear exit a mistake?" kzhead.info/sun/mLuud7SXmHSljJ8/bejne.html And, you should explore our channel for more content on nuclear!
Sure it's not like oil and gas companies have been lobbying against nuclear for decades. They are the ones donating the money to politicans, not ‘environmentalists’ .
@@DWPlanetA Do you have another video on how the US helped Germany by blowing up NordStream2?
Not only that, these guys are hypocrites. They fly to conferences in Dubai and talk about their utopian nonsense. I just read that Al Gore, who has been threatening for years about global warming and the resulting increase in ocean water levels by several meters, bought a property in Florida right by the ocean. An idiot or a clever fraudster who made money by trading emission rights?
@@tayikolla6205 Do you have a video on how you know who blew up the pipeline? Why blow up pipelines that were not being used?
00:27. Correction: It's making a 'few' people a lot of money.
Always important to point out class dynamics in all of this, which these videos often shy away from.
Plus the people working in the industry, plus the small investors (like me) who invested in LNG, plus the rural landowners whose wells are located on, plus the governments obtaining tax revenues from the industries, plus the construction companies putting up the facilities.
@@ms-tw4sj Compared to the greater population as a whole, that's still very much a few people. Stop kidding yourself.
@@FenthuleWhat's your solution? Get rid of LNG? Get rid of Property Rights? Communism? It's been tried, it doesn't work. LNG not only benefits the people in the industry, it benefits the consumers of LNG and the earth as a whole because it's cleaner. Everbody gained THANK YOU rich person, WHO PUT UP THE MONEY to drill the well, to build the infrastructure to transport the product and create the system
1%
It's short term, it's optics, it doesn't address causes only symptoms
Yes it's something they can throw taxpayer money at to look like they're taking action. These things are never thought through and rarely work...
Ure seeing the wrong optics. Before methane came into commercial use it was basically burnt up as it was useless. So that's why oil producers are interested in selling as otherwise theyd just use it in some captive plants for some synthesis and energy source but as methane sources are usually in war torn areas or inhospitable terrain so captive use would be less and more expensive than letting it burn or just blow away.
Not "a lot of people". A few people. The vast majority of people in Australia, anyway, are not seeing that money.
Neither is the government
Fun fact - natural gas infrastructure can be retrofitted to hydrogen. Hydrogen is the next step. Power plants that were once coal have been refurbished to run on natural gas and many Turbines that make the power can be mixed fuel. Hydrogen and Natural gas. There are already turbines made by siemens that can run on 100% hydrogen but are now duel fuel turbines. So it very well is a great transition fuel.
not as good as renewables but way better than coal or diesel. I've seen how much worse the air quality is around a power plant using coal vs one using gas. I guess this has its place in the energy transition.
Thats the problem, there more here than meets the eye!
Don't make perfection the enemy of the possible. Always going to need reserves. In Sweden we burn oil for electricity on cold winter days (probably happened i other seasons aswell) if the wind doesn't blow. Sweden have 98% fossil-free elecricity but still depends on oil on harsch days. Storage is not an option now or any time soon why not burn natural gas instead of oil. Security landscape changed last few years. Each country need to be more self--relient. Storage of gas seem better then storage of oil to me. There are more variables then just climate to consider for nations when it comes to energy. Saying no to gas simply base on climate arguments I see as unserious. BUT if it turns out LNG emits more over the "lifecycle" then coal then there's no reason for LNG.
To resolve the problem we should follow he right sequence: 1) To define the main contributors (materials/substances) to the global warming. 2) To define the main sectors/industries and countries with the highest emissions of these substances. 3) To find the way to minimize the greatest sources of pollution. These steps could reveal very interesting insights. For example, livestock is a huge contributor to global warming. The way when we work with main contributors will probably be the most effective. And, of course, if it happen that China is the main contributor in the world, the US and Europe shouldn't suffer and jeopardize their economic, social, geopolitical and energy stability. But DW goes another way: "we don't know how harmful is LNG, we don't even know whether it is more harmful than other fossil fuels, but we know that it is fossil fuel, thus it is bad and we must fight with that at any price".
And Germany ditched nuclear just for this lol😂. What a clown.
Hey there! We tackled Germany´s nuclear exit a while ago. Check it out if you are interested in that topic 👉kzhead.info/sun/mLuud7SXmHSljJ8/bejne.html
My country, Argentina 🇦🇷 started to import LNG when internal production went down more than a decade ago, but now that shale gas production is rising there are plans to build liquefaction plants to export the surplus. We need to exploit our fossil fuel resources before the energy transition becomes a reality. In any case, we also have favorable conditions for the installation of wind and solar parks.
You guys want to be very careful to not step on some big neighbors toes. Part of the reason Venezuela is so messed up is because they have so much oil...
Here in the Philippines, we have the Malampaya, which has been a media frenzy in the early 2000s. The adverts for this project, say, "How can you call energy cheap, if it costs an entire nation's treasure?"
Philippines burns a lot of imported coal correct? LNG would be a boon if done correctly. Less brownouts and costs savings, perhaps..
They should drill more in palawan area . Government should invest and don’t wait for investor due to companies that have been on the industry wanted monopolize to be sold at export price not for local consumption only,
“Dirty” coal is what made Germany rich. Good video. About time LNG was scrutinised, it’s not economic for many developing countries struggling with high unemployment. LNG is not as flexible as coal, liquefaction plants are not cheap.
In my country (Portugal) the tendency of consumption is in decline, as we consume more than 60% with sometimes peak of 80% on renewals, Wind, Solar and Hydro... We are small country anyway, but we try to make a difference and it seems we are going in the right direction according to the EU requirements... New big solar farms are also coming online and I hope we get each time more to the O% for domestic consumption... Transportation is the only elephant in the room that needs to be addressed along with the tourism factor that complicate the numbers on pollution...
Renewals are great ! when they are available ! when they aren't , do we shut it down ? The big problem from renewals is reliability we always need to double the install capacity with other reliable source ... for now , the only way for complying co2 emission targets is with nuclear for base power and renewals ! In transportation is really a bigger mess ...
why you dont metion that when you need energy you import from spain that runs on nuclear ?
@@TTTT-sj3vz yes , and some times we also export and some times Portugal and Spain import from France that is 70% nuclear and the back bone of Europe power grid ...
@@TTTT-sj3vzNop... Our only LPG power plant produce enough... We only import power on very occasional situations...
@@007jmsgWe don't have any nuclear power plant... Portugal is a non nuclear power country since the beginning...
If you do the fossil fuel comparison, if methane leakage from production to end use is greater than ~4%, it produces more greenhouse gas equivalent than ANY other fossil fuel including coal and oil. Researchers have measured leakage rates in the U.S. of 6-9% of the methane produced (Stanford News March 24, 2022 and other news sources). As currently produced with all the leakage, methane is definitely not the clean energy transition fuel the fossil fuel industry is claiming.
Fantastik article. Who is incentivized to verify the emissions. The LNG industry wants to turn a blind eye. Like your reference, I have not verified Tony Seba's assertion in his book "Clean Disruption" that the pipelines have on average 3 to 4 leaks per mile. My Grandfather worked in the fossil fuel industry finding leaks in the pipelines. I like your supportive commentators. My plan is to replace all Gas in my house with renewable electric.
What is renewable energy? How is the energy you use to insulate your house or your computer regenerated? Describe it according to the laws of physics.
Outlaw LNG.🤣 It's part of the suicidal globalist agenda.
After Europe can not use LNG, so they start to share propaganda that LNG not save for environment 😂
@@roberts1938 I'm really glad nobody bothered responding to your JAQing off and blatant attempt at trolling via missing the point. I'm just here with popcorn.
This is a hit piece... the most common word used in this video is "IF" and then it is assumed to be true...
Russia shut down gas to Europe or Europe stopped imports from Russia?
At first, Russia used gas blackmail by limiting gas supplies. She wanted to force political decisions. But these are long-term gas supply contracts and such a unilateral decision would involve paying very high compensation. That's why they blew up the pipelines so as not to pay compensation. Force majeure frees them from responsibility, and proving guilt will be very difficult because Russia does not cooperate. Besides, these pipelines were built with German money, so it is not their loss. And the Germans are only talking about reconstruction, and it will also be at their expense, if such a decision is made.
Liar European! Russians invested dozen of billions of dollars in the gas infrastructure. And they blew it up??? The more ridiculous lie the faster people believe the lie
One point missed in the material is the potential of adopting this infrastructure to green hydrogen. I know this might be just justification that has nothing to do with companies intentions but I think that point should have been risen.
Agreed! I was waiting for them to say something about green hydrogen. I also think they should have mentioned it cuz it's kind of a big point as the infrastructure for LNG is also viable (maybe with some minor adjustments) for hydrogen and this explains why so many terminals are built
@@creedreaming Hydrogen isn't politically correct to the solar and wind mafia. They support only these because they're involved in the industry, suck tax dollars etc, if hydrogen would become viable the combustion engine, would still be viable their aim is trap us at charging stations and high cost energy and overegulation. Hydrogen would smash all of that.
As always: if there’s a profit in it for western (US) investors, it will happen. No matter what the cost for everything and everyone else.
Excellent content - I’ve been working in energy policy for two decades and this is one of the best short videos I’ve seen on LNG. Thank you!
Hey Nancy! Glad to hear that you liked the video on LNG. If you are interested in similar videos, subscribe to our channel. We post new videos every week ✨
Using electricity at night when solar power isn't producing electricity is like strangling your children and grandchildren. Carbon dioxide and methane are extremely stable at the molecular level, so it is necessary to reduce them as much as possible. Also, if the LNG is leaking during transportation as shown in this video, I think it has something to do with the fact that the West ordered shipbuilding companies from South Korea and China because they were cheaper. Japan was the first to realize LNG maritime transport, and it has a history of being manufactured by Japanese shipbuilding companies with cutting-edge technology at the time. I read in an article that Japanese technology was passed on to Korea and China due to the difference in labor costs and kindness, and now almost no Japanese companies are able to receive orders. I recently learned that the water temperature in the North Atlantic has been rising over the past year to an extent that researchers cannot understand. It's possible that the suddenly increased number of LNG transport vessels is involved.
Thanks for posting the video. The answer to the question at the very end is simple - stop burning stuff. Every fossil investment is too much
LNG was also said to be used as a miracle for the transport of goods, but it turned out not to be as good and clean as expected. LNG is a dangerous development in my opinion because it remains a gas, it is just not as green as some people promise because of the production and transport of everything. There is still an easy solution to the energy problem, at least, if they just ignore cold fusion, which was already known in the 60s but nothing was done with it, it is now starting to take shape, but we are still far from there.
For me, LNG is a short term solution, the cost alone will end up pushing that aside for cheaper alternatives, likely renewable energy sources being created much closer to where it's used. In the case of Europe, there's a bit of a spike in buying up LNG since the war in Ukraine, but when looking closely, it looks like they are shifting their economy to an all electric system, which opens up more options on what energy sources you can buy and favours renewable energy sources, because of that and because LNG is so expensive, unless the ones that produce the LNG gas find ways of reducing the cost a lot, I can't see them being competitive with other energy sources, especially renewable energy that's getting better and cheaper all the time. There's also the security issue, since the war in Ukraine, more countries want to produce more of the energy they use internally, the only real issue with renewables is the inconsistency, but that can be solved with batteries acting as a buffer. Basically, there's a short wind fall for LNG because of the war in Ukraine, especially in Europe, but it seems short-lived just to fill the void that Russia is missing out on, so unless LNG becomes a lot cheaper to buy, I can't see it being that competitive for long and cheaper alternatives, likely renewable will replace it, at least in Europe, because Asia is a bit different, in many areas, they need as much energy as they can get from any source as they are a growing economy, whereas Europe is more developed and settled on its energy needs, so even thought it's going up, it's much more manageable with cleaner energy sources like renewables, especially as battery tech continues to get better and cheaper.
The video said we have alternatives and they are getting cheaper and cheaper. China and India are both investing a lot on renewables, yet they are building many LNG terminals. Why? It seems we are missing something. Perhaps a country cares about energy security or the intermittency of solar and wind means you need a backup energy source.
Nope. What they are doing is developing all forms of energy, because they plan to use all of them to reach first world standards of living. Using all means instead of just the best means of producing energy means they will get to their goal faster. The question is at what cost to their citizens? A first world standard of living cannot be maintained without civilization. If climate change does in civilization, everyone loses firsts world standards of living. Are you a gambler? This is the risk we are taking
The green stuff doesnt cut it and is not replacing fossil fuel fast enough, many people know there is an energy crunch coming hence all the lng terminals
@@blueyhis.zarsoff1147 For Europe, its mostly a way to get away from Russian gas. The transition to renewables still stands. And even if battery storages fail completely, the backup would cut down gas usage to a third of todays usage.
@@wernerderchampJan 2years ago wind and solar all stopped in a Jan snow storm. Germany had all coal running at 100% Wind and solar is temp power so is a battery
I am a cryo engineer on an LNG ship and I can tell you the actual methane losses from the ship are close to zero. The company is paranoid about even the smallest leak.
US is biggest LNG exporter and all those years behind media never talk bad about LNG and in the near future theres a lot of new gas field that Will fullfil asia demand of LNG and they Will not need US energi anymore thats why media began to talk about it
A simple way to help reduce methane emissions is to plant trees - especially lots of Christmas trees. They also absorb CO2 in the air.
Gas burned in a combined cycle plant can have 60% efficiency (or even 90% if the cooling water gets used in district heating) and can be turned on and off relatively quickly meaning it can load follow whatever renewables are on the grid. Windy day, no gas needed, calm day with clouds, turn on the gas plant. It's a good transition until other storage exists.
By just adding some batteries to balance (1/5 - 1/3 of daily consumption) one can very easily reach ~90-95% renewables. You'd only need to ramp them up when both wind and solar are out.
@@wernerderchamp I'd say you need a bit more batteries for that (depending on location and what over sources are on the grid, if you have hydro and nuclear, great!) but other storage can play a very important part. Thermal storage for heat and hot water would go a long way to eliminate gas use by storing wind over production when it happens. Sand/rocks for thermal storage is cheap and plentiful, an oil cistern filled with it at 500 C is 10s of GWh storage. Would work well in places that have district heating anyway.
Of course as more solar/wind/etc energy is brought online, the need to move LNG will decrease and its cost will increase. Economics will have its way.
you talked about LNG supply chain causing lot of emmissions. Coal supply chain is also very dirty, Mining it, then transporting it, often on ships, and then at ports, put on trucks for transport to power plants
My country, Australia, as mentioned is a big exporter. I see a role for it, of supplying power when renewables are low. Low solar and wind. But hopefully diminishing to zero. The industry tries to push CCS, but it seems like green-washing
It definitly is green-washing. We need to get away from fossil fuels. More than half of the gas is just providing low-level heat.
Coal also typically has methane emissions, which are mostly just vented to avoid mine explosions. Chinese and West Virginian coal are especially "gassy" and mines can continue leaking methane for decades after they've closed.
Then go out, get a bank loan, tap those mines for natural gas and get rich. Then reinvest all your new millions in researching cleaner alternatives like hydrogen...
@@Justan669 This is done sometimes, especially for newer mines, but for retired mines the capital costs can be too much to make it profitable unless there is some kind of methane tax or other penalty in place for leaked methane. And with abandoned mines, the owner responsible might no longer exist, so it would fall onto the government to install the equipment.
As of today, 84% of all electricity generated worldwide come from either coal, gas or oil. Nuclear and Hydro count for 6% each. Only 4% come from wind or solar, and they have serious limitations and high cost. So, hydrocarbon are there to stay, as a major source of power for electricity for the next 100 years, before we found some replacement, if we ever find.
Therefore, the blowing up Nord Stream could be labelled as the worst ecological disaster, crime, to be precise, ever. Germany, who did it? Why the silence?
This shouldn't even be a debate. building any new long term fossil infrastructure is a really bad idea. The only reason some people think otherwise is because fossil companies make them.
Natural Gas is a clean product
Great video! And those final remarks by Robert Rozansky, about the falling cost of renewables, continue to hold true and to gain weight. This video was made in March 2022. In both 2022 and 2023, heat pumps outsold natural gas furnaces in the US. In 2023, the EU cut their gas-fired power production by 15% from the previous year. And, globally in 2023, at least 68 gas-fired power plants planned for construction were canceled because they couldn't compete, on cost, with solar + batteries. We CAN dramatically cut our emissions, and start to stabilize the climate system. That is a very low priority for the fossil fuel industry, and they are fighting hard to preserve the status quo.
One alternative for oil producers is to flare the natural gas as the oil in more valuable and stranded gas generally has no net market. A greater LNG market could make less of this gas simply flared into the atmosphere. The gas is flared to prevent methane from going into the atmosphere. Suppressing the consumption could easily lead to much more atmospheric methane by marginal producers in third world countries just vent the gas.
Yes, Thailand is hooked on LNG for over half of our energy needs
I missed an analysis to whether the LNG infrastructure can be repurposed for hydrogen. I don't know regarding the transport and storing (H2 is usually very tricky to deal with) but I heard that the natural gas power plants that are being built in Germany will be convertible to hydrogen. Nonetheless, great content as usual from the Planet A team!
Most LNG and natural gas infrastructure cannot be used for hydrogen as the H molecules embrittle iron and steel pipes and components causing them to fail. Much work needed to make H a viable fuel for most applications. Also it's incredibly expensive (Cupertino CA price of $33 per kg, or about $120 per gallon last month)
Saving on energy is the future. On all levels of the society and industry. And up to now, there's hardly anyone saving. And with saving, I mean, instead of replacing a light bulb in the room by replacing it with 4-6 LED's, imported from China, you'd better switch off the light first and start thinking...in the dark. Everything you buy nowadays comes with a power cord. What was done manually in the past, is now electrically powered. Insulate against heat, not against cold. I've been working for decades in tropical regions worldwide, nowhere I saw a modern building insulated against the heat, but A/C's were running everywhere at full power. Even in the most developed tropical counties and cities, there is zero insulation in modern buildings. With the exception of a few buildings in the Emirates. With global warming, the tropical regions become even hotter. And more A/C's will be needed with higher energy consumption as a result. Electric energy produced out of LNG? Since mankind uses energy, mankind is in energy transition, continuously. Think at least 1-2 steps further into the future to tackle the issue. The new worship should be based on thermodynamics and physics, more sustainable than any other religion and it might keep child birth rates within limits.
Although gross CO2 emissions might be equal to burning coal, big part of it is generated outside of country where it is finally burned (used). For governments that want to show how green their country is this is win win situation. Undeniably burning gas is greener than coal so if half of gross CO2 is released thousands kilometres away from you why should that government care when their only goal is to show how green is their country, not the world. It is same as with electric cars. You still need "dirty" power plants to charge them, but at least they don't release most of CO2 directly in your city but rather somewhere far away where power plant resides. In most cases its just a matter of where emissions are released rather than how much.
If interruptables are really practical, it would be possible to run the liquefaction and regasification plants off of them. If that were the case, then maybe all of this infrastructure wouldn't be stranded, it would reflect the required capital investment to make interruptables work. Better hope that the engineers will design this equipment to be supply following, although that might not be necessary for handling long duration wind droughts.
Thanks for making this video. It's important to point out that there are many steps before we even burn fossil fuels that are forgotten. Those steps are probably the most polluting part of the whole enterprise. When we say that a fossil fuel is cheap we're not taking the cost of the effects of future pollution into account, and we should be!
I am glad that the US suspended the issuance of permits for new LNG export infrastructure. I think that this is a wise first step to perhaps causing countries to rethink their reliance on LNG.
They know the will need it themselves
The already existing permits are enough for a tripling of the export capacity...
Apparently you think that all countries including poor developing countries where the majority of the worlds population live have the ability to invest the huge sums of money required to develop wind and solar power that the USA has? It is very arrogant and ignorant to think that making energy harder for poor people to have access to plentiful cheap natural Gas so they can improve the quality of life is ok because it does not effect you? Do you actually think that if the countries that need natural Gas will not simply find other sources of natural Gas? Do you actually think it is good that Europe depends on Russia for their Natural Gas? If you lived in a poor country in Africa you would think very differently about having your access to cheap Natural Gas taken away.
The US already has so much LNG infrastructure so they didn't need it anyway.
USA is the biggest LNG exporter and they aren't going to suspend it as currently they have enough production
In the Netherlands we build LNG terminals that can at a later state be refitted to receive hydrogen for ouer industry
Its also planned to refit the German terminals for hydrogen or ammonia.
Hey Axel! Yes, if considered when builing the LNG terminal, parts of the terminal can be used for hydrogen. However, a Fraunhofer study shows that the adapting to be used for hydrogen still poses very high costs.
Those that talk about turning off oil & gas as the future are always rushing this change. It’s not a quick process, it’s going to take generations to make the change. LNG might be the final fuel we depend on as we transition into hydrogen,solar, wind and geothermal. But don’t build the climate forecasts and think that just because you wish it to change in 30 years it’s actually going to happen. 🇺🇸
People will refuse to freeze in the dark, and short term climate targets that exclude fossil fuels ensure that outcome. Almost all of the carbon emissions improvements we've seen thus far are the conversion of coal to gas fired power plants.
Amazing content, balance and unbiased, realistic and center
+
My country (Norway) is a major exporter of LNG and I'm so ashamed of how much our government insists on releasing even more pollutants into the atmosphere. The time for a break was like 20 years ago, the fact that we haven't been able to stop sooner or stop now (instead due to the war, we're accelerating our production) is terrible and heartbreaking. I hate my government and I hate the old fools who're driving us straight into climate doom
But there's a tradeoff, those LNG exports are making Norway a fortune, and afaik avg Norwegians do benefits from it. Plus its cleaner than coal or oil (hopefully) so while not the cleanest source of energy, its still better than exporting oil or using coal.
LNG is very very critical for Sustainable Development in a era of Climate Change. Before the industrial dynamics set forth, a comprehensive assesment on methane leakage should be carried out to make better policies.
The global warming potential of methane is around 25 not 80. 80 relates to a short term 20 year figure not allowing methane life time. Also methane is not deliberately released as part of LNG production but no process is 100% immune to leaks. All figures given on Wiki so you can check for yourself.
You know what’s REALLY REALLY dirty? Making solar panels & windmills.
DW: Germany should stop importing LNG! German electricity should be left up or down to the wind!
And then your industry will end like the wind - from a methane fart😂
You you never mentioned that if the methane is not used, it's flared so the result it is just as much CO2 flaring.
The infrastructure is being built out in the USA and there are long-term environmental consequences. Really, putting in renewable energy infrastructure is about the same cost, and it does not pollute. I do not know the answer, but I would like to see studies look at methods to transition the LNG world to liquid hydrogen, liquid air or something similar to move energy around the world. If the source does not pollute the atmosphere, water or land, we will all benefit.
How hard is it to go to a sewage treatment plant and change it. Like make it produce lots of methan to collect ad a dome or something and not have it open to the air for all smells to leave like they do now.
Honestly with manure it's relatively easy and you get fertiliser as a byproduct and gives a use to wasted food that we have so much of in the west. I think the issues will be more related to regulations.
Extracting methane from sewage treatment plants seems to work well several places in Denmark. Sewage seems like a very stable resource to depend on, and thus it is good to invest in this sort of extraction to reduce the need for imported methane.
Methane is only a viable transition fuel if an electricity plant is built as close as possible to the well and then its energy distributed along the high-voltage transmission lines.
As an Indian I am proud of that we have less than global average of per capita GHGs emissions.And if we compare total GHGs emmitated by all countries we are far behind than US and other European countries.
you miss 1 thing India have the most cows in the world, each cow produce 250 to 500 Liter of methane a day
@@jetli740 yeah , and you forgot the amount of gas guzzling cars that the US has. Let's be a little realistic here. The US is the worst polluter in history.
It just means that you're poorer.
Expanding solar, wind and storage is our best bet! LNG sucks...
We have many videos on these in our channel - check it out! And don't forget to subscribe. 🌱
NO, Nuclear Power is our best bet.
A diverse energy mix the our best bet. Nuclear can complement solar & wind when there isn't any. @@ms-tw4sj
India recently inaugrated a fast breeder reactor (first one of its kind) for thorium energy. China has also made huge leaps in this regard and is ahead of India in many regards, I think soon Thorium can also provide us a great way @@ms-tw4sj
@@ms-tw4sj Nuclear power is extremely expensive (in France they HEAVILY subsidies their nuclear power to "make" it cheap) and waste still is an issue, even though it's gotten much better already. They also have a few videos on it here
Hopefully it will soon be confirmed how LNG compares to local coal WRT GHG emissions. To me the process is so intensive and wasteful I expect it to be as bad if not worse than coal especially when they measure all typical fugitive methane emissions. Also I think/hope that countries looking to move off coal are more and more likely to bypass LNG as a bridge and go straight to renewables (with whatever you currently have as a backup until grid storage is fully sorted): as noted they are cheap and getting more so, quick to stand up, free of geopolitical strings, and the fuel is free. China and the US made a recent agreement to triple renewable energy generating capacity by 2030 which should create huge momentum.
In regards to methane escaping. The Operators are all over it. Otherwise youll have an explosion. Shipping co2 can be reduced using Air lubrication systems and or converting existing LNG ships to nuclear powered (SMR) ships. Mike Wirth Chevron CEO spoke in current CFR meeting about using SMR's to reduce CO2 from the business. That would be another reduction. All for green energy and Other alternatives.
We use fuels for production. If our TV, Phone, Printer, Car and all in between are long lasting and reparable not made for one time use. Then we don't need so much fuel of any kind.
Methane can be converted to hydrogen. The carbon left behind is in powder form. Hydrogen can then be chilled and transported just like LNG. It’s definitely more challenging to transport due to its lower boiling point compared to methane but it is possible.
As long as common doesn't get direct benefits of switching over to renewable energy that too at low cost..its going to be har to convince him.
In Portugal we might put H2 in the equation, in pipes. How much gas will be lost in 800km of pipe lines? I agree it is bad
The world is switching steadily to alternative fuels like hydrogen, ethanol, etc. Having infrastructure in place like that of LNG, PETROLEUM STATIONS will ensure smooth transitioning to these cleaner fuel, with minor modifications in existing facilities. So building up new setup isn't that bad of an idea, if done with the right intentions. Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
I think this hits a very important issue with many investments in the energy sector: by making the investment it might be significantly better than what we currently do. But it also means we are locked into this for a long time, and then significantly better is far from great. Fair enough, but this sounds also like another reason to just do nothing right now.
And now imagine a world in which one country did not become dependent on gas because it shut down some of its nuclear power plants before the end of their technological life. Imagine how many other sources could have been built with the billions of euros that were wasted on gas when nuclear power stations could still supply power to the grid.
LNG is a short term answer, until solar, wind and small nuclear infrastructure is built to replace LNG, which it will over the next decade, or so.
Please also consider that GWP 100year of hydrogen is ~10, therefore the same should be said for H2
There is a lot more use for natural gas than most people think. The shipping industry needs to find cleaner fuels to use. LNG so far is a good candidate for a future shipping fuel. Unless the industry can manage to get an engine design to use ammonia commercially. Which is made using natural gas. If the climate will make farming more difficult in certain areas it will have to be done using less land. This will require us to use more fertilizer, and nitrogen based fertilizer is made from natural gas. With the amount of mining required for the energy transition's need for more powerlines to bring electricity from renewables to populations, it is doubtful that can be done in time. During that transition time baseload plants such as natural gas plants can provide power during low renewable output times. Until we can get the proper high voltage direct current lines to take advantage of longer distances to spread the risk of an outage, we will need them. And considering the third world isn't expected to go carbon neutral until 2100, they will need inexpensive energy in the mean time. Are these forecasts expecting the third world to continue to be poor? If their economies improve their energy usage will increase.
Hey Bryan! Ammonia Shipping is a big topic and we actually tackle that in one of our videos the next two weeks. Subscribe to our channel to be notified and let us know what you think ✨
It’s a good well balanced video - many thanks. I think the major issue is that the quoted “climate goals”, presumably 1.5 deg C over pre industrial levels are unrealistic. You would need to engineer a global economic depression over the short term to achieve that - and you should not. Far more realistic is to seek to achieve 2-2.5 deg C by 2100, which means Net “Not Much” in about 40 years. That is realistic and we should be able to adapt to that - and (of course) then the stranded assets argument goes away.
Who cares how we the people feel about it. The politicians don’t the companies don’t. Therefore it won’t make a difference unless our apartments get cold and there is less food on our plate.
LNG is not a hype for importing countries, the LNG is necessity to keep energy reliable and use the difference as feed stock on other industries. Increasing the LNG from around 550 billion cubic meter per year to 700 billion m3/y is only adding 14.6 B scf/d worldwide. Using this amount of energy as a buffer on renewable intermittent energies is a drop in the bucket, it is around 2.3% of energy the world use actually even with this is possible to produce 1.7 TWh/d electricity. This electricity will have high cost and even higher price for consumers, and this is beneficial only for businesses and government who will charge for energy and for CO2 emission. If the world need clean energy without CH4 and CO2 emission energy importing countries must stay away from LNG imports and start energy independence producing clean energy with heavy solid blocks which produce power on demand. Using 2.2-2.3 million blocks with weight 35 tonne each at 'Levitation" tower with high 100 m, will generate the same energy without polluting the environment. So the clean secure and clean pathway for energy is LEVITATION and not LNG.
I think this video is only a half right. Amongst fossil fuels, LNG is the cleanest source of energy. Yes it will generate a lot of carbon footprints when you produce LGN itself and construct infrastructure. Still you need to generate the same or more energy to extract crude oil and refine it or mine coal. Even you need to put a lot of energy to build and generate green energy power. 🤷♂️
Good content very informative❤❤
Hey there! Thanks for your feedback! If you enjoy content like this, consider subscribing to our channel. We release new videos every Friday ✨
Done💓
My country, Canada is looking at exporting LNG to Europe. I rather see the gas being used rather than flared off at oil wells. It is more difficult to transport than oil or liquid fuels but the clean burning part is good. Since Natural Gas is a natural product of decomposition, I wonder how much is being released by our oceans naturally? Obviously leaking gas is bad for profit margins so companies will be on that but I wonder how big of an issue leaks actually are. Also I always say domestic fuel is the best fuel
Great video, very detailed and extremely helpful!
Hey there! Glad to hear that 😊 If you want to see more videos like these, subscribe to us ✨ we publish every Friday.
All countries who massively benefitied from industrilization should put down their share towards prosperity of the planet
We're only liquifying it because we're shipping it so far. Japan is attempting to synthesise net zero methane for domestic capture. The North Sea countries of Europe should do it using offshore wind to pipe (unliquified) to the rest of Europe. The thing about gas is that it stores vast amounts of energy in compressible volumes, so continuing to run our fallback electricity generation and economies off e-gas makes sense. The risk in e-LNG is that it makes renewable resources more globally tradable, which allows global markets too much leverage over intrinsically local renewables opportunities.
If you would mention about lng infrastructure, which can be used for hydrogen in future, it will start to make sense.
Always is the focus on fossil fuels which is undeniably a big issue and environmentalist already agree on this, but almost never do we talk about animal agriculture which is the leading cause of biodiversity loss and many other issues while it's importance still is heavily denied amongst environmentalist.
🌱🐄 Agreed on that (animal) agriculture has to be addressed and we've also done so previously. 👇 🎥"Can we produce beef that doesn't ruin the planet?" kzhead.info/sun/gM6pd9d_aJl3pqc/bejne.html 🎥"Is vegan meat the "better" meat?" kzhead.info/sun/abivfs6HqXVvn4U/bejne.html 🎥"How big agriculture is taking over our diets" kzhead.info/sun/gJaYfdGsp5dse3k/bejne.html
@@DWPlanetA I'm happy that you agree, but only 3 video's in 2 years time isn't nearly enough and nothing compared to how often the media covers the problem with fossil fuels. Diet change is easiest and most impactful solution for the short term. Also green energy will take over rapidly while animal agriculture is predicted to keep on growing immensely until 2050.
@@ab-td7gqdiet change is easiest? Are you kidding me? You’re going to tell us what to eat? Why don’t you address the real issue with food and environmental issues. People! Too many people! Oh, but that we don’t want to talk about. We just want more and more humans all the time.
@@TheBooban You're going to tell future generation to starve because you and others don't like me to tell you what we should eat? We are not with too many, it's our way of living. Population will decline already soon and this could bring huge economic consequences.
@@ab-td7gq we’ve already been through similar things before. Thank you all vegans for keeping the price of meat down for me so I can eat more. Thank you for your sacrifice. You are simply not going to tell the rest of the world to change their ways. Get serious and deal with the real problem. Population. It’s remarkable you also want more people despite its environmental consequences. As for economic consequences, only good ones. Only good things happen with fewer people.
Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. Even when we're WELL along decarbonization, there are still LOTS of use cases where a portable energy dense fuel is the only way to operate. And although capacity is expanding to meet the immediate growing needs for cleaner carbon fuels, a lot of the infrastructure is already there and aging, so it will be decommissioned over time anyways.
russia did not shut down the pipes, europe did and now buys more expensive russian gas...via india...
It is not that we have much choice. We still need to keeps the lights on, heat the food and warm our home. Renewable still have some major limitations, like power transmissions, dependence on weather, and limited by location. LNG is just less evil compares to oil and coal.
How much of annual electricity consumption that needs to be generated from stored energy rather than wind and sun, has been a research topic. For North America and Europe it is normally less than 20 % of the annual electric energy consumption. Keeping nuclear running, further limits the amount of methane needed, and it may be cheaper to build more wind farms and solar systems with lower utilisation than normal (to reduce the gap left to be filled with stored energy), than to buy methane. Anyway, it is possible to reduce the amount of methane used for electricity, by replacing methane with solar and wind, and still keep the lights on. For heating food, induction cook-tops works very well. For heating homes, heat pumps can also work very well, if suitable equipment is installed properly. So technically, there is a choice to reduce methane consumption.
tbh i would gladly get on the LNG train rather than the (currently) unreliable and sometimes hare-brained push for "renewables" Also LNG + SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors) for me as a real, practical energy source/s for long term. Also instead of demonizing diesel, the German auto industry ought to make them run better with DME? DME can be made from natural gas, biomass or direct carbon capture? I would love a compression ignition BMW/Mercedes/Audi with a V6/Inline 6 running smooth and clean on DME but one can only dream haha
Hey there! We are actually publishing a video on SMRs next Friday ✨ If you want to be notified about it, subscribe to our channel. Until then, you might want to check out our video on synthetic fuels as you mentioned DME 👉kzhead.info/sun/raiymJGAbnN3lp8/bejne.html
Bangladesh🇧🇩 consume around 55,000 tonnes of Natural Gas everyday.. Around 45,000 tonnes are extracted from Bangladesh's own Gas field and rest 10,000 tonnes are imported from Qatar. From this 55,000 tonnes,,, around 15,000 tonnes are burned for generating electricity, 20,000 tonnes are burned through pipeline for cooking... 10,000 tonnes are burned for garments and dyeing industries and rest 5,000 tonnes are burned for NG powered transport vehicle.
So the gas owners say stop using fossil fuels by increasing fossil gas use? Supporting competition of jobs future, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Sane or not 🤔
I would also like to say that you need to take into account the final user infrastructure. Gas water heaters and stoves in homes and gasoline-powered cars make people seriously concerned about personal investments in the transition to renewable resources, and people tend to save at the expense of good ideas. If LNG will not require the involvement of the end consumer, it will be visible in their homes only in the form of an electric meter - no problem, it will be easy to transfer everyone to renewable sources as planned. But if something will be changed now in front of the end customer and by its money, it’ll stay for at least generation.
I have less and less patience with the promotion of "bridge" technologies. Fracked gas and LNG are not suitable bridges from coal to a future based on renewable energy. Hybrid engine cars are not bridges from ICE to a BEV future. They're diversions, and they waste more in time and money than they achieve in benefits. Let's get on with the Energiewende. Schnell.
Missing is the absence of a discussion that it will take 40 -60 years to build out 'Reliable" 'Green Energy" alternatives at Scale. Also, most current 'Green Energy Solutions' are only 30% reliable. It took between 50 and 70 years to build out our current global energy system. It could easily take the same for its alternatives.
Yeah but getting to 90 - 95% is doable in the coming 15 to 20 years so we should not let be the perfect be the enemy of the good.
@@zeugundso It's not bad to get 30% energy supplements into your power grid, but I feel the 90% in 15-20 years as being overly optimistic. Example, EV's have hit market saturation in the US and dealers are having to returned them to the manufactures. In many places there is a 2 year moratorium on just applying for Permits to link Green Power sources into the power grid, never mind review, acceptance, design, getting finance, construction and activation. Both will have a pushback chain reaction impact on the industries fabing the energy sources, building out the martial sources and various refining processes for large scale production. Plus competition from other industries for the same basic materials to build out other things as the supply lurches towards the unknown. With Europe's and China's declining labor force and the US having a more limited one, there could also be a shortage of grunts to build out this new grid. These are the delays in the plans I see, so a temporary build out of the current energy system is desirable.
All the surplus gas terminals means that there will be a surplus of customers looking to make their investment pay or at least not look like a white Elephant. That means higher prices for gas and bigger profits for the producers, and when have the oil companies ever missed an opportunity to take every last dollar they can?
why no drive down the road with old school and fire stove on the car. some how the heat makes movement.
Nuclear is still far cleaner than LNG or Coal, and is not being developed due to high construction costs.
And after China and Russia take control the nuclear technology the europe start share propaganda nuclear plant not save
My country (Canada) is a major producer of fossil fuels, including LNG. Most people here are blissfully unaware that we are a top 10 fossil fuels producer. Our governments *attempts* at addressing climate change amount to little more than green washing. They know full well what pays for their political campaigns. So relying on governments or large businesses to help us is literally asking the fox to help the chickens. We citizens are on our own in this fight, and until we realize it is OUR dollars, euros, pesos, etc, that fund all this madness; the madness will only get worse. YOU hold the key, (quite literally) because every dollar you give them will be used against you. So IF you actually want to see action on climate change YOU personally have to do something. No one else is going to do it for you. People have to realize that each and every one of us has the choice to use these fuels or not to use these fuels. If enough people of all walks of life even just reduced their personal use of fossil fuels it would make a surprising difference. If business people of all kinds did just a little bit to reduce, it would multiply the effect of those private citizens. The choice is before you right now.
The only good thing that has come out of the Russian attack on Ukraine has been the reduction in gas consumption in Europe. The conservation of expensive energy has been massive, so has the commitment to renewables. Looking forward to the UK electricity generation being carbon free in 2026/7. Not completely but for much of the time.
The real irony is that Germany prefers buying expensive shale gas from other countries and transporting it across the world causing more CO2 emissions, when it has its own cheaply extractable shale gas reserves in Germany..