Guest essay by Eric Worrall
In the face of the embarrassing failure of European renewables to reduce CO2 emissions, greens appear to be ramping up attacks on the alleged climate impacts of natural gas.
America’s liquefied natural gas boom may be on a collision course with climate change
By Matt Egan, CNN Business
Updated 2301 GMT (0701 HKT) July 1, 2019New York (CNN Business)
America’s liquefied natural gas boom has a climate change problem, according to a report released on Monday.
The US energy industry is scrambling to build dozens of expensive export terminals that can be used to ship cheap natural gas to China and other fast-growing economies that want to move away from coal.
While those investments make sense today, they will likely be derailed in the longer run by a combination of plunging renewable energy costs and rising climate change concerns, according to the Global Energy Monitor, a network of researchers tracking fossil fuel projects.
Those dual forces will make many LNG projects “unprofitable in the long term,” putting much of the $1.3 trillion of investments in the sector at risk, the report said.
The problem is that the LNG boom will create harmful methane emissions — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful than carbon dioxide emissions. Both coal and natural gas produce CO2 emissions, though natural gas creates far less than coal.
…
Rather than fossil fuels like gas, Nace argued that the long-term growth opportunity will be solar, wind and other alternatives.
“This century will be owned economically by whoever manages to dominate renewables,” he said.
Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/01/business/lng-boom-environment-climate-change/index.html
I think it is kind of sweet of greens to put so much effort into warning fossil fuel investors they’re about to lose all their money.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What else would you expect a greenie to say? Next their going to say that they have a way to direct the winds so the turbines will produce electricity 24/7. How about they are close to developing solar panels that will work under moon and star light as effectively as under sunlight.
Why not just capture that “back radiation” that provides twice as much energy to the surface than the sun? Oh, because things must actually be based on reality when it comes to applied sciences.
Robert W Turner: [ Why not just capture that “back radiation” ]
Brilliant!
We’re told that ‘Greenhouse Gas’ back radiation keeps the Earth 33C (60F) warmer than it would be without it, surely enough energy to power humanity.
Now, if we could just learn how to detect it first …
Oooo… I like that back radiation capture idea, Robert. Anyone who figures out that one has a license to print money.
On second thought, don’t even bother to figure it out. Just set up a sham company and go with it knowing it’s a scam. I’m sure there will be no shortage of greenie investors in such a scheme. “We’re gonna have our big breakthrough real soon now.”
#TakeTheMoneyAndRun
Actually, I’ve seen a white paper on just this subject. Someone proposed developing a photovoltaic (PV) cell with a bandgap tuned to the radiation emitted during cloud formation. I wish I could lay my hands on it, because whoever it was had measured the infrared flux, and found it to be reasonably high in a narrow band. Very high efficiencies are possible under these conditions. In fact, beamed power using optical wavelength lasers and tuned bandgap PV cells is very, very efficient.
I am fully sick and tired of this oft-repeated fallacy:
“… methane — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful than carbon dioxide”.
First, we all know there is absolutely no empirical evidence that CO2 actually effects atmospheric temperature. Similarly, no direct evidence that methane effects atmospheric temperature.
But more to the point, methane is about 2 ppm in the atmosphere while CO2 is about 400 ppm, so methane is at least 200 times less effective than CO2 in any supposed capture/re-radiation of LWIR. Methane oxidizes readily and is quickly cycled out of the atmosphere and CO2 is removed by plant growth. And, of course, the absorption spectra of both CO2 and methane are overpowered by far more abundant H2O
The alarmists are following the “reasoning” of the religious purists in the debate over “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”.
Forrest Gump: “Stupid is as stupid does”.
Amen
Awesome answer. I just really enjoy it when actual facts are so simply stated and truth made so plain. The alarmists are unfortunately intellectually deaf.
I agree with you
GeologyJim
I believe the alarmist claim is that methane has 80 times the heat trapping potential when first released into the atmosphere; the average, over the period of time it oxidizes into CO2, is about 30. So, with a concentration ratio of 1:200 (methane to CO2) the potential heat trapping effect is 1:7. But, those claims ignore the fact that water vapor, CO2, and methane are all working in concert. The cumulative heat trapping effect is what should be considered, not the effects of individual components. Both CO2 and CH4 are negligible compared to H2O.
Shuure! So they are finally going to fix the intermittency problem?
I suspect A O C is planning to introduce legislation requiring wind to blow at constsnt speeds at specific locations, and the sun not to set in areas with solar panels.
It’s really quite simple. You put hundreds of square miles of solar panels above the arctic circle in the northern hemisphere’s summer, and then ship them south below the antarctic circle in the southern hemisphere’s summer. That would work, right?
Jtom. Your comment immediately brought to mind this little ditty and makes me wonder if this is what AOC would have in mind.
It’s true, it’s true, the crown has made it clear
The climate must be perfect all the year
A law was made a distant moon ago here
July and August cannot be too hot
And there’s a legal limit to the snow here in Camelot
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot
By order, summer lingers through September in Camelot
Camelot: Camelot
I know it sounds a bit bizarre
But in Camelot: Camelot
That’s how conditions are
The rain may never fall till after sundown
By eight, the morning fog must disappear
In short, there’s simply not a more congenial spot
For happily ever after in than here in Camelot
Camelot: Camelot
I know it gives a person pause
But in Camelot: Camelot
Those are the legal laws
The snow may never slush upon the hillside
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear
In short, there’s simply not a more congenial spot
For happily ever after in than here in Camelot
On additional reflection, I think the above might be the inspiration upon which the whole, green, movement is based. /Sarc
Cheers
Max
Proof that the eco-regressives are simply against modern civilization, and people in general. Funny how all the expensive renewable push hasn’t reduced Euro-carbon, but changing the type of fossil-fuel (which actually saves money) has reduced carbon significantly in the US.
Not just the “climate alarmists” ramping up the assault on natgas … attacks greatly accelerating on the “health” front as well.
Just released results of 1,500 “reports” showing frac’ing BAD for all that is held dear.
This horeshit is being cyber bleated all over the internet.
Intensity of all this reeks of desperation.
Those’ plunging renewable energy costs’ are causing some very steep rises in the cost of electricity in CAGWland.
Natural gas production is not contributing to methane emissions in the US, at least. Production has increased and emissions have gone down.
http://westernwire.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/EPA-methane-data-natural-gas-production-768×451.png
“The problem is that the LNG boom will create harmful methane emissions — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful than carbon dioxide emissions.”
Natural gas producers have a vested interest in NOT leaking their product. Duh. This does not compute with the greenies who think gas producers are bozos who stand around watching things leak.
Also methane gas has a 5 year half life in the atmosphere, which is rather short, and has little effect on climate even if it was a “greenhouse gas”.
As no gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can warm the planet, worrying about methane is a nonstarter and only means lost product for them to sell.
Hi Charles,
To be clear, I am not worried about methane emissions from any source. Catastrophic global warming is an unscientific farce – a false narrative.
However, the last time I reviewed the subject, which was long ago, LNG tankers had to vent their (full) LNG tanks to atmosphere. Some of the boiling methane is used for ship power, but the rest must be vented because the cryogenic tanks cannot hold pressure.
As you can imagine, smoking on board is frowned upon – kind of like the explosives plant I worked in as a kid.
Defense de fumer, tabarnak! 🙂
According to Wikipedia, all the boiloff is reliquified using cheaper diesel engine power or used for propulsion. Older tankers are dual fuel, some steam/gas turbine. Smoking would be unwise.
On a mmbtu basis LNG has been cheaper than diesel for 20 years.
The last couple years, new LNG tankers have gas turbines that make electricity and electric drive motors to propel the ship.
I don’t think they even have any diesel on board.
https://www.wartsila.com/twentyfour7/in-detail/boil-off-gas-handling-onboard-lng-fuelled-ships
Yes they have diesel. Sometimes the LNG tanks are empty fir backhaul. Most importantly, they do not vent gas or flare except in an emergency. Flares are a safety measure, vented gas is dangerous.
25 year old ships might flare the boil-off, but there aren’t many of those left on the seas. No ship today would release the boil-off without at least attempting to flare it.
Also, 25-year old ships had boil-off rates of 0.2% of the load per day. Ships hitting the water the last couple years are 0.07% per day.
The market will place its invisible hands on the Ouija Board and select whichever has the most economic benefit.
Any political pressure will be artificially influencing selection, and there are numerous examples of misapplied artificial influence with undesired (bad) consequences.
“ plunging renewable energy costs”
Fat f-ing chance.
From the CNN article linked above, talking about “plunging renewable energy costs”:
“Renewable energy — including not just solar and wind but also water, biomass and geothermal steam — narrowly overtook coal by climbing to 257.53 gigawatts of installed capacity, FERC said.”
Note that it says “installed capacity”, and nothing about how much energy actually gets produced. I’d be surprised if solar and wind ever produce more than 30% of their installed capacity.
Propaganda is easy to spot. Enron-like price manipulation by utilities suddenly shutting down power plants during high load are also still being spotted in the wild.
The Left doesn’t understand that money and currency has been the energy trading system that has always evolved through recorded history, and they want to implement a new one that *they* control. Their big problem with rooftop solar is both cost and the benefit go to the greedy capitalist under the roof.
So they make up straw man fairy tales about giant batteries. Which, if they could exist, would be super handy, for storing up nuclear power overnight to power the world’s coffee makers. Or running container ships.
Neat little chart showing actual energy consumed by source alongside total installed renewables capacity. Actually, the report says total installed solar+wind capacity is just over 1 TW, but the chart is showing about double that. They’ve gone from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum to Beyond Propaganda.
Greens are against everything, and therefore worse than useless. They’ve become medieval, avenging Angels of Death denouncing every advance since the Stone Age.
“Sin! Sin! Sin!” Leaves no room for further advance or even compromise.
The problem is that the LNG boom will create harmful methane emissions — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful than carbon dioxide emissions
What they NEVER say is how much that translates into temperature rise. The reason for that, is that it isn’t very much. Business as usual it’s maybe 0.04 K by 2100. That’s so little as to be essentially nothing.
Policy makers need to know how much methane will actually raise temperature. They aren’t being told. Something is wrong.
Go on your favorite search engine and as, “How much is methane going to run up temperatures by 2100? You won’t find an answer. Try it (-:
“They aren’t being told”. But isn’t it their job to ask???
Yeah, how ’bout that?
Night will be a thing of the past, Dark Absorbing Diodes (DAD) are coming, renewable power after dark, and street lighting for FREE.
Couple DADs with DEDs (Dark Emitting Diodes)and have power 24/7.
/s
I’ve just gone long on DADs and DEDs, invested all I have – I just wish I knew what ‘/s’ meant
LMFAO (Schwarz)!
Kit
Those diodes have a fatal flaw in that their output is limited by the speed of dark. 🙂 Anyone who is qualified for Densa knows what the speed of dark is.
Over the last week or two, I have flown over some wind farms, mostly offshore, and the impression I got was that about 10% of turbines were out of action. Unfortunately I didn’t record any details. But are there stats out there on how many turbines have broken down after how many years? I suspect that the “plunging renewable energy costs” are a mirage.
A recent survey indicated that the life span of the large turbines is only half what was promised, which more or less indicates costs twice as much as promised.
Dumb question, obvious necessity, have the turbine people consulted with the extensive experience with salt water and air from the petroleum industry? Upwind from the Corpus Christi wind farm is one of the windiest and saltiest bodies of water (Laguna Madre) in the US. Currently the area is in a very wet period, but lots of salt, even plankton gets picked up and goes inland, altitudes I’m not sure about.
The operational challenges – and expenses – of offshore wind is one of the dirty, under reported ‘secrets’ of this industry.
Ferrying crews out and back daily – weather permitting – salt, wave action, bird and lightening strikes, blade edge degradation, on and on.
The mere idea of east coast US offshore wind being pursued when the planet’s largest gas resources are nearby is completely deranged.
@Mike Jonas
I left Copenhagen on May 20th, from their airport and observed a very similar situation. The ones along the beach at Copenhagen were greater than 10% that were posing. I didn’t see any near St. Petersburg, Russia. Just nukes along the shore.
What this guy is really saying is, “Invest in the projects that I am pushing, so I can make more money.”
As always, follow the money.
He speaks of “dozens” of LNG project, but in actuality only a few of them are needed and will get built. It is obvious that his research is shallow and he doesn’t really understand the LNG market.
If a $4B LNG train is a project, Cheniere alone has 6 in operation and 3 under construction.
About 20 are now operating or under construction in the US.
A LNG train has conceptual similarities to an oil refinery.
And once again not mention of the real economics that still include production tax credits and investment tax credits to make solar and wind economic for the builder, but not the taxpayer.
They will not be content until the rest of us fall on our sword. What would they say to a loss of reliable fossil fuel power? Make only renewables feed the grid. Lets forage for seeds (organic only) and lock up cars, access to any other transportation, phones, internet etc. so that the future they espouse and the effect it has on the quality of life for all that will suffer as a result will be plain for all.
I wonder what a “Day without energy” would do to the vocal screaming climate terrorists? One wonders why anyone listens to them at all. If they really mean it, tell them to go to the basement and flip off the main.
Wind and solar proponents know very well what is unprofitable in the long run. Why don’t we follow their advice? 🙂
Wind and solar are quite profitable if you have the politicians in your pocket. Politicians who over voter objections then pass renewable mandates and “subsidies” and tax breaks in order to screw-over the middle class for their fleecing.
Bloomberg, the Rockefellers, Tom Steyer, and the many other GreenSlime billionaires and their “foundations” support this junk “research” stuff to keep the cash flowing into their renewable energy portfolios. Cash that got harvested from the middle class under the ruse of Climate Change. It is a sophisticated operation, many tentacles with much behind-the-scenes coordination of propaganda campaigns like this crap from Mr Nace and his fellow climate pornographers.
I show all my children every single thing these creatures are using to dismantle their and all our future.
Every single monster – the stupid and the purposeful. Every single mechanism – the simple and the hidden. Every single claim where they are attempting to leave us shivering in the dark some when down the road.
My kids will know why we ended up poor and brutally deprived of any chance of advancement. IF it should happen. They are being taught to NOT forgive these insane murderers no matter their groveling excuses when their prophesies and policies are exposed by time or truth as the anti-human junk they most certainly are.
I may not live long enough to see it. I fully expect to become an excess winter death before that.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2017to2018provisionaland2016to2017final
“”The number of excess winter deaths in 2017 to 2018 was the highest recorded since winter 1975 to 1976″”
These negative impacts are already happening.
Newport, RI, evacuated several people this past winter cold snap when gas for heating was unavailable.
Likewise, Minnesota urged residents to bundle up while indoors as there was an acute gas shortage.
ALL this dangerous drama is a direct result of anti hydrocarbon hysteria.
Seriously? It’s not perhaps the gas utility’s fault? Or pooly insulated buildings barely up to code?
Daddy, what did we use for light before candles?
We used electricity in the old days, son….
I wonder if Matt Egan of CNN likes being cold in the winter time… or having no hot water for his precious shower… or having to cook on a stove powered by – – umm, well, maybe his stomach gases?
The question is, “How much methane really leaks, and is this enough to offset the benefits of liquid natural gas?”
https://eidclimate.org/report-finds-u-s-natural-gas-methane-emissions-little-climate-change-impact/
Follow the money!
Funding
https://globalenergymonitor.org/about/funding/
To the Greens,,,May you have cold long still winter nights.
True, but that s stopping cities here in Michigan from telling their citizens that the cities will be going 100% renewable at a date certain in the future. Petoskey, Michigan is the latest to declare they are willing to have the good folks freeze on a -20 F January winter night when a high pressure settles in with no wind at night.
They’ll just depend on buying very high priced electricity on the Spot Market. That will then send electric bills skyrocketing. The rich will have their electricity. The fixed income seniors will have to decide whether to freeze or go hungry, because they won’t be able to afford both.
… which is precisely what South Australia has been experiencing these past few years with spot juice prices often hitting $14,000/Mwh … that’s fourteen thousand … Aussie bucks, though, so not too terribly expensive.
Ah, how quickly we forget Enron and start blaming machines and technologies.
Worth a re-read by everyone: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant-greenhouse-gas/
“harmful methane emissions — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful than carbon dioxide emissions”
Oh, now there’s a ‘Harmful’ scale for ‘Greenhouse Gas’ emissions?
I’ve misplaced my matrix for ‘Greenhouse Gas’ definitions. CO2, water vapor, methane, others? I recall that one is ‘potent’, another is ‘important’, but which one is ‘blasphemous’, and which one is ‘contemptuous’?
Well, ‘demonize’ is what progressives do – it’s that whole hate-bait thing – pretty much all day every day.