Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Well said.
Although I disagree about the knowledge of science.
True scientists would be welcoming debate, and working towards proving themselves wrong in the effort to validate their theories.
"Nobel Laureate physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever has referred to global warming ideology as a“pseudoscience”, that begins with an emotionally-appealing hypothesis, and “then only looks for items which appear to support it,” while ignoring ample contrary evidence."
http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/Climate-Change/2014/09/02/id/592051/
I've seen some interesting and enlightening reactions by some posters on this forum when their views are challenged by the available data, GLG. The data are - as far as I am concerned - both apolitical and solid.
As I have said a number of times - the debate is on what level of acceleration of input of human-sourced CO2 is implicit within the various climate models. Yes, models are used - for the reason that we do not yet have functioning time machines to take us to the future and back. So - yes - it is scientifically appropriate to have a debate on the nuts and bolts of the various models, and their predicted outputs.
However, all the available climate data shows increasing levels of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gas emissions over the past hundred or so years from - are largely from human activities. There is no debate about this is the science. We have been through this a few times on this thread already. I don't understand a few posters fear of acknowledging this. I don't understand how is this day and age of easily-available information - there are still people who wish to remain ignorant of the data, and are seemingly fearful of acknowledging the data. It seems that those same posters do not understand science at all - or the scientific process - the same process that has allowed the human race to progress from stone tools to sending probes out to the distant planets - including developing the technology to engineer their trucks and extraction equipment.
I would assume that if the engineers/companies that engineered and built their trucks (using models, first) publicized a recall of a particular vehicle or piece of equipment due to a safety concern (e.g. the wheels will fall off) - those same drivers/owners would acknowledge the safety concern (esp. if they were earning money and employing workers) - and bring the truck in for servicing.
As far as climate data, and warnings over CO2 levels go - suddenly - they no longer trust science, or the people doing the science - w/o even reviewing the science. When challenged on this perspective - they get really defensive and hostile.
This I really do not understand at all. Maybe it is because at some level they know this approach is wrong, but they are desperate to maintain that defensive perspective - no matter the cost - especially if the payment of that cost is some years in the future when they will not be around any longer? How is that responsible? I really don't understand the reluctance to admit we have a problem with our current fossil fuel burning appetite - even if it also for the reason that we will run out of affordable reserves of oil in the next 60 years or so. Why aren't we developing alternative energy sources? Why haven't we already done this - were we can?
Last edited by a moderator:
dougthefisher
Member
maybe its what I do not acknowledge as truth isn't really true.
And how much work on climate science has this 85 year old physicist done? Answer: little to none. His nobel prize is for work done in superconductors and the bulk of his research is in biophysics. Just because he has a nobel prize doesn't make him a valid expert to cite on climate science. Again I'll say that if I want good advice on a Honda marine engine, I go to a Honda marine engine expert not a guy who works on Toyota cars - even if the Toyota repair guy is the best Toyota repair guy in the world. Although some of the knowledge is transferable between cars and marine engines and between different manufacturers, the Honda marine guy will know every detail of the Honda marine engines inside out and who is in the best position to give advice on a Honda marine engine. If he tells me something different than the Toyota auto repair guy, I'll tend to believe the Honda guy. If 97/100 Honda marine guys tell me the same thing, I'm willing to bet that the consensus opinion is correct, especially if the 97 guys are at the top of the Honda marine repair field. The same goes for climate science. Find the best people who work in the field (and who publish in the field) and find the consensus opinion of those top people. That's exactly what the American Association for the Advancement of Science (see - http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/) and what many other scientific groups have done.
True scientists do welcome debate. The debate has been had. Those who deny that man has influence on climate lost. Your argument is similar to those who want to deny evolution. The debate has been had there also.
The future of oil supply: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2006/20130179.full
Richard G. Miller1⇑ and Steven R. Sorrell2
+ Author Affiliations
180 Howards Lane, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 1ES, UK
2Sussex Energy Group, SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Jubilee Building, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QE, UK
e-mail: richardmiller99@aol.com
Abstract
Abundant supplies of oil form the foundation of modern industrial economies, but the capacity to maintain and grow global supply is attracting increasing concern. Some commentators forecast a peak in the near future and a subsequent terminal decline in global oil production, while others highlight the recent growth in ‘tight oil’ production and the scope for developing unconventional resources. There are disagreements over the size, cost and recoverability of different resources, the technical and economic potential of different technologies, the contribution of different factors to market trends and the economic implications of reduced supply. Few debates are more important, more contentious, more wide-ranging or more confused. This paper summarizes the main concepts, terms, issues and evidence that are necessary to understand the ‘peak oil’ debate. These include: the origin, nature and classification of oil resources; the trends in oil production and discoveries; the typical production profiles of oil fields, basins and producing regions; the mechanisms underlying those profiles; the extent of depletion of conventional oil; the risk of an approaching peak in global production; and the potential of various mitigation options. The aim is to introduce the subject to non-specialist readers and provide a basis for the subsequent papers in this Theme Issue.
Richard G. Miller1⇑ and Steven R. Sorrell2
+ Author Affiliations
180 Howards Lane, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 1ES, UK
2Sussex Energy Group, SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Jubilee Building, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QE, UK
e-mail: richardmiller99@aol.com
Abstract
Abundant supplies of oil form the foundation of modern industrial economies, but the capacity to maintain and grow global supply is attracting increasing concern. Some commentators forecast a peak in the near future and a subsequent terminal decline in global oil production, while others highlight the recent growth in ‘tight oil’ production and the scope for developing unconventional resources. There are disagreements over the size, cost and recoverability of different resources, the technical and economic potential of different technologies, the contribution of different factors to market trends and the economic implications of reduced supply. Few debates are more important, more contentious, more wide-ranging or more confused. This paper summarizes the main concepts, terms, issues and evidence that are necessary to understand the ‘peak oil’ debate. These include: the origin, nature and classification of oil resources; the trends in oil production and discoveries; the typical production profiles of oil fields, basins and producing regions; the mechanisms underlying those profiles; the extent of depletion of conventional oil; the risk of an approaching peak in global production; and the potential of various mitigation options. The aim is to introduce the subject to non-specialist readers and provide a basis for the subsequent papers in this Theme Issue.
Production profiles for three UK North Sea oil fields, with indicative exponential decline curves. Source: UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. (Online version in colour.) http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2006/20130179/F10.expansion.html
Attachments
Estimated production cost of various oil resources. Source: IHS-CERA. Assumes 15% rate of return. Canadian oil sand production is relatively cheap at the mine mouth, but requires expensive upgrading before it can be transported by pipeline to refineries. Source: [8,13,66,67]. (Online version in colour.) http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2006/20130179/F16.expansion.html
Attachments
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
"There is no debate about this is the science."
"True scientists do welcome debate. The debate has been had. Those who deny that man has influence on climate lost. Your argument is similar to those who want to deny evolution. The debate has been had there also. "
And there it is - No new information required, desired, or tolerated.
The evolution crack is just the icing on the cake.
"True scientists do welcome debate. The debate has been had. Those who deny that man has influence on climate lost. Your argument is similar to those who want to deny evolution. The debate has been had there also. "
And there it is - No new information required, desired, or tolerated.
The evolution crack is just the icing on the cake.
What a crock of crap you spew. New information is ALWAYS required, desired and tolerated. Re-hashing old arguments, not so much. Same for evolution.
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
delete, didn't work.
Last edited by a moderator:
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
http://m.torontosun.com/2013/10/11/...and+Secret+Suzuki,+the+capitalist+millionaire
It's kind of hard to deny it's happening, pretty much everyone knows it is, they also know it's cyclical and has happened before. The only real debate is how much of an impact we're having. What I don't think is much of a debate is whether Asia burning coal or natural gas is better on the global scale.
We should apply the same logic about future generations to make sure that during transition times we're burning the best dinosaurs possible overseas where the bulk of the problems lie.
It's kind of hard to deny it's happening, pretty much everyone knows it is, they also know it's cyclical and has happened before. The only real debate is how much of an impact we're having. What I don't think is much of a debate is whether Asia burning coal or natural gas is better on the global scale.
We should apply the same logic about future generations to make sure that during transition times we're burning the best dinosaurs possible overseas where the bulk of the problems lie.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's how you get paid as a "Sustainability" Officer, CDNA. By the bucket load.
CK: There is no longer a debate in the science over whether or not the world is flat and at the center of the solar system where the other planets and sun revolve around the Earth - either. That doesn't mean there are not other debates, nor that we shouldn't send out probes to other planets - which we do both.
I can't even call your rebuttal weak CK - it's not even a rebuttal - perhaps only a purposely misrepresented perspective - which is unfortunately common.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Subing one kind of fossil fuel for another is a bridge to nowhere the way your industry wants to do it. Sure NG is cleaner then Coal. There is no doubt to that but if its GHG that are measured there may be a problem with your argument. Have a look at this study by our friends down south.
http://energy.gov/fe/downloads/life...exporting-liquefied-natural-gas-united-states
This is the bit that gives your argument a problem.
What the problem is the leakage rate needs to be below 2% to have a chance to be better then coal. So far your industry is having problems with that. There are solutions that if done would make it a bridge so the possibility is in your hands.
Problem - Well pads
Well pads are where shale gas is drilled, hydraulically
fracked and produced. Carbon pollution comes from
flaring of methane.
SOLUTION Capture methane into pipelines
instead of flaring.
Problem - Compressors
Compressors pressurize gas to move it through the
supply chain. Shale gas extracted from wells is often
used to power compressors, and poor seals within
compressors can leak carbon pollution.
SOLUTION Power compressors with clean renewable
electricity and use the best available seals.
Problem - Pipelines
Pipelines transport the gas from well pads to
liquefaction terminals. Carbon pollution can leak
from valves, pumps and other sources along the way.
SOLUTION Effective monitoring programs can be
used to detect and repair leaks quickly.
Problem - Processing facilities
Processing facilities remove CO2, water and other
impurities. The CO2 is vented, resulting in more
carbon pollution.
SOLUTION Capture the CO2 and store it underground.
Problem - Pneumatic controllers
Pneumatic controllers are used across the supply
chain for activities such as monitoring fluid levels and
controlling valves. These devices vent methane in
order to operate.
SOLUTION Use devices that do not use or release methane.
Problem - Liquefaction terminals
Shale gas is cooled and condensed and loaded onto
tankers for export. This process requires a large
amount of energy, typically from burning shale gas.
SOLUTION Use clean renewable electricity to power
the terminals instead of shale gas.
http://www.pembina.org/reports/pi-lng-supply-chain-infographic-022014.pdf
Now I am not aware of any studies that do any comparing using Canadian data and if anyone is aware of any I would be happy to read and comment on them. Like the old saying goes... When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ffice-defends-475k-credit-card-bill-1.1243211
B.C. Premier's office defends $475K credit card bill
CBC News Posted: Aug 02, 2012 8:21 AM PT| Last Updated: Aug 02, 2012 6:12 PM PT
External Links
■B.C. government credit card expenses
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)
B.C. Premier Christy Clark's office is defending a credit card bill that is more than double the size of her predecessor Gordon Campbell's.
Records from the Office of the Comptroller General show the Clark's office charged $475,000 in expenses to credit cards during the 2011/12 fiscal year.
Charges under Clark's tenure include several tabs for thousands of dollars at various top restaurants, such as $3,267.66 at Ferris Oyster Bar in Victoria and $2,279 at Bishops in Vancouver.
The charges also include a large number of travel expenses with airlines, hotels, plus office supplies, and more than $100,000 from communications companies Rogers and Telus.
The year before under former premier Gordon Campbell, the office's expenses totalled $205,000 and $195,000 the year before that.
Extra duties raised expenses
However a spokesperson for the Premier's office says there are three key reasons by the office's expenses were more than twice as high as under Clark's predecessor.
First, the office grew substantially when it took over intergovernmental relations last year, raising the cost of regular expenses.
Second, B.C. hosted other premiers in both Victoria and Vancouver for the Council of Federation meetings, and Clark's office footed the bill.
And third, Clark embarked on one of B.C.'s most expensive trade missions to Asia earlier this year.
hi-bc-120801-speaker-bill-barisoff-4col
The Speaker of the House Bill Barisoff is directly responsible for the $63 million budget for MLA salaries and operational expenses for the legislature. (CBC)
Still, Jordan Bateman, the B.C. director of the the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says the bill raises red flags and the office should be under more scrutiny. The Federation wants public access to all receipts related to government spending.
"Cell phone bills of $120,000, $140,000 in airfare — these are huge expenditures at a time when we are borrowing money to balance the books. That's not right. We need to make sure that we are restraining ourselves in every part of the public service, including the premiers office," said Bateman.
On Monday an all-party committee of B.C. MLAs that is responsible for overseeing spending at the legislature promised a major overhaul will put its financial books in order within the next six months.
The promise comes after B.C. Auditor General John Doyle delivered a scathing report last week that said the committee and its comptroller were not producing any useful financial statements or maintaining even the most basic accounting records.
B.C. Premier's office defends $475K credit card bill
CBC News Posted: Aug 02, 2012 8:21 AM PT| Last Updated: Aug 02, 2012 6:12 PM PT
External Links
■B.C. government credit card expenses
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)
B.C. Premier Christy Clark's office is defending a credit card bill that is more than double the size of her predecessor Gordon Campbell's.
Records from the Office of the Comptroller General show the Clark's office charged $475,000 in expenses to credit cards during the 2011/12 fiscal year.
Charges under Clark's tenure include several tabs for thousands of dollars at various top restaurants, such as $3,267.66 at Ferris Oyster Bar in Victoria and $2,279 at Bishops in Vancouver.
The charges also include a large number of travel expenses with airlines, hotels, plus office supplies, and more than $100,000 from communications companies Rogers and Telus.
The year before under former premier Gordon Campbell, the office's expenses totalled $205,000 and $195,000 the year before that.
Extra duties raised expenses
However a spokesperson for the Premier's office says there are three key reasons by the office's expenses were more than twice as high as under Clark's predecessor.
First, the office grew substantially when it took over intergovernmental relations last year, raising the cost of regular expenses.
Second, B.C. hosted other premiers in both Victoria and Vancouver for the Council of Federation meetings, and Clark's office footed the bill.
And third, Clark embarked on one of B.C.'s most expensive trade missions to Asia earlier this year.
hi-bc-120801-speaker-bill-barisoff-4col
The Speaker of the House Bill Barisoff is directly responsible for the $63 million budget for MLA salaries and operational expenses for the legislature. (CBC)
Still, Jordan Bateman, the B.C. director of the the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says the bill raises red flags and the office should be under more scrutiny. The Federation wants public access to all receipts related to government spending.
"Cell phone bills of $120,000, $140,000 in airfare — these are huge expenditures at a time when we are borrowing money to balance the books. That's not right. We need to make sure that we are restraining ourselves in every part of the public service, including the premiers office," said Bateman.
On Monday an all-party committee of B.C. MLAs that is responsible for overseeing spending at the legislature promised a major overhaul will put its financial books in order within the next six months.
The promise comes after B.C. Auditor General John Doyle delivered a scathing report last week that said the committee and its comptroller were not producing any useful financial statements or maintaining even the most basic accounting records.
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
Subing one kind of fossil fuel for another is a bridge to nowhere the way your industry wants to do it. Sure NG is cleaner then Coal. There is no doubt to that but if its GHG that are measured there may be a problem with your argument. Have a look at this study by our friends down south.
http://energy.gov/fe/downloads/life...exporting-liquefied-natural-gas-united-states
This is the bit that gives your argument a problem.
What the problem is the leakage rate needs to be below 2% to have a chance to be better then coal. So far your industry is having problems with that. There are solutions that if done would make it a bridge so the possibility is in your hands.
Problem - Well pads
Well pads are where shale gas is drilled, hydraulically
fracked and produced. Carbon pollution comes from
flaring of methane.
SOLUTION Capture methane into pipelines
instead of flaring.
Only the nitrogen gets flared, anything sellable gets metered and sent to the gathering system
Problem - Compressors
Compressors pressurize gas to move it through the
supply chain. Shale gas extracted from wells is often
used to power compressors, and poor seals within
compressors can leak carbon pollution.
SOLUTION Power compressors with clean renewable
electricity and use the best available seals.
We've invested just under $200k for a FLIR camera and regularly use it for leak detection down to the smallest levels. Electric drives are easier said than done as many facilities are nowhere near the grid
Problem - Pipelines
Pipelines transport the gas from well pads to
liquefaction terminals. Carbon pollution can leak
from valves, pumps and other sources along the way.
SOLUTION Effective monitoring programs can be
used to detect and repair leaks quickly.
See FLIR above
Problem - Processing facilities
Processing facilities remove CO2, water and other
impurities. The CO2 is vented, resulting in more
carbon pollution.
SOLUTION Capture the CO2 and store it underground.
C02 is an issue with shale, less than 1% in the formation we produce. CSC is being used and will continue to expand
Problem - Pneumatic controllers
Pneumatic controllers are used across the supply
chain for activities such as monitoring fluid levels and
controlling valves. These devices vent methane in
order to operate.
SOLUTION Use devices that do not use or release methane.
All of our facilities use instrument air, for the past 5 years or so at well sites we've gone to electric pumps, and actuators driven by solar power
Problem - Liquefaction terminals
Shale gas is cooled and condensed and loaded onto
tankers for export. This process requires a large
amount of energy, typically from burning shale gas.
SOLUTION Use clean renewable electricity to power
the terminals instead of shale gas.
http://www.pembina.org/reports/pi-lng-supply-chain-infographic-022014.pdf
Now I am not aware of any studies that do any comparing using Canadian data and if anyone is aware of any I would be happy to read and comment on them. Like the old saying goes... When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?
The problem with your "facts" statement is while there is validity to your post you're painting the entire industry with a great big broad brush and making incorrect assumptions. The items in red are why I take exception to you calling the industry slackers, you simply don't know the details of what we do on a daily basis, you're out of the loop. You can't sit down there and tell me what I do everyday.
Not only are your "SOLUTIONS" already in use and expanding, there's more going on.
Last edited by a moderator:
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the facts, I've dug through the link you posted a bit (as much as time allows right now) and it looks to me to make a good case for LNG and the coal info is based on lots of assumptions that would give coal a more than fair chance. They've tried as hard as possible to assume worst case scenario for gas while giving the benefit of doubt to coal and coal still gets destroyed. The other thing it shows is that we are the best at what we do, compare domestic gas emissions to overseas reinforces what I've said 100 times here. I'm sure upon closer inspection I can pull many more key points from there here's a couple obvious things I noticed while reading;
They show domestic leakage @ 1.2% for low, 1.4% for expected, and 1.6% for a high. Well below the 2% target you're looking for.
I don't know where the 2% you stated came from, here's a quote from your link;
Methane leakage (cradle-to-delivered) from natural gas production would have to increase by a factor of 2.8 before the high estimate for U.S. LNG exports would overlap the low estimate for regional coal production and consumption for power production for the U.S. to Shanghai scenario on a 100-year GWP basis
That's a factor of 2.8 not percentages, it means it needs to triple.
They're assumptions on the amount of venting that takes place is also incorrect, it get's flared when needed (at least in BC) as an unburned cloud of gas floating around a worksite poses a major safety hazards. It may be vented in other jurisdictions and wouldn't be surprising when you see the PPE requirements they have compared to our minimum standards.
For C02 emissions (kg c02e/MWH) the domestic high for gas (worst case scenario) 629, overseas gas (worst case scenario) 887, overseas coal produced locally to the consumer while assuming domestic standards (best case scenario) 1089.
They're assuming the coal is produced locally (Asia and Europe) while in reality it's being exported from North America daily. They also assume overseas production is to the same standard as domestic. They assume the coal seams have already had the methane extracted while not factoring those emissions in. They also assume Asian power plants operate at the same efficiency as domestic ones.
Direct quotes:
On a 100-year basis, natural gas power is 25 to 61 percent less than coal for Europe and 18 to 59 percent less than coal for Asia.
On a 20-year basis, there is still potential for natural gas to have lower GHG emissions than coal (up to 57 percent less); however, the high end of the Russian gas results overlap with the low range of the coal results for both Europe and Asia and the high end of the U.S LNG results overlap with the coal results for Asia. As noted, the 20-year GWP emissions for the Russian natural gas scenarios are driven by the methane emissions from pipeline transport. The estimated pipeline distances for Russian natural gas transport are roughly four to eight times longer than for the LNG cases.
the results from Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 indicate that for most scenarios in both the European and Asian regions, the generation of power from imported natural gas has lower life cycle GHG emissions than power generation from regional coal.
It is important to note that this overlap is based on an assumption of high methane leakage (1.6%) and low power plant efficiency (41.2%) for U.S. LNG and low methane content (8 scf/ton) and high power plant efficiency (36.7%) for regional coal.
The natural gas power results are based on U.S natural gas production in 2010. The results do not include the anticipated 30 percent reduction in upstream life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for new marginal unconventional wells in compliance with EPA’s 2012 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the oil and gas sector.
This analysis has determined that the use of U.S. LNG exports for power production in European and Asian markets will not increase GHG emissions, on a life cycle perspective, when compared to regional coal extraction and consumption for power production.
This is how they explain the chart you supplied;
The diamond-shaped data points represent the modeled leakage for each scenario and the circular data points represent the breakeven leakage at which the life cycle GHG emissions for natural gas power would equal those for the coal reference case. These results are based on the most conservative breakeven point which occurs between the high natural gas cases (i.e. lowest power plant efficiency, longest transport distance, and highest methane leakage) with the low coal case (i.e. highest power plant efficiency and shortest transport distance).
You may want to read links a bit closer next time, seems to be a bridge to somewhere in there.
What say you now from the high horse?
They show domestic leakage @ 1.2% for low, 1.4% for expected, and 1.6% for a high. Well below the 2% target you're looking for.
I don't know where the 2% you stated came from, here's a quote from your link;
Methane leakage (cradle-to-delivered) from natural gas production would have to increase by a factor of 2.8 before the high estimate for U.S. LNG exports would overlap the low estimate for regional coal production and consumption for power production for the U.S. to Shanghai scenario on a 100-year GWP basis
That's a factor of 2.8 not percentages, it means it needs to triple.
They're assumptions on the amount of venting that takes place is also incorrect, it get's flared when needed (at least in BC) as an unburned cloud of gas floating around a worksite poses a major safety hazards. It may be vented in other jurisdictions and wouldn't be surprising when you see the PPE requirements they have compared to our minimum standards.
For C02 emissions (kg c02e/MWH) the domestic high for gas (worst case scenario) 629, overseas gas (worst case scenario) 887, overseas coal produced locally to the consumer while assuming domestic standards (best case scenario) 1089.
They're assuming the coal is produced locally (Asia and Europe) while in reality it's being exported from North America daily. They also assume overseas production is to the same standard as domestic. They assume the coal seams have already had the methane extracted while not factoring those emissions in. They also assume Asian power plants operate at the same efficiency as domestic ones.
Direct quotes:
On a 100-year basis, natural gas power is 25 to 61 percent less than coal for Europe and 18 to 59 percent less than coal for Asia.
On a 20-year basis, there is still potential for natural gas to have lower GHG emissions than coal (up to 57 percent less); however, the high end of the Russian gas results overlap with the low range of the coal results for both Europe and Asia and the high end of the U.S LNG results overlap with the coal results for Asia. As noted, the 20-year GWP emissions for the Russian natural gas scenarios are driven by the methane emissions from pipeline transport. The estimated pipeline distances for Russian natural gas transport are roughly four to eight times longer than for the LNG cases.
the results from Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 indicate that for most scenarios in both the European and Asian regions, the generation of power from imported natural gas has lower life cycle GHG emissions than power generation from regional coal.
It is important to note that this overlap is based on an assumption of high methane leakage (1.6%) and low power plant efficiency (41.2%) for U.S. LNG and low methane content (8 scf/ton) and high power plant efficiency (36.7%) for regional coal.
The natural gas power results are based on U.S natural gas production in 2010. The results do not include the anticipated 30 percent reduction in upstream life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for new marginal unconventional wells in compliance with EPA’s 2012 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the oil and gas sector.
This analysis has determined that the use of U.S. LNG exports for power production in European and Asian markets will not increase GHG emissions, on a life cycle perspective, when compared to regional coal extraction and consumption for power production.
This is how they explain the chart you supplied;
The diamond-shaped data points represent the modeled leakage for each scenario and the circular data points represent the breakeven leakage at which the life cycle GHG emissions for natural gas power would equal those for the coal reference case. These results are based on the most conservative breakeven point which occurs between the high natural gas cases (i.e. lowest power plant efficiency, longest transport distance, and highest methane leakage) with the low coal case (i.e. highest power plant efficiency and shortest transport distance).
You may want to read links a bit closer next time, seems to be a bridge to somewhere in there.
What say you now from the high horse?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
