Environmental impact of liquefied natural gas: greater than expected

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is increasingly becoming a central theme in discussions about energy transition, but new research shows that its impact on the environment is far greater than previously estimated. Studies show that LNG, despite its reputation as a 'bridge fuel' to cleaner energy sources, leaves a significantly larger carbon footprint than coal. Emissions arising from its extraction, processing, transportation, and storage make LNG an unsustainable option for the future.

According to a study conducted at Cornell University, LNG has a 33% larger carbon footprint than coal when all processing and transportation steps are taken into account, particularly due to methane emissions during gas extraction from shale and its liquefaction. Methane, which is 80 times more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, presents a significant problem. Although modern tankers transporting LNG use more efficient engines, methane is still released during storage and transport, further increasing the overall impact on the environment.

Methane: a hidden threat

One of the main threats posed by LNG is the large emission of methane throughout the entire process, from extraction to transportation. The process of liquefying gas at temperatures lower than -160°C requires huge amounts of energy, resulting in high greenhouse gas emissions. A study found that as much as 8.8% of emissions come directly from methane, making LNG significantly worse for the environment than previously thought. Although LNG tankers emit less carbon dioxide than steamships, methane emissions from exhaust gases continue to pose a significant problem for the climate.

It is important to note that the largest methane emissions occur during the gas extraction from shale and liquefaction phases. The methane released during these stages contributes significantly to the increase in LNG's climate footprint. Comparisons with coal show that LNG, despite often being marketed as a cleaner alternative, is actually much more harmful to the environment in the short term, as well as in the long term.

Global context and implications

The U.S. is currently the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, which further complicates the fight against climate change. Since methane and carbon dioxide are key factors contributing to global warming, the production and export of LNG pose challenges that may jeopardize efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Despite claims that LNG is a transitional fuel, its actual effects on the environment suggest that the focus should be on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power, rather than further investment in fossil fuels.

Although LNG is promoted as a temporary solution on the path to a greener future, new studies clearly show that its ecological consequences outweigh the benefits. If we want to seriously reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve global climate goals, investments need to be redirected from LNG infrastructure to truly clean technologies.

The conclusion is clear: liquefied natural gas cannot be a solution in the fight against climate change. Its use only increases the global carbon footprint, while simultaneously contributing to dangerous levels of methane emissions and other greenhouse gases. The energy of the future must be based on sustainable sources that will not have such a large negative impact on our planet.

Source: Cornell University