Do we have any report on this sub taking about china’s negative impact on the nature or its all about CCP propaganda?
ATotalCassegrain on
>the life-cycle emissions of producing gas and shipping it from Alaska to Japan, South Korea, China and India. That study represents an updated analysis of a [similar study conducted in 2019](https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/09/f66/2019%20NETL%20LCA-GHG%20Report.pdf) of the life-cycle greenhouse gas impacts of U.S. LNG being used to replace coal-fired power or Russian fossil gas in Europe and Asia. It found that U.S. LNG would yield lower carbon emissions than those alternatives
Yup, so totally cleaner, as the rest of the article admits.
Unless you decide that because we’re exporting LNG that the countries that are taking our LNG are just going to totally stop decarbonizing.
>To counter that argument, Sarinsky points to the IPI report’s finding of a median cost-benefit ratio of 9.6. That means that the climate costs of each unit of exported LNG are roughly 10 times higher than its economic benefits. In other words, if just “10 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from LNG exports are…emissions that wouldn’t have occurred without these exports, then the costs exceed the benefits,” he said.
That’s a wildly unsupported piece of argumentation (see note above; you need to include the offset about how much cleaner US LNG is, which it’s significantly cleaner), and quite frankly US LNG is still expensive; much more expensive than Russian LNG was, for example. So I doubt that the expensive fuel is driving significant new usage of said expensive fuel.
3 Comments
Do we have any report on this sub taking about china’s negative impact on the nature or its all about CCP propaganda?
>the life-cycle emissions of producing gas and shipping it from Alaska to Japan, South Korea, China and India. That study represents an updated analysis of a [similar study conducted in 2019](https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/09/f66/2019%20NETL%20LCA-GHG%20Report.pdf) of the life-cycle greenhouse gas impacts of U.S. LNG being used to replace coal-fired power or Russian fossil gas in Europe and Asia. It found that U.S. LNG would yield lower carbon emissions than those alternatives
Yup, so totally cleaner, as the rest of the article admits.
Unless you decide that because we’re exporting LNG that the countries that are taking our LNG are just going to totally stop decarbonizing.
>To counter that argument, Sarinsky points to the IPI report’s finding of a median cost-benefit ratio of 9.6. That means that the climate costs of each unit of exported LNG are roughly 10 times higher than its economic benefits. In other words, if just “10 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from LNG exports are…emissions that wouldn’t have occurred without these exports, then the costs exceed the benefits,” he said.
That’s a wildly unsupported piece of argumentation (see note above; you need to include the offset about how much cleaner US LNG is, which it’s significantly cleaner), and quite frankly US LNG is still expensive; much more expensive than Russian LNG was, for example. So I doubt that the expensive fuel is driving significant new usage of said expensive fuel.
Ahhhh. That explains BOIL.