According to Cornell research, processing and shipping liquefied natural gas (LNG) result in a 33% larger greenhouse gas footprint compared to coal. The study challenges the perception of LNG as an environmentally friendlier alternative, highlighting significant emissions related to its production and transportation.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG), often touted as a cleaner alternative to coal, may not be as environmentally friendly as once thought. A new study from Cornell University has revealed that the greenhouse gas footprint of LNG is 33% worse than coal when considering the full lifecycle of the fuel, from extraction to transportation.
“Natural gas and shale gas are all bad for the climate. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is worse,” Robert Howarth, the study’s author and a professor of ecology and environmental biology in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, said in a news release. “LNG is made from shale gas, and to make it you must supercool it to liquid form and then transport it to market in large tankers. That takes energy.”
Published in the journal Energy Science & Engineering, the study sheds light on the considerable emissions of methane and carbon dioxide generated during the lifecycle of LNG.
The liquefication process, which involves cooling the natural gas to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit for transport, is particularly energy-intensive. Methane emissions, which are significantly more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, are released during extraction, processing and transportation. Over a 20-year period, the study found LNG has a one-third larger carbon footprint than coal.
“Almost all the methane emissions occur upstream when you’re extracting the shale gas and liquefying it,” Howarth added. “This is all magnified just to get the liquefied natural gas to market.”
Moreover, the mode of transportation itself further exacerbates the environmental impact. Modern LNG tankers, which use two- or four-stroke engines, have improved fuel efficiency and lower carbon dioxide emissions compared to steam-powered ships. However, these advancements are offset by methane leaks during storage and transportation.
Despite efforts to frame LNG as a “bridge fuel” that could ease the transition from coal and oil to renewable energy, Howarth’s findings suggest that LNG’s environmental cost makes it a less viable alternative.
“It still ends up substantially worse than coal,” added Howarth.
This breakthrough study highlights the urgent need for reevaluating the role of LNG in global climate strategies. As the world’s largest LNG exporter, the United States faces significant implications from these findings.
As global leaders and policymakers continue to grapple with climate change, this research accentuates the necessity of turning attention to more sustainable energy sources that do not pose hidden environmental costs.