Life cycle CO 2 analysis of LNG and city gas

Tamura, Itaru; Tanaka, Toshihide; Kagajo, Toshimasa; Kuwabara, Shigeru; Yoshioka, Tomoyuki; Nagata, T.; Kurahashi, Kazuhiro; Ishitani, Haruro

doi:10.1016/s0306-2619(00)00062-3

Cited by 53 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For all scenarios, almost 18% of the total GWP is due to the distribution of the evaporated gas. The total GWP calculated in this study for the upstream processing (including extraction and drying, liquefaction, transport and evaporation but not distribution) equals 0.0174 kg of CO 2 eq., and this value is consistent with values already reported in literature~0.016-0.018 kg of CO 2 eq by (Tamura et al 2001;Edwards et al 2006;Venkatesh et al 2011;NETL 2012;Safaei et al 2015).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…3. As far as possible, data for the GWP on the LNG upstream production have been collected according to four categoriesextraction and drying, liquefaction, transport and evaporation--from literature (Tamura et al 2001;Edwards et al 2006;Okamura et al 2007;López et al 2009;Kavalov et al 2010;Arteconi et al 2010;Venkatesh et al 2011;NETL 2012;Safaei et al 2015). The results reported in Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of analyses have addressed the LNG supply till end-user distribution to Japan: two studies (Tamura et al 2001;Okamura et al 2007) for example considered five exporting countries and both concluded that as average the liquefaction process only determines more than 70% of the total LNG upstream production footprint. These findings are in contrast with the results reported for the USA.…”

Section: Environmental Impacts Of Using Lngmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Once at the facilities onshore, condensable components, sulphur compounds and CO 2 are removed (Qatargas 2014). Of the gas reaching the liquefaction plant, 8.8% is used to meet parasitic energy demand, primarily for liquefaction (Tamura et al 2001;Jaramillo et al 2007;PACE 2009). The LNG is loaded onto the purpose-built tankers and transported to and unloaded at the South Hook LNG terminal at Milford Haven in South Wales.…”

Section: Functional Unit and System Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Liquefied natural gas for the UK: a life cycle assessment

Tagliaferri

Clift

Lettieri

et al. 2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is expected to become an important component of the UK's energy supply because the national hydrocarbon reserves on the continental shelf have started diminishing. However, use of any carbon-based fuel runs counter to mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Hence, a broad environmental assessment to analyse the import of LNG to the UK is required. Methods A cradle to gate life cycle assessment has been carried out of a specific but representative case: LNG imported to the UK from Qatar. The analysis covers the supply chain, from gas extraction through to distribution to the end-user, assuming state-of-the-art facilities and ships. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted on key parameters including the energy requirements of the liquefaction and vaporisation processes, fuel for propulsion, shipping distance, tanker volume and composition of raw gas. Results and discussion All environmental indicators of the CML methodology were analysed. The processes of liquefaction, LNG transport and evaporation determine more than 50% of the cradle to gate global warming potential (GWP). When 1% of the total gas delivered is vented as methane emissions leakage throughout the supply chain, the GWP increases by 15% compared to the GWP of the base scenario. The variation of the GWP increases to 78% compared to the base scenario when 5% of the delivered gas is considered to be lost as vented emissions. For all the scenarios analysed, more than 75% of the total acidification potential (AP) is due to the sweetening of the natural gas before liquefaction. Direct emissions from transport always determine between 25 and 49% of the total eutrophication potential (EP) whereas the operation and maintenance of the sending ports strongly influences the fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP). Conclusions The study highlights long-distance transport of LNG and natural gas processing, including sweetening, liquefaction and vaporisation, as the key operations that strongly affect the life cycle impacts. Those cannot be considered negligible when the environmental burdens of the LNG supply chain are considered. Furthermore, the effect of possible fugitive methane emissions along the supply chain are critical for the impact of operations such as extraction, liquefaction, storage before transport, transport itself and evaporation.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Environmental Impacts Of Using Lngmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Functional Unit and System Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Liquefied natural gas for the UK: a life cycle assessment

Tagliaferri

Clift

Lettieri

et al. 2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study of life cycle CO 2 emission of the Japan natural gas has already done by Okamura et al, 2005 [13]. That is the update version of Tamura et al study, 2001 [14].…”

Section: B Lci Co 2 Analysis Emission Of Conventional Hydrogen Produmentioning

confidence: 99%

CO2 Emission Reduction Analysis of Bio-Hydrogen Network: An Initial Stage of Hydrogen Society

Hendrawan¹,

Dowaki²

2015

JOCET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This article presents a case study about regional network of bio-hydrogen supply-chain to discover the key indicators of sustainability of bio-hydrogen energy network in initial stage. The sustainability factor is focus on CO 2 emission abatement from introduction of bio-hydrogen network scenarios in comparison with the conventional system. The conventional hydrogen production method is steam methane reforming (SMR) from natural gas in Japan. The proposed hydrogen production system is a gasification process due to waste woody biomass as a feedstock and it produce in ASEAN member countries and then exporting to Japan. The feedstock is waste wood due to logging activity and production of pulp paper and furniture in the natural forest and forest plantation. The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) analysis estimated the carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emission in consideration of hydrogen form variation (liquid and gaseous phases). The results show that the high consumption of electricity in production system and the emission factor of electricity grid in each country play significant role to reduce CO 2 emission. Regional network of bio-hydrogen energy can be use for the international negotiation on climate change to drive the energy policy in national and local scale.Index Terms-Bio-hydrogen, waste woody, LCI, energy network.

show abstract

Techno‐economic performance of sustainable international bio‐SNG production and supply chains on short and longer term

Batidzirai

Schotman

Spek

et al. 2018

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synthetic natural gas (SNG) derived from biomass gasification is a potential transport fuel and natural gas substitute. Using the Netherlands as a case study, this paper evaluates the most economic and environmentally optimal supply chain for the production of biomass based SNG (so‐called bio‐SNG) for different biomass production regions and location of final conversion facilities, with final delivery of compressed natural gas at refueling stations servicing the transport sector. At a scale of 100 MWth, in, delivered bioSNG costs range from 18.6 to 25.9$/GJdelivered CNG while energy efficiency ranges from 46.8–61.9%. If production capacities are scaled up to 1000 MWth, in, SNG costs decrease by about 30% to 12.6–17.4$ GJdelivered CNG−1. BioSNG production in Ukraine and transportation of the gas by pipeline to the Netherlands results in the lowest delivered cost in all cases and the highest energy efficiency pathway (61.9%). This is mainly due to low pipeline transport costs and energy losses compared to long‐distance Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) transport. However, synthetic natural gas production from torrefied pellets (TOPs) results in the lowest GHG emissions (17 kg CO2e GJCNG−1) while the Ukraine routes results in 25 kg CO2e GJCNG−1. Production costs at 100 MWth are higher than the current natural gas price range, but lower than the oil prices and biodiesel prices. BioSNG costs could converge with natural gas market prices in the coming decades, estimated to be 18.2$ GJ−1. At 1000 MWth, bioSNG becomes competitive with natural gas (especially if attractive CO2 prices are considered) and very competitive with oil and biodiesel. It is clear that scaling of SNG production to the GWth scale is key to cost reduction and could result in competitive SNG costs. For regions like Brazil, it is more cost‐effective to densify biomass into pellets or TOPS and undertake final conversion near the import harbor. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

show abstract

Life cycle CO 2 analysis of LNG and city gas

Cited by 53 publications

References 0 publications

Liquefied natural gas for the UK: a life cycle assessment

Liquefied natural gas for the UK: a life cycle assessment

CO2 Emission Reduction Analysis of Bio-Hydrogen Network: An Initial Stage of Hydrogen Society

Techno‐economic performance of sustainable international bio‐SNG production and supply chains on short and longer term

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About