The truth about LNG

More and more gigantic tankers carrying LNG, liquefied natural gas, are crisscrossing the oceans – and we're building infrastructure to trade ever larger amounts. But shouldn't we be moving AWAY from fossil fuels?

#PlanetA #LNG #naturalgas

We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world — and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.

Credits:
Reporter: Malte Rohwer-Kahlmann
Video Editor: Neven Hillebrands
Supervising Editor: Joanna Gottschalk
Factcheck: Jeannette Cwienk
Thumbnail: Em Chabridon

Read More (Links):

Emissions from LNG carrier ships:

Chapters:
00:00 Intro
00:41 What is LNG?
01:29 LNG boom
03:47 LNG's climate impact
08:05 Stranded assets?
10:28 Conclusion

[krshil]

I am a cryo engineer on an LNG ship and I can tell you the actual methane losses from the ship are close to zero. The company is paranoid about even the smallest leak.

[theworddoner]

The problem I have with German ‘environmentalists’ are that the same people bemoaning the problems of lng have shut down their nuclear power plants.

In their own arrogance, they shot themselves in the foot.

[fleachamberlain]

Not "a lot of people". A few people. The vast majority of people in Australia, anyway, are not seeing that money.

[colinross]

Bit harsh/incorrect on LNG. You still have to mine coal, load it, transport to the ships, load ships, ship to country of destination, unload and road/rail transport it to end usage. Something you neglected to say. Even renewables/uranium you have mining/transport and manufacturing costs. Every power source has it's add on greenhouse costs.

[cheweperro]

It's short term, it's optics, it doesn't address causes only symptoms

[firefox]

It's really cringe looking at countries like Germany spend billions on LNG and other natural gas infrastructure, but not nuclear.

[RiadKhan]

I am from Trinidad, and in the mid-1990s, we were among the pioneers in the emerging LNG industry, which has significantly benefited our country. Throughout my career, I have worked extensively on LNG projects and their maintenance, gaining experience with carriers and regasification plants. The industry maintains high standards, particularly regarding the containment of gases such as methane. Many leading industry players believe that LNG will remain a vital energy source well beyond the 2050s. While I appreciate your perspective LNG, I find it somewhat narrow. Nuclear energy, particularly fusion, represents the safest and cleanest future for energy. Fusion replacing hydrocarbons will usher in a new era for humanity.

[maurinelse]

My country, Argentina 🇦🇷 started to import LNG when internal production went down more than a decade ago, but now that shale gas production is rising there are plans to build liquefaction plants to export the surplus.
We need to exploit our fossil fuel resources before the energy transition becomes a reality. In any case, we also have favorable conditions for the installation of wind and solar parks.

[Maverick_]

00:27. Correction: It's making a 'few' people a lot of money.

[markarca]

Here in the Philippines, we have the Malampaya, which has been a media frenzy in the early 2000s.
The adverts for this project, say, "How can you call energy cheap, if it costs an entire nation's treasure?"

[samuxan]

not as good as renewables but way better than coal or diesel. I've seen how much worse the air quality is around a power plant using coal vs one using gas. I guess this has its place in the energy transition.

[JakeShaft]

Don't make perfection the enemy of the possible. Always going to need reserves. In Sweden we burn oil for electricity on cold winter days (probably happened i other seasons aswell) if the wind doesn't blow. Sweden have 98% fossil-free elecricity but still depends on oil on harsch days. Storage is not an option now or any time soon why not burn natural gas instead of oil. Security landscape changed last few years. Each country need to be more self--relient. Storage of gas seem better then storage of oil to me. There are more variables then just climate to consider for nations when it comes to energy.

Saying no to gas simply base on climate arguments I see as unserious. BUT if it turns out LNG emits more over the "lifecycle" then coal then there's no reason for LNG.

[paulb]

“Dirty” coal is what made Germany rich. Good video. About time LNG was scrutinised, it’s not economic for many developing countries struggling with high unemployment. LNG is not as flexible as coal, liquefaction plants are not cheap.

[zapfanzapfan]

Gas burned in a combined cycle plant can have 60% efficiency (or even 90% if the cooling water gets used in district heating) and can be turned on and off relatively quickly meaning it can load follow whatever renewables are on the grid. Windy day, no gas needed, calm day with clouds, turn on the gas plant. It's a good transition until other storage exists.

[elinys]

As always: if there’s a profit in it for western (US) investors, it will happen. No matter what the cost for everything and everyone else.

[zintun]

I don't think Germany should be lecturing the world about the energy policy while it is losing its economy status due to energy crisis. 😂

[antiquehealbot]

And Germany ditched nuclear just for this lol😂.
What a clown.

[PorpoiseSeeker]

There’s a common category error offered here. Renewables are not equivalent to dispatchable firm (load following )energy. Renewables are a boon to the natural gas market because gas plants offer firm dispatchable power. Renewables consume large land areas which can be inconsistent with ecological sustainability and preservation of biodiversity. Hydro is an excellent source of clean firm dispatchable power if we ignore the ecological footprint.
Storage can help but the capacity has to be expressed in days, not hours to smooth out weather variability. Seasonal variations are 2:1 or so depending on latitude. The energy giant Total has two poster that both say the same—approximately “Total is committed to Xx”. One poster showed solar farm where Xx=solar. The other shows an LNG tanker where Xx=LNG.
It’s not helpful to claim renewables will be our salvation. Helpful - yes. Sufficient -no.

To quote Oliver Stone: “It’s time to reconsider nuclear…”

[Logicpro_]

US is biggest LNG exporter and all those years behind media never talk bad about LNG and in the near future theres a lot of new gas field that Will fullfil asia demand of LNG and they Will not need US energi anymore thats why media began to talk about it

[pauluk]

For me, LNG is a short term solution, the cost alone will end up pushing that aside for cheaper alternatives, likely renewable energy sources being created much closer to where it's used.

In the case of Europe, there's a bit of a spike in buying up LNG since the war in Ukraine, but when looking closely, it looks like they are shifting their economy to an all electric system, which opens up more options on what energy sources you can buy and favours renewable energy sources, because of that and because LNG is so expensive, unless the ones that produce the LNG gas find ways of reducing the cost a lot, I can't see them being competitive with other energy sources, especially renewable energy that's getting better and cheaper all the time.

There's also the security issue, since the war in Ukraine, more countries want to produce more of the energy they use internally, the only real issue with renewables is the inconsistency, but that can be solved with batteries acting as a buffer.

Basically, there's a short wind fall for LNG because of the war in Ukraine, especially in Europe, but it seems short-lived just to fill the void that Russia is missing out on, so unless LNG becomes a lot cheaper to buy, I can't see it being that competitive for long and cheaper alternatives, likely renewable will replace it, at least in Europe, because Asia is a bit different, in many areas, they need as much energy as they can get from any source as they are a growing economy, whereas Europe is more developed and settled on its energy needs, so even thought it's going up, it's much more manageable with cleaner energy sources like renewables, especially as battery tech continues to get better and cheaper.