Regarding the article “Can Squamish LNG reduce global emissions,” published online June 9 — this issue has been studied countless times with the same conclusion: LNG will reduce global emissions.
The arguments made by Mr. David Hughes and Mr. Tom Gunton are based on statistical sleight of hand and questionable assumptions. Intuitively it is obvious, replacing the burning of lumps of coal with natural gas as a fuel will result in less pollution. The data proves this out — coal is far more carbon-intensive and contains innumerable more pollutants than natural gas. But Hughes argues that we must consider “upstream” emissions of methane to the wellhead in B.C. not just the LNG plant emissions and at the “burner tip” where the power is produced in Asia.
And you should consider CO2 emissions only and the study period must be only for 20 years. Hughes’ argument requires as narrow a scope as possible. But burning coal to produce power is highly polluting in the region where the coal power plant is located and local health issues must be considered. Estimates are that deaths due to air pollution in China alone are 1.7 to two million annually. If you recall the smoke from the B.C. summer forest fires – well much of industrial China is frequently like that.
Air quality in China has been improving largely due to the replacement of coal-fired power plants with natural gas power plants.
It is inconsistent to argue that the impacts of pollution must be considered “upstream” of the LNG plant but the benefits of LNG should be ignored “downstream” of the power plant where the fuel is burned. Replacing coal with natural gas from LNG saves lives in Asia. Mr. Hughes makes a vague case for why only 20 years should be used in the analysis. He doesn’t explain is that the reason for this is that while methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas (“GHG”) it dissipates or loses its impact as a GHG relatively rapidly.
The half-life of methane as a GHG is seven to eight years. CO2, on the other hand, is a persistent GHG with a half-life of 45+ years.
For 100 tons of CO2 emitted in 2020, there would still be 25 tons in the atmosphere in 2110. Mr. Hughes focuses on a short-term study to understate the benefits of LNG in replacing coal.
Mr. Gunton’s view that LNG will result in less renewable energy is an improbable conclusion and shows a lack of understanding of Asian electricity demand. Most of the power is used for factories and other industrial users. These consumers need power that is always available. An efficient wind-farm only produces power 35% of the time. Solar power is at peak for six hours a day at best. To meet the demand for reliable power China already has 1,000 gigawatts of coal power plants and is constructing another 260 gigawatts of coal power.
For comparison, BC Hydro’s total capacity is only 11 gigawatts. Asian power demand is huge and cannot be met with renewable energy alone. A natural gas-fired power plant can increase or decrease its operating capacity almost immediately to accommodate the renewable energy that is available. A coal plant cannot. LNG will allow the further expansion of renewable energy, not replace it.
Colin Coe
Coe is a retired energy executive who consults for Asian energy buyers. He has no affiliation with Woodfibre LNG.
