Liquefied natural gas for the UK: a life cycle assessment

PurposeLiquefied 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.MethodsA 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 discussionAll 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).ConclusionsThe 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.

[1]  H. S. Matthews,et al.  Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Timothy J Skone,et al.  Life Cycle Analysis: Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Power Plants , 2012 .

[3]  Roland Clift,et al.  Shale gas: a life-cycle perspective for UK production , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[4]  Carla Tagliaferri,et al.  Life cycle assessment of conventional and two-stage advanced energy-from-waste technologies for municipal solid waste treatment , 2015 .

[5]  Jeroen B. Guinee,et al.  Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards , 2002 .

[6]  Satish Kumar,et al.  LNG: An eco-friendly cryogenic fuel for sustainable development , 2011 .

[7]  Donald R. Kendall,et al.  The Globalization of LNG Markets: Historical Context, Current Trends and Prospects for the Future , 2009 .

[8]  Richard A. Dawe,et al.  Review of ways to transport natural gas energy from countries which do not need the gas for domestic use , 2003 .

[9]  Paulina J Aramillo,et al.  Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation. , 2007 .

[10]  Dana Lowell,et al.  Assessment of the fuel cycle impAct of liquefied nAturAl gAs As used in internAtionAl shipping , 2013 .

[11]  Hisashi Ishitani,et al.  Future forecast for life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of LNG and city gas 13A , 2007 .

[12]  Life-Cycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Hydrogen Fuel Production in the United States from LNG and Coal , 2005 .

[13]  Toshimasa Kagajo,et al.  Life cycle CO2 analysis of LNG and city gas , 2001 .

[14]  Paul Bosma,et al.  Liquefaction Technology; Developments through History , 2009 .

[15]  Roland Clift,et al.  Integrated gasification and plasma cleaning for waste treatment: A life cycle perspective. , 2015, Waste management.

[16]  A. Azapagic,et al.  Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas , 2014 .

[17]  Aliki Georgakaki,et al.  Liquefied natural gas for Europe: some important issues for consideration , 2009 .

[18]  David Jones,et al.  Shipboard Reliquefaction for Large LNG Carriers , 2009 .

[19]  Fabio Polonara,et al.  Life-cycle greenhouse gas analysis of LNG as a heavy vehicle fuel in Europe , 2010 .

[20]  Wensheng Lin,et al.  LNG (liquefied natural gas): A necessary part in China's future energy infrastructure , 2010 .

[21]  Maria Anderson,et al.  Particle- and Gaseous Emissions from an LNG Powered Ship. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[22]  Carla Tagliaferri,et al.  Life cycle assessment of conventional and advanced two-stage energy-from-waste technologies for methane production , 2016 .

[23]  Sevket Durucan,et al.  Life cycle assessment of the natural gas supply chain and power generation options with CO2 capture and storage: Assessment of Qatar natural gas production, LNG transport and power generation in the UK , 2012 .

[24]  Vincent Mahieu,et al.  Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the european context , 2004 .

[25]  Francisco Aparicio,et al.  Comparison of GHG emissions from diesel, biodiesel and natural gas refuse trucks of the City of Madrid , 2009 .

[26]  Amir Safaei,et al.  Life-cycle greenhouse gas assessment of Nigerian liquefied natural gas addressing uncertainty. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[27]  Paulina Jaramillo,et al.  Uncertainty in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from United States natural gas end-uses and its effects on policy. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.