300 likes | 311 Views
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Dutch Natural Gas Industry. Doreen Wunderlich. 1. Motivation. 2. 3. Methane and CO 2 -equivalent emissions. 4. Conclusions. Emissions from the Dutch Industry. Motivation. Natural gas burns“cleaner”than coal -> bridge fuel
E N D
Greenhouse GasEmissions of the DutchNatural Gas Industry Doreen Wunderlich
1 Motivation 2 3 Methane and CO2-equivalent emissions 4 Conclusions Emissions from the Dutch Industry
Natural gas burns“cleaner”than coal • -> bridge fuel • life-cycle assessment: all greenhouse gases across fuel´s supply chain • CH4 emissions can offset benefits of lower combustion emissions • -> methane loss rate: CH4 emissions in % of extracted CH4 Hayhoe et al. (2002), Wigley (2011): 2.0% Mommers (2016): 3-8%
TNO, 1995: Methane emissions due to oil and natural gas operations in The Netherlands • CH4 emissions for the supply chain • exploration • production • procecssing • transmission • storage • distribution • end use • comparison of bottom-up and • top-down approach
Imperial College London, 2015: • indication of emission estimates • found in 240 papers • GHG emissions in gCO2eq/MJ • Methane loss rate
Imperial College London, 2015: • Key findings: • vast range of GHG emissions • across the supply chain • incomplete and under-represented • data • no data about the Netherlands
Emissions from the Dutch Industry
Structure in the Netherlands KIWA: Keurings Instituut voor Waterleiding Artikelen NAM: Nederlandse Aardolie Matschapij EBN: Energie Beheer Nederland NOGEPA: Netherlands Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Association
Transmission and Storage: 2013 2014 2015 2016 CO2 emissions:
Distribution: CH4 emissions: CO2 emissions: from NIR reports: 0.18 ktonne in 2013-2015
Methane and CO2-equivalent emissions
Carbon footprint GHG emissions across the entire supply chain 2.0 gCO2eq/MJ 1.4 gCO2eq/MJ = 86 = 86 = 34 = 34
Carbon footprint Comparison to Balcombe et al. 42 gCO2eq/MJ (HHV) 2 gCO2eq/MJ (HHV) 1.4 gCO2eq/MJ
Methane only emissions > 70% reduction TNO, 1995: 148 (98) ktonne
Methane loss rate 10 % Hayhoe et al. Balcombe et al. 0.2 %
Key emission sources: • key segments across supply chain: production and processing • CO2 from energy generation • CH4 from venting and fugitive emissions Comparison with TNO-study, 1995: - mitigation measures - country-specific emission factors • > 70% reduction in absolute amount of CH4 emissions • > 2/3 reduction of methane loss rate HOW ? Comparison with literature (Balcombe et al.): • methane loss rate lower than any indication from literature • CO2-equivalent / MJ lower than any indication from literature REASONS ?
Explanation of the “good”results: • abandonment of unconventional gas fields • strict regulations, dense population -> requires low-emitting technology • reporting system • -> country-specific emission factors • -> intensive measurements (Gasunie)
BUT . . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear
BUT . . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear • exact emission sources
BUT . . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear • which emission sources • neglecting insignificant sources by DSO (and other companies ?)
BUT . . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear • which emission sources • neglecting insignificant sources by DSO (and other companies ?) • low transparency of emissions reported in NIR
BUT . . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear • which emission sources • neglecting insignificant sources by DSO (and other companies ?) • low transparency of emissions reported in NIR • partly incorrect in reporting tools intransparent - incomplete - incorrect ? reliability
What is needed: completeness transparency independent auditing