The truth about LNG

[@DWPlanetA]

What do you make of the LNG hype?

[@microcomputermaster]

If hydrogen and carbon capture ever become a thing, much of the LNG infrastructure can be repurposed to move hydrogen. But that's a big "IF" on both counts.

[@kkrolik2106]

Me neighbor car running on it in CNG form :)

[@johndoh5182]

I don't think it really matters about calling it "hype" or anything else. Here is what I think matters: You don't make your enemies wealthy because you think something is a bad idea. Europeans have made Russia a lot of money who is now attacking Europe and EUROPE doesn't seem to want to put the money into defending Ukraine properly, and the country that HAS put a lot of money into protecting Ukraine is a country producing LNG. So, WHATEVER your logic is, it's pretzel logic, because war is WAY WORSE than LNG. Get a clue?? Either that or send troops into Ukraine and deal with it.

[@mickgatz214]

Rubbish. Used to be so cheap here in Australia, but all that has changed, for the worse!. We were paying like .75 cpl, yet were selling it to Japan for 5 cpl. Back in the '80s, gas (LPG/LNG), it's just 'gas', but we only paid like,15cpl 😥

[@Eikenhorst]

@@microcomputermaster Well, that is only if we go for hydrogen from natural gas and capture the CO2 for so called blue hydrogen. There are a whole range of issues with hydrogen, but if it ever becomes a big thing it would be in the green form. Say: cover a good part of the dessert of Dubai with solar panels just to produce hydrogen and liquify that.

[@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.

[@DWPlanetA]

🤔 Here is a video we made on Germany's nuclear exit. 👇 ☢️ "Is Germany's nuclear exit a mistake?" kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4jYeIOVlqeij8k And, you should explore our channel for more content on nuclear!

[@jackred2362]

Sure it's not like oil and gas companies have been lobbying against nuclear for decades. They are the ones donating the money to politicans, not ‘environmentalists’ .

[@tayikolla6205]

​@@DWPlanetA Do you have another video on how the US helped Germany by blowing up NordStream2?

[@roberts1938]

Not only that, these guys are hypocrites. They fly to conferences in Dubai and talk about their utopian nonsense. I just read that Al Gore, who has been threatening for years about global warming and the resulting increase in ocean water levels by several meters, bought a property in Florida right by the ocean. An idiot or a clever fraudster who made money by trading emission rights?

[@shanewilson2484]

@@tayikolla6205 Do you have a video on how you know who blew up the pipeline? Why blow up pipelines that were not being used?

[@Maverick_42]

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

[@SvalbardSleeperDistrict]

Always important to point out class dynamics in all of this, which these videos often shy away from.

[@ms-tw4sj]

Plus the people working in the industry, plus the small investors (like me) who invested in LNG, plus the rural landowners whose wells are located on, plus the governments obtaining tax revenues from the industries, plus the construction companies putting up the facilities.

[@Fenthule]

@@ms-tw4sj Compared to the greater population as a whole, that's still very much a few people. Stop kidding yourself.

[@ms-tw4sj]

@@FenthuleWhat's your solution? Get rid of LNG? Get rid of Property Rights? Communism? It's been tried, it doesn't work. LNG not only benefits the people in the industry, it benefits the consumers of LNG and the earth as a whole because it's cleaner. Everbody gained THANK YOU rich person, WHO PUT UP THE MONEY to drill the well, to build the infrastructure to transport the product and create the system

[@rustyspottedcat8885]

1%

[@firefox39693]

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

[@mathelga]

Look at the millions of litres of contaminated water Tepco are dumping into the Pacific after their nuclear accident! Tell me what the outcome there will be?

[@hillbilly24]

Lng is the base of their industrial model. They use it for manufacturing the vast number of chemicals, plastics, and metals that they need to make their manufacturing model work not just for energy.

[@JvmCassandra]

Japan and Soviet Union through their callousness completed ruined the reputation of the only clean viable nuclear energy.

[@rok1475]

Uneducated zealots managed to scare the rest of poorly educated population into thinking that German nuclear power plants would be run by the crew from Chernobyl and would also be at risk of tsunami from Pacific ocean.

[@nottenvironmental6208]

Who would force a population to pay higher prices? Nuclear is infinitely more expensive than other sources, especially solar wind and batteries.

[@krshil5373]

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.

[@maxmiliancady8174]

Well, I think you would not confess If there are any leaks through the process of liquifying.

[@caleta9853]

I am in complete agreement

[@FineEpicArt777]

God love ya for saying that. It figures!

[@Cham-ke2we]

Yeah first of all that contradicts many studies. Second of all, isn't this a huge conflict of interest since you work on LNG industry? Why would you tell us the truth?

[@colinross6259]

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.

[@adamrabbitts1268]

very good comment

[@mohdfaizuddin2281]

yap, not really good apple to apple comparison is made

[@joeboydedaev6393]

Yeah but when it comes to direct transaction thru the pipeline you don't cause all the other emissions mentioned. I think they are trying to say that.

[@SeeNyuOG]

Agree. Also need to add to the LNG that you require new infrastructure

[@cheweperro]

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

[@xcofcd]

Yes it's something they can throw taxpayer money at to look like they're taking action. These things are never thought through and rarely work...

[@nhilistickomrad4259]

Ure seeing the wrong optics. Before methane came into commercial use it was basically burnt up as it was useless. So that's why oil producers are interested in selling as otherwise theyd just use it in some captive plants for some synthesis and energy source but as methane sources are usually in war torn areas or inhospitable terrain so captive use would be less and more expensive than letting it burn or just blow away.

[@fleachamberlain1905]

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

[@bofty]

Neither is the government

[@dmitrye3212]

The same is true for Canada.

[@JakeShaft85]

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.

[@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.

[@showme360]

Thats the problem, there more here than meets the eye!

[@EdDGr34T]

key word is energy transition.. not everyone will appreciate all these..

[@johnn3542]

The energy to transport it has to be significant. The ships probably burn the worst "bunker fuel"

[@edsteadham4085]

Yeah not as good as renewable except when there is no wind or sun which almost never happens

[@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.

[@xcofcd]

You guys want to be very careful to not step on some big neighbors toes. Part of the reason Venezuela is so messed up is because they have so much oil...

[@markarca6360]

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?"

[@gardencity3558]

Philippines burns a lot of imported coal correct? LNG would be a boon if done correctly. Less brownouts and costs savings, perhaps..

[@ayusinnyu]

They should drill more in palawan area . Government should invest and don’t wait for investor due to companies that have been on the industry wanted monopolize to be sold at export price not for local consumption only,

[@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.

[@wernerderchamp]

By just adding some batteries to balance (1/5 - 1/3 of daily consumption) one can very easily reach ~90-95% renewables. You'd only need to ramp them up when both wind and solar are out.

[@zapfanzapfan]

@@wernerderchamp I'd say you need a bit more batteries for that (depending on location and what over sources are on the grid, if you have hydro and nuclear, great!) but other storage can play a very important part. Thermal storage for heat and hot water would go a long way to eliminate gas use by storing wind over production when it happens. Sand/rocks for thermal storage is cheap and plentiful, an oil cistern filled with it at 500 C is 10s of GWh storage. Would work well in places that have district heating anyway.

[@antiquehealbot6543]

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

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey there! We tackled Germany´s nuclear exit a while ago. Check it out if you are interested in that topic 👉kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4jYeIOVlqeij8k

[@Apocalypse9696]

you talked about LNG supply chain causing lot of emmissions. Coal supply chain is also very dirty, Mining it, then transporting it, often on ships, and then at ports, put on trucks for transport to power plants

[@Clint-stanley]

Fantastik article. Who is incentivized to verify the emissions. The LNG industry wants to turn a blind eye. Like your reference, I have not verified Tony Seba's assertion in his book "Clean Disruption" that the pipelines have on average 3 to 4 leaks per mile. My Grandfather worked in the fossil fuel industry finding leaks in the pipelines. I like your supportive commentators. My plan is to replace all Gas in my house with renewable electric.

[@roberts1938]

What is renewable energy? How is the energy you use to insulate your house or your computer regenerated? Describe it according to the laws of physics.

[@centurione6489]

Outlaw LNG.🤣 It's part of the suicidal globalist agenda.

[@muhammadyunan2811]

After Europe can not use LNG, so they start to share propaganda that LNG not save for environment 😂

[@hypotheticalaxolotl]

@@roberts1938 I'm really glad nobody bothered responding to your JAQing off and blatant attempt at trolling via missing the point. I'm just here with popcorn.

[@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…”

[@kobeymatt4062]

As a person who works in the LNG export industry. LNG is the cleanest pressurized gasses.

[@Rich1Rodriguez]

Thanks for posting the video. The answer to the question at the very end is simple - stop burning stuff. Every fossil investment is too much

[@Logicpro_1000]

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

[@paulb9453]

“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.

[@mcln2]

Amazing content, balance and unbiased, realistic and center

[@DjDenKot]

+

[@bartlomiejkozak9221]

One point missed in the material is the potential of adopting this infrastructure to green hydrogen. I know this might be just justification that has nothing to do with companies intentions but I think that point should have been risen.

[@creedreaming]

Agreed! I was waiting for them to say something about green hydrogen. I also think they should have mentioned it cuz it's kind of a big point as the infrastructure for LNG is also viable (maybe with some minor adjustments) for hydrogen and this explains why so many terminals are built

[@gardencity3558]

@@creedreaming Hydrogen isn't politically correct to the solar and wind mafia. They support only these because they're involved in the industry, suck tax dollars etc, if hydrogen would become viable the combustion engine, would still be viable their aim is trap us at charging stations and high cost energy and overegulation. Hydrogen would smash all of that.

[@nancylaplaca]

Excellent content - I’ve been working in energy policy for two decades and this is one of the best short videos I’ve seen on LNG. Thank you!

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey Nancy! Glad to hear that you liked the video on LNG. If you are interested in similar videos, subscribe to our channel. We post new videos every week ✨

[@TheBigChill1]

In my country (Portugal) the tendency of consumption is in decline, as we consume more than 60% with sometimes peak of 80% on renewals, Wind, Solar and Hydro... We are small country anyway, but we try to make a difference and it seems we are going in the right direction according to the EU requirements... New big solar farms are also coming online and I hope we get each time more to the O% for domestic consumption... Transportation is the only elephant in the room that needs to be addressed along with the tourism factor that complicate the numbers on pollution...

[@007jmsg]

Renewals are great ! when they are available ! when they aren't , do we shut it down ? The big problem from renewals is reliability we always need to double the install capacity with other reliable source ... for now , the only way for complying co2 emission targets is with nuclear for base power and renewals ! In transportation is really a bigger mess ...

[@TTTT-sj3vz]

why you dont metion that when you need energy you import from spain that runs on nuclear ?

[@007jmsg]

@@TTTT-sj3vz yes , and some times we also export and some times Portugal and Spain import from France that is 70% nuclear and the back bone of Europe power grid ...

[@TheBigChill1]

@@TTTT-sj3vzNop... Our only LPG power plant produce enough... We only import power on very occasional situations...

[@TheBigChill1]

@@007jmsgWe don't have any nuclear power plant... Portugal is a non nuclear power country since the beginning...

[@paul1979uk2000]

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.

[@ronkirk5099]

If you do the fossil fuel comparison, if methane leakage from production to end use is greater than ~4%, it produces more greenhouse gas equivalent than ANY other fossil fuel including coal and oil. Researchers have measured leakage rates in the U.S. of 6-9% of the methane produced (Stanford News March 24, 2022 and other news sources). As currently produced with all the leakage, methane is definitely not the clean energy transition fuel the fossil fuel industry is claiming.

[@keivansab]

It is nonsense. There is no leakage not even one percent. The assumptions considered in those studies are inaccurate to say the least and pure lies in worst case.

[@paulhill182]

This is a hit piece... the most common word used in this video is "IF" and then it is assumed to be true...

[@RB-xq7qh]

Fun fact - natural gas infrastructure can be retrofitted to hydrogen. Hydrogen is the next step. Power plants that were once coal have been refurbished to run on natural gas and many Turbines that make the power can be mixed fuel. Hydrogen and Natural gas. There are already turbines made by siemens that can run on 100% hydrogen but are now duel fuel turbines. So it very well is a great transition fuel.

[@maxdoner4528]

The problem with hydrogen is that its generation in an environmentally friendly way is quite inefficient and thus expensive. So its not an overall solution since in most cases simply using electricity is more efficient. At the same time, the gas infrastrcture can also not be as easy to retrofit as it may seem, so its really not this simple in a lot of scenarios :(

[@maxdoner4528]

They made a Video about the hydrogen stuff too if youre intrested

[@romandoroshenko6049]

Hydrogen is not a source of energy, but rather an energy accumulator because it's necessary to spend energy in the beginning to produce the hydrogen, than energy is required to store (a liquid) hydrogen and finally hydrogen releases energy (that is smaller than used for it's production and storage).

[@tsbrownie]

Of course as more solar/wind/etc energy is brought online, the need to move LNG will decrease and its cost will increase. Economics will have its way.

[@elinys2843]

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.

[@zintun3575]

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. 😂

[@Viktor_Shcherbyna]

To resolve the problem we should follow he right sequence: 1) To define the main contributors (materials/substances) to the global warming. 2) To define the main sectors/industries and countries with the highest emissions of these substances. 3) To find the way to minimize the greatest sources of pollution. These steps could reveal very interesting insights. For example, livestock is a huge contributor to global warming. The way when we work with main contributors will probably be the most effective. And, of course, if it happen that China is the main contributor in the world, the US and Europe shouldn't suffer and jeopardize their economic, social, geopolitical and energy stability. But DW goes another way: "we don't know how harmful is LNG, we don't even know whether it is more harmful than other fossil fuels, but we know that it is fossil fuel, thus it is bad and we must fight with that at any price".

[@ab-td7gq]

Always is the focus on fossil fuels which is undeniably a big issue and environmentalist already agree on this, but almost never do we talk about animal agriculture which is the leading cause of biodiversity loss and many other issues while it's importance still is heavily denied amongst environmentalist.

[@DWPlanetA]

🌱🐄 Agreed on that (animal) agriculture has to be addressed and we've also done so previously. 👇 🎥"Can we produce beef that doesn't ruin the planet?" kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5vTeKZ9Zsx0qdE 🎥"Is vegan meat the "better" meat?" kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIXZf52Fp6hsoq8 🎥"How big agriculture is taking over our diets" kzbin.info/www/bejne/g2PCfqCqpcppfqM

[@ab-td7gq]

@@DWPlanetA I'm happy that you agree, but only 3 video's in 2 years time isn't nearly enough and nothing compared to how often the media covers the problem with fossil fuels. Diet change is easiest and most impactful solution for the short term. Also green energy will take over rapidly while animal agriculture is predicted to keep on growing immensely until 2050.

[@ab-td7gq]

@@TheBooban You're going to tell future generation to starve because you and others don't like me to tell you what we should eat? We are not with too many, it's our way of living. Population will decline already soon and this could bring huge economic consequences.

[@ab-td7gq]

@@TheBooban You sound like a big baby who can't take their own responsibility. The less they produce the more expensive it will become including the billions of subsidies who will go to other food producing sources.

[@patrickgartnercoelho5628]

​@@TheBoobanwell you do make points that are right but you are also arguing with logical fallacies notably the straw man fallacy. @ab-7tdgq said that changes to the diet would help and that it's easy to change. Given the disproportionate land use it is true that it would help but I do agree that it is not that easy. You also said that @ab-7tdgq would want more people which is not true. Overpopulation is also an issue but it is also not that easy to fix, even harder than making meat more expensive thus making people consume less of it. So I think these are separate points and both would help and using one thing against the other is no really helping tbh...

[@microcomputermaster]

Coal also typically has methane emissions, which are mostly just vented to avoid mine explosions. Chinese and West Virginian coal are especially "gassy" and mines can continue leaking methane for decades after they've closed.

[@Justan669]

Then go out, get a bank loan, tap those mines for natural gas and get rich. Then reinvest all your new millions in researching cleaner alternatives like hydrogen...

[@microcomputermaster]

@@Justan669 This is done sometimes, especially for newer mines, but for retired mines the capital costs can be too much to make it profitable unless there is some kind of methane tax or other penalty in place for leaked methane. And with abandoned mines, the owner responsible might no longer exist, so it would fall onto the government to install the equipment.

[@WiwatChang]

Yes, Thailand is hooked on LNG for over half of our energy needs

[@Rajesh-M]

As an Indian I am proud of that we have less than global average of per capita GHGs emissions.And if we compare total GHGs emmitated by all countries we are far behind than US and other European countries.

[@jetli740]

you miss 1 thing India have the most cows in the world, each cow produce 250 to 500 Liter of methane a day

[@burnttoast9890]

​@@jetli740 yeah , and you forgot the amount of gas guzzling cars that the US has. Let's be a little realistic here. The US is the worst polluter in history.

[@abcdef8915]

It just means that you're poorer.

[@YouTubeVivek]

@@abcdef8915it show you are arrogant & destroyer of environment.

[@fifi23o5]

Therefore, the blowing up Nord Stream could be labelled as the worst ecological disaster, crime, to be precise, ever. Germany, who did it? Why the silence?

[@AK-vx4dy]

Blowing NordStream was destruction of powerfull weapon, weapon which inflicted even your mind.

[@fifi23o5]

@AK-vx4dy And, obviously, destroyed your brain cells.

[@AK-vx4dy]

@@fifi23o5 I tricked you, a had no brain cells to destroy. Crime was building it, it was Russian will to control Europe teamed with German greed, shortsidness and selfishness. It was omitt other countries. And like video says would lock Germany in fossil fuel for decades.

[@alexanderx33]

7:23 Incorrect. Natural gas infrastructure, with the exception of wells themselves, CAN be converted into fossil free fueling infrastructure via the sabatier process. You need only change the source of the methane from geologic deposits to the ocean and the atmosphere to fix the mass accumulation equation that governs climate change.

[@elinys2843]

That’s a dead end … again! This process is energy negative. It needs more energy than it produces. Use fossil fuels for it, you just make fossil fuel demand higher. So there’s no point. And if you want to use green energy for it, wouldn’t it be better to use the green energy as it is. Every ‘big oil’ solution - brought up by their army of lobbyists and happily repeated by western ignorants - to reduce carbon emissions leads to a dead end. Not less but often even more emissions. And certainly not profitable if green. Smoke screens every single time.

[@anguscampbell1533]

LNG in home heating is far more expensive than Heat Pumps and are a form of renewable energy. With the developments in Compressor design, refrigerant gas and insulation, heat pumps would be the logical choice for home heating but there seems to be a mindset against them. Another positive benefit of central Heat Pumps is that as they cool a building the "waste" heat can be used for heating water.

[@anonymous.marshall]

Russia shut down gas to Europe or Europe stopped imports from Russia?

[@roberts1938]

At first, Russia used gas blackmail by limiting gas supplies. She wanted to force political decisions. But these are long-term gas supply contracts and such a unilateral decision would involve paying very high compensation. That's why they blew up the pipelines so as not to pay compensation. Force majeure frees them from responsibility, and proving guilt will be very difficult because Russia does not cooperate. Besides, these pipelines were built with German money, so it is not their loss. And the Germans are only talking about reconstruction, and it will also be at their expense, if such a decision is made.

[@vicdor1031]

Liar European! Russians invested dozen of billions of dollars in the gas infrastructure. And they blew it up??? The more ridiculous lie the faster people believe the lie

[@ivanbogdaue]

​@roberts1938 When explanation is so lengthy, it is usually not very convincing. Why European governments cannot simply say, we decided not to buy Russian gas, to break Russia economically and punish it for its invasion of Ukraine?

[@PavelAVasilevich]

​@@roberts1938source trust me bro

[@neverrl3379]

Awesome channel you got here. Thanks.

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey there! Glad to hear that you like our channel. By the way: We publish videos like these every Friday. Subscribe to us to be notified ✨

[@benediktkaufer8194]

Expanding solar, wind and storage is our best bet! LNG sucks...

[@DWPlanetA]

We have many videos on these in our channel - check it out! And don't forget to subscribe. 🌱

[@ms-tw4sj]

NO, Nuclear Power is our best bet.

[@za7v9ier]

A diverse energy mix the our best bet. Nuclear can complement solar & wind when there isn't any. @@ms-tw4sj

[@hsvfanjan17]

@@ms-tw4sj Nuclear power is extremely expensive (in France they HEAVILY subsidies their nuclear power to "make" it cheap) and waste still is an issue, even though it's gotten much better already. They also have a few videos on it here

[@atrumluminarium]

​@@hsvfanjan17no waste has been solved decades ago and it can be recycled to be used again as fuel. And nuclear is only expensive because there is no incentive in place for more research to be made into building on the tecnology

[@ron5948]

11:11 finally some nuance

[@phloxdiffusa]

Well here in Canada the by product is used to dilute bitumin so it can be pumped into pipe lines and rail cars. Bitumin is a viscous form of coal dug up or pumped with the use of steam injection or with huge excavators burning diesel. The diesel comes from highly refined bitumin. Diesel refined from bitumin therefore emits 1.3 times more carbon than does coal. Coal mines emit more methane than any another point source. The by product of natural gas is condensate which consists primarily of naptha.

[@MarioLopez-qp1bg]

Germany already renounced to Energy independence, and gave it to the USA, until cleaner energies are a reality, the question is how long its industry can coup with the additional cost and what market share will lose by then

[@TS_Esquire]

I would be interested in seeing a comparison of the pollution of coal prior to burning coal compared to LNG. If LNG produces 50% less than coal but coal produces 75% less prior to burning then coal makes more sense than LNG. However, it would need to looking into if LNG were not an option, would that change the the pollution prior to burning. I.e. If LNG produces 100% more pollution because it is shipped all over the world and if LNG were not able to be shipped, coal would be shipped in it's place then that should be taken into account in the preburning pollution measuring.

[@alanrobertson9790]

The global warming potential of methane is around 25 not 80. 80 relates to a short term 20 year figure not allowing methane life time. Also methane is not deliberately released as part of LNG production but no process is 100% immune to leaks. All figures given on Wiki so you can check for yourself.

[@dhroman4564]

Adding all the additional co2 to LNG but not coal seems a little dishonest. These guys are right, let stop fossil fuels and go back to the dark ages. Seems like a good idea to me.

[@rushja]

Thanks for making this video. It's important to point out that there are many steps before we even burn fossil fuels that are forgotten. Those steps are probably the most polluting part of the whole enterprise. When we say that a fossil fuel is cheap we're not taking the cost of the effects of future pollution into account, and we should be!

[@kanesaw7456]

In regards to methane escaping. The Operators are all over it. Otherwise youll have an explosion. Shipping co2 can be reduced using Air lubrication systems and or converting existing LNG ships to nuclear powered (SMR) ships. Mike Wirth Chevron CEO spoke in current CFR meeting about using SMR's to reduce CO2 from the business. That would be another reduction. All for green energy and Other alternatives.

[@stevecallagher9973]

Theoretically speaking an LNG tanker would be far less polluting if it spilled its cargo at sea as opposed to a crude oil tanker doing the same?

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey Steve! If LNG spills on water it would not harm aquatic life or damage waterways, so in that way it is less worrying than crude oil spillages. However, it would vaporize and produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas. So, that would be an issue, too.

[@cpt.dimitra]

LNG is methane which is cancer to sea animals and for people.

[@croutiflex953]

This shouldn't even be a debate. building any new long term fossil infrastructure is a really bad idea. The only reason some people think otherwise is because fossil companies make them.

[@stanleydavidson6543]

Natural Gas is a clean product

[@0Aus]

So what then?🙆 ok don't use it, let them freeze in the dark it's on you.

[@edsteadham4085]

Yes they have convinced me that freezing in the winter is bad

[@croutiflex953]

@@edsteadham4085 I never said we should stop keeping our buildings warm, but there are much more efficient ways of doing so. We don't need more fossil infrastructure than we already have to do that.

[@barry4148]

LNG was also said to be used as a miracle for the transport of goods, but it turned out not to be as good and clean as expected. LNG is a dangerous development in my opinion because it remains a gas, it is just not as green as some people promise because of the production and transport of everything. There is still an easy solution to the energy problem, at least, if they just ignore cold fusion, which was already known in the 60s but nothing was done with it, it is now starting to take shape, but we are still far from there.

[@Excellent625]

Could you elaborate on the supply chains for coal and oil? It’s evident that these fossil fuels don’t simply appear without significant logistical efforts. Additionally, it’s important to note the CO2 emissions associated with each: coal at 150 gCO2e/MJ, oil at 140 gCO2e/MJ and LNG at 110 gCO2e/MJ.

[@DeathsGarden-oz9gg]

How hard is it to go to a sewage treatment plant and change it. Like make it produce lots of methan to collect ad a dome or something and not have it open to the air for all smells to leave like they do now.

[@atrumluminarium]

Honestly with manure it's relatively easy and you get fertiliser as a byproduct and gives a use to wasted food that we have so much of in the west. I think the issues will be more related to regulations.

[@NikolaiBeier]

Extracting methane from sewage treatment plants seems to work well several places in Denmark. Sewage seems like a very stable resource to depend on, and thus it is good to invest in this sort of extraction to reduce the need for imported methane.

[@ROHITPRADIPNAIK-mo8pf]

Good content very informative❤❤

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey there! Thanks for your feedback! If you enjoy content like this, consider subscribing to our channel. We release new videos every Friday ✨

[@ROHITPRADIPNAIK-mo8pf]

Done💓

[@moors710]

One alternative for oil producers is to flare the natural gas as the oil in more valuable and stranded gas generally has no net market. A greater LNG market could make less of this gas simply flared into the atmosphere. The gas is flared to prevent methane from going into the atmosphere. Suppressing the consumption could easily lead to much more atmospheric methane by marginal producers in third world countries just vent the gas.

[@jamilaad5387]

Interesting report 👍

[@DWPlanetA]

Glad you enjoyed it! Subscribe to our channel 😉

[@wind-leader_jp]

Using electricity at night when solar power isn't producing electricity is like strangling your children and grandchildren. Carbon dioxide and methane are extremely stable at the molecular level, so it is necessary to reduce them as much as possible. Also, if the LNG is leaking during transportation as shown in this video, I think it has something to do with the fact that the West ordered shipbuilding companies from South Korea and China because they were cheaper. Japan was the first to realize LNG maritime transport, and it has a history of being manufactured by Japanese shipbuilding companies with cutting-edge technology at the time. I read in an article that Japanese technology was passed on to Korea and China due to the difference in labor costs and kindness, and now almost no Japanese companies are able to receive orders. I recently learned that the water temperature in the North Atlantic has been rising over the past year to an extent that researchers cannot understand. It's possible that the suddenly increased number of LNG transport vessels is involved.

[@warrencorcoran9824]

I love LNG. LNG becomes CNG in pipelines, & Now were "Cooking with Gas"

[@lawrenceheyman435]

My country, Australia, as mentioned is a big exporter. I see a role for it, of supplying power when renewables are low. Low solar and wind. But hopefully diminishing to zero. The industry tries to push CCS, but it seems like green-washing

[@wernerderchamp]

It definitly is green-washing. We need to get away from fossil fuels. More than half of the gas is just providing low-level heat.

[@unconventionalideas5683]

I am glad that the US suspended the issuance of permits for new LNG export infrastructure. I think that this is a wise first step to perhaps causing countries to rethink their reliance on LNG.

[@blueyhis.zarsoff1147]

They know the will need it themselves

[@zapfanzapfan]

The already existing permits are enough for a tripling of the export capacity...

[@haysjack6818]

Apparently you think that all countries including poor developing countries where the majority of the worlds population live have the ability to invest the huge sums of money required to develop wind and solar power that the USA has? It is very arrogant and ignorant to think that making energy harder for poor people to have access to plentiful cheap natural Gas so they can improve the quality of life is ok because it does not effect you? Do you actually think that if the countries that need natural Gas will not simply find other sources of natural Gas? Do you actually think it is good that Europe depends on Russia for their Natural Gas? If you lived in a poor country in Africa you would think very differently about having your access to cheap Natural Gas taken away.

[@gardencity3558]

The US already has so much LNG infrastructure so they didn't need it anyway.

[@umeshchittirai]

USA is the biggest LNG exporter and they aren't going to suspend it as currently they have enough production

[@sorinsabau1664]

You lost me at: Rusia stopped gas delivery. Come on...

[@audaxvid]

Admitting to the fact that Russia wanted to continue to sell gas to Germany would mean NATO and allies are actively contributing to excess greenhouse gas emissions. So they have to spin it like Russia cut off the taps. This is how you rewrite history I guess. I’m sure they’ll say Russia blew up the pipeline too. 😂

[@timijosephariyo]

Great video, very detailed and extremely helpful!

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey there! Glad to hear that 😊 If you want to see more videos like these, subscribe to us ✨ we publish every Friday.

[@shawnz3307]

CH4 is definitely needed to be tracked, including emissions from stock farming.

[@shantanusapru]

Excellent video!!

[@DWPlanetA]

Thank you! We post videos like this one every week. Subscribe to our channel to not miss any of these.

[@shantanusapru]

@@DWPlanetA Already do.

[@chiraldude]

As a whole bunch of people have already commented, most countries have refused to expand nuclear power. Nuclear should have been the bridge between fossil fuels and buildup of renewable infrastructure. Without nuclear, natural gas is the next best option. Eventually, solar, wind and geothermal will replace fossil fuels.

[@ensalzado]

In my opinion, there are many flaws in this piece: 1. the only advocate for LNG seemed to be insecure, so I guess that the editing department did a nice job of choosing more “interesting” frame for the narrative. 2. None of those specialist are living in emerging countries where the renewable sources are not implement or the technology is not there. Nobody wants to live without electricity and it is very nice to say that others need to adjust sitting in your apartment with no interruptions in your utilities. A bigger emphasis on technology transfer to emerging countries should be made, so they skip the LNG stage, to facilitate solar and wind power generation. Those companies also want profit and do not reduce their prices to help fighting climate change. 3. in science or engineering there is no 100% certainty of anything. Coal has other effects related to public health, in particular solid particles, so it is just naive to say we need all certainty before we change to LNG. 4. This expansion of LNG terminals also is meant to replace existing ones. It seems unnecessary to say that the lifespan of these terminals is 20 years; which industrial equipment is designed for less? so, this is just stating a normal fact as a cumbersome plot to keep dominance.

[@masamiyaleco]

DW: Germany should stop importing LNG! German electricity should be left up or down to the wind!

[@dasbaniprasad]

And then your industry will end like the wind - from a methane fart😂

[@tombarry2523]

Methane can be converted to hydrogen. The carbon left behind is in powder form. Hydrogen can then be chilled and transported just like LNG. It’s definitely more challenging to transport due to its lower boiling point compared to methane but it is possible.

[@danielgospodinov5786]

We use fuels for production. If our TV, Phone, Printer, Car and all in between are long lasting and reparable not made for one time use. Then we don't need so much fuel of any kind.

[@PopeBenedictXVIHollyman]

As of today, 84% of all electricity generated worldwide come from either coal, gas or oil. Nuclear and Hydro count for 6% each. Only 4% come from wind or solar, and they have serious limitations and high cost. So, hydrocarbon are there to stay, as a major source of power for electricity for the next 100 years, before we found some replacement, if we ever find.

[@AganKunic-mi4pi]

LNG is just another product from the O&G industry, selling it as a ‘green’ alternative to oil or coal. But coal doesn’t need to be cryogenically converted from a gas to a liquid that requires huge amounts of electricity. It’s carbon footprint is gargantuan

[@shaqisumari304]

Thanks for sparing Malaysia,

[@brentfrank7012]

Those that talk about turning off oil & gas as the future are always rushing this change. It’s not a quick process, it’s going to take generations to make the change. LNG might be the final fuel we depend on as we transition into hydrogen,solar, wind and geothermal. But don’t build the climate forecasts and think that just because you wish it to change in 30 years it’s actually going to happen. 🇺🇸

[@metrotrujillo]

russia did not shut down the pipes, europe did and now buys more expensive russian gas...via india...

[@popandbob]

Near the end it says renewables will replace gas... but this just isn't true yet. Wind and Solar are just not reliable enough, and storage batteries are too high of a climate impact currently to install. There is an alternative however - Biogas. If we can create more natural gas using non fossil fuel sources then why can we not continue to use natural gas in the future? Yes it has challenges such as leaks but that can be fixed and monitored whereas wind&Solar need new technologies to exist to be reliable enough to fully replace gas. Up here in Alberta where we produce 2/3rds of Canada's wind and solar, we just about had a major grid outage during a -40 cold snap because it was cloudy and the wind wasn't blowing. The on grid battery storage facilities we had also failed in the cold. So until there is a reliable solution to store wind & solar power on a large scale - natural gas will continue to be the baseload power here.

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey there! We tackled the production and challenges of energy from biomass in another video in detail 👉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/jonYYmiEobSofdE

[@jeffallen4377]

The infrastructure is being built out in the USA and there are long-term environmental consequences. Really, putting in renewable energy infrastructure is about the same cost, and it does not pollute. I do not know the answer, but I would like to see studies look at methods to transition the LNG world to liquid hydrogen, liquid air or something similar to move energy around the world. If the source does not pollute the atmosphere, water or land, we will all benefit.

[@marcelo.griebeler]

I missed an analysis to whether the LNG infrastructure can be repurposed for hydrogen. I don't know regarding the transport and storing (H2 is usually very tricky to deal with) but I heard that the natural gas power plants that are being built in Germany will be convertible to hydrogen. Nonetheless, great content as usual from the Planet A team!

[@MrRobertjparsons]

Most LNG and natural gas infrastructure cannot be used for hydrogen as the H molecules embrittle iron and steel pipes and components causing them to fail. Much work needed to make H a viable fuel for most applications. Also it's incredibly expensive (Cupertino CA price of $33 per kg, or about $120 per gallon last month)

[@yankee3698]

One argument that is often times broad forward when it comes to gas and LNG investments (that is not found in this particular video) is that it is "H2-ready" or at least that it is easy to convert the infrastructure to one that can handle hydrogen instead. Theoretically it does seem to make sense, but how credible is it that this switch will take place and be globally complete before 2045-2070 (the timeframe in which many countries pledge to become carbon neutral). It seems like this makes only sense if at the same time there is MASSIVE investments in getting the H2 production up and running. Of course there are such investments (see e.g. Hyphen Hydrogen Energy) however what will I see if I look at the planned expansion of export capacity of LNG for the next 20-30 years and the planned construction of green hydrogen export capacity? How difficult will it actually be to convert the infrastructure?

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey there! A Fraunhofer analysis found that about 50 percent of initial LNG capital expenditures could be reused when hydrogen compatible materials are already being used in the initial construction of the LNG terminal. So, it is yet to see how expensive the retrofitting for hydrogen is going to be and how it will work out.

[@jimthain8777]

My country (Canada) is a major producer of fossil fuels, including LNG. Most people here are blissfully unaware that we are a top 10 fossil fuels producer. Our governments *attempts* at addressing climate change amount to little more than green washing. They know full well what pays for their political campaigns. So relying on governments or large businesses to help us is literally asking the fox to help the chickens. We citizens are on our own in this fight, and until we realize it is OUR dollars, euros, pesos, etc, that fund all this madness; the madness will only get worse. YOU hold the key, (quite literally) because every dollar you give them will be used against you. So IF you actually want to see action on climate change YOU personally have to do something. No one else is going to do it for you. People have to realize that each and every one of us has the choice to use these fuels or not to use these fuels. If enough people of all walks of life even just reduced their personal use of fossil fuels it would make a surprising difference. If business people of all kinds did just a little bit to reduce, it would multiply the effect of those private citizens. The choice is before you right now.

[@dr.saritgreendas3105]

LNG is very very critical for Sustainable Development in a era of Climate Change. Before the industrial dynamics set forth, a comprehensive assesment on methane leakage should be carried out to make better policies.

[@trs4u]

We're only liquifying it because we're shipping it so far. Japan is attempting to synthesise net zero methane for domestic capture. The North Sea countries of Europe should do it using offshore wind to pipe (unliquified) to the rest of Europe. The thing about gas is that it stores vast amounts of energy in compressible volumes, so continuing to run our fallback electricity generation and economies off e-gas makes sense. The risk in e-LNG is that it makes renewable resources more globally tradable, which allows global markets too much leverage over intrinsically local renewables opportunities.

[@wuestenfuchs1]

The real irony is that Germany prefers buying expensive shale gas from other countries and transporting it across the world causing more CO2 emissions, when it has its own cheaply extractable shale gas reserves in Germany..

[@DataScienceDIY]

Nuclear is still far cleaner than LNG or Coal, and is not being developed due to high construction costs.

[@muhammadyunan2811]

And after China and Russia take control the nuclear technology the europe start share propaganda nuclear plant not save

[@douglasdangelo6755]

Methane is produced from literally all organic matter breaking down. From forests, compost piles, fields, garbage dumps, cemetaries and everything in between. It is not an issue

[@sylvainliu]

doesn't building renewables create co2 emissions?

[@CandleWisp]

Everything does. But much, much less. NREL made a study about it, calculating their impact from manufacturing to disposal. Solar 49g of Co2 equivalent per MWH Gas 500g Coal 1000g Source: NREL Lifecycle Harmonisation

[@hws888]

Get some really knowledgeable people, not wannabe NGO, academics. The guy from GIIGNL was given less than a minute in all show. The gas industry is full of people who are willing to talk. One missing point is the financial structure of the LNG market. Stranded assets become stranded only if the EU wants them to become stranded and then they will socialize the losses via universal (EU) carbon tax. Same mechanism we see in California with consumers paying for "stranded assests" shut down by governmental actions

[@anomamos9095]

The big thing that everyone seems to ignore is the word Natural in natural gas. This gas is the product of the decomposition of biological material and unless the planet turns into an absolute inert rock there will always be natural gas entering the atmosphere. The vast majority of methane entering the atmosphere comes entirely from natural sources without any human involvement whatsoever. Much of the gas humans capture and or extract would have found its way into the atmosphere without human involvement. Methane is supposed to be a worse GHG than c02, methane eventually oxidises and becomes c02 and water vapour anyway. So as from a minimising harm point of view it is far better we capture it and burn it than simply letting it escape. But the biggest problem humanity faces is the gullible fools who think a harmless gas like c02 can actually cause global climate change. The earth does not work like a laboratory experiment and it is too big for even the most powerful computers to create an anywhere near accurate model (even if they weren’t programmed with the desired outcome predetermined). Current c02 levels are about 0.04% past c02 levels have been as high as 7.0% and an ice age happened. If the bogus claims about c02 were even half true that ice age would never have happened and we’d be living on Venus right now.

[@bryancampbell9622]

There is a lot more use for natural gas than most people think. The shipping industry needs to find cleaner fuels to use. LNG so far is a good candidate for a future shipping fuel. Unless the industry can manage to get an engine design to use ammonia commercially. Which is made using natural gas. If the climate will make farming more difficult in certain areas it will have to be done using less land. This will require us to use more fertilizer, and nitrogen based fertilizer is made from natural gas. With the amount of mining required for the energy transition's need for more powerlines to bring electricity from renewables to populations, it is doubtful that can be done in time. During that transition time baseload plants such as natural gas plants can provide power during low renewable output times. Until we can get the proper high voltage direct current lines to take advantage of longer distances to spread the risk of an outage, we will need them. And considering the third world isn't expected to go carbon neutral until 2100, they will need inexpensive energy in the mean time. Are these forecasts expecting the third world to continue to be poor? If their economies improve their energy usage will increase.

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey Bryan! Ammonia Shipping is a big topic and we actually tackle that in one of our videos the next two weeks. Subscribe to our channel to be notified and let us know what you think ✨

[@bogdanmarkovic]

Although gross CO2 emissions might be equal to burning coal, big part of it is generated outside of country where it is finally burned (used). For governments that want to show how green their country is this is win win situation. Undeniably burning gas is greener than coal so if half of gross CO2 is released thousands kilometres away from you why should that government care when their only goal is to show how green is their country, not the world. It is same as with electric cars. You still need "dirty" power plants to charge them, but at least they don't release most of CO2 directly in your city but rather somewhere far away where power plant resides. In most cases its just a matter of where emissions are released rather than how much.

[@tomkelly8827]

My country, Canada is looking at exporting LNG to Europe. I rather see the gas being used rather than flared off at oil wells. It is more difficult to transport than oil or liquid fuels but the clean burning part is good. Since Natural Gas is a natural product of decomposition, I wonder how much is being released by our oceans naturally? Obviously leaking gas is bad for profit margins so companies will be on that but I wonder how big of an issue leaks actually are. Also I always say domestic fuel is the best fuel

[@nottenvironmental6208]

So the gas owners say stop using fossil fuels by increasing fossil gas use? Supporting competition of jobs future, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Sane or not 🤔

[@zukacs]

All countries who massively benefitied from industrilization should put down their share towards prosperity of the planet

[@saginaw60]

You do not mention "flaring" , when off shore oil rigs simply burn gas @ 100% waste to get oil out.

[@axelsluis34]

In the Netherlands we build LNG terminals that can at a later state be refitted to receive hydrogen for ouer industry

[@wernerderchamp]

Its also planned to refit the German terminals for hydrogen or ammonia.

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey Axel! Yes, if considered when builing the LNG terminal, parts of the terminal can be used for hydrogen. However, a Fraunhofer study shows that the adapting to be used for hydrogen still poses very high costs.

[@sailflydriverobert2700]

Saving on energy is the future. On all levels of the society and industry. And up to now, there's hardly anyone saving. And with saving, I mean, instead of replacing a light bulb in the room by replacing it with 4-6 LED's, imported from China, you'd better switch off the light first and start thinking...in the dark. Everything you buy nowadays comes with a power cord. What was done manually in the past, is now electrically powered. Insulate against heat, not against cold. I've been working for decades in tropical regions worldwide, nowhere I saw a modern building insulated against the heat, but A/C's were running everywhere at full power. Even in the most developed tropical counties and cities, there is zero insulation in modern buildings. With the exception of a few buildings in the Emirates. With global warming, the tropical regions become even hotter. And more A/C's will be needed with higher energy consumption as a result. Electric energy produced out of LNG? Since mankind uses energy, mankind is in energy transition, continuously. Think at least 1-2 steps further into the future to tackle the issue. The new worship should be based on thermodynamics and physics, more sustainable than any other religion and it might keep child birth rates within limits.

[@logancarter2134]

LNG is so much cleaner than coal. China and India are the biggest, by far, polluters on the planet. When they catch up with the USA on emissions we can have a discussion about how to proceed. Wind and solar energy is too unreliable and expensive to be serious replacements for LNG. Nuclear energy has a place in the grand scheme of things but it's expensive and very complicated and the waste it produces is a big problem.

[@briangriffiths1285]

The only good thing that has come out of the Russian attack on Ukraine has been the reduction in gas consumption in Europe. The conservation of expensive energy has been massive, so has the commitment to renewables. Looking forward to the UK electricity generation being carbon free in 2026/7. Not completely but for much of the time.