1 / 30

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Dutch Natural Gas Industry

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

jgoodin
Download Presentation

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Dutch Natural Gas Industry

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Greenhouse GasEmissions of the DutchNatural Gas Industry Doreen Wunderlich

  2. 1 Motivation 2 3 Methane and CO2-equivalent emissions 4 Conclusions Emissions from the Dutch Industry

  3. Motivation

  4. 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%

  5. 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

  6. Imperial College London, 2015: • indication of emission estimates • found in 240 papers • GHG emissions in gCO2eq/MJ • Methane loss rate

  7. 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

  8. Emissions from the Dutch Industry

  9. 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

  10. Exploration/Production/Processing: e-MJV

  11. Exploration/Production/Processing:

  12. Exploration/Production/Processing:

  13. Exploration/Production/Processing:

  14. Transmission and Storage: 2013 2014 2015 2016 CO2 emissions:

  15. Distribution: CH4 emissions: CO2 emissions: from NIR reports: 0.18 ktonne in 2013-2015

  16. Methane and CO2-equivalent emissions

  17. Carbon footprint GHG emissions across the entire supply chain 2.0 gCO2eq/MJ 1.4 gCO2eq/MJ = 86 = 86 = 34 = 34

  18. Carbon footprint Comparison to Balcombe et al. 42 gCO2eq/MJ (HHV) 2 gCO2eq/MJ (HHV) 1.4 gCO2eq/MJ

  19. Carbon footprint

  20. Methane only emissions > 70% reduction TNO, 1995: 148 (98) ktonne

  21. Methane loss rate 10 % Hayhoe et al. Balcombe et al. 0.2 %

  22. Conclusions

  23. 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 ?

  24. 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)

  25. BUT . . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear

  26. BUT . . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear • exact emission sources

  27. BUT . . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear • which emission sources • neglecting insignificant sources by DSO (and other companies ?)

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. What is needed: completeness transparency independent auditing

More Related