[ad_1]
NEW YORK, Aug. 31 (AP) As winter approaches, European countries desperate to replace the gas they once bought from Russia have embraced a short-term solution: A series of about 20 floating terminals will receive from other countries liquefied natural gas and converted it into heating fuel.
However, plans for the first floating terminal to deliver gas by the end of the year have alarmed scientists, who fear long-term consequences for the environment.
Also read | Two boys from Kerala drowned in Irish lake after going out for a swim.
They warned that the terminals would perpetuate Europe’s reliance on natural gas, which releases climate-warming methane and carbon dioxide as it is produced, transported and burned.
Some scientists say they are concerned that floating docks will end up being a long-term supplier to Europe’s huge energy needs, which could last for years, if not decades.
Also read | Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has died at the age of 91.
The trend could hamper emissions reduction efforts, which experts say are not moving fast enough to slow the damage to the global environment.
Most of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) Europe wants to get is expected to come from the United States.
The demand came after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted its ties with Europe and cut off most of the gas Moscow has long provided.
On the U.S. Gulf Coast, export terminals are expanding, and many residents are concerned about an increase in natural gas drilling and the resulting loss of land and extreme weather changes associated with burning fossil fuels.
“Building this massive LNG infrastructure will keep the world dependent on fossil fuels and continued climate disruption for decades to come,” said MIT climate scientist John Sterman.
Natural gas contributes significantly to climate change—whether it turns into carbon dioxide when burned, or leaks through methane, a more potent greenhouse gas.
However, the European country, which has been a leader in switching to cleaner energy for years, has proposed to bring more than 20 floating LNG terminals into its ports to help make up for the loss of Russian gas.
Towering over the homes and extending nearly 1,000 feet (304 meters), the terminals can store about 6 billion cubic feet (170,000 cubic meters) of LNG and convert it into natural gas for homes and businesses.
According to the International Gas Union, they can be built faster and cheaper than onshore import terminals, despite their higher operating costs.
“Every country needs to prepare for a possible reduction in Russian supply,” said Rystad Energy analyst Nikoline Bromander. “If you’re dependent, you need to have a backup plan.”
Many environmental scientists believe that the money spent on building these ships — which cost about $500 million each, according to Rystad — is best spent on rapid adoption of clean energy or improved energy efficiency to reduce energy consumption.
Building more solar or wind farms will take years but won’t replace Russian gas immediately. But Sterman suggested that, if well-funded, improving the energy efficiency of homes, buildings and factories, as well as the deployment of wind, solar and other technologies, could drastically reduce Europe’s need to replace all of its lost gas.
According to Global Energy Monitor, Germany is one of Europe’s strongest supporters of floating LNG terminals, with five ships expected, and has pledged about 3 billion euros for it.
Germany also approved a law to speed up terminal development, suspending environmental assessment requirements.
It’s a move that has plagued environmental groups.
“It is clear,” asserts Sascha Müller-Kraenner, CEO of German Environmental Action, “that the legal provisions were developed in close dialogue with the gas industry”.
The German government and the energy industry have defended their embrace of LNG terminals as an emergency response to the loss of much of the Russian gas they have long received, which they fear Moscow will shut down entirely.
In a statement, the German energy industry association BDEW said: “In this exceptional situation, which concerns the security of gas supply in Germany, it is reasonable to speed up the approval process.”
Susanne Ungrad, a spokeswoman for the German Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy, pointed out that exporting countries such as the United States are working to reduce methane emissions.
She said that in advancing the construction of LNG terminals, European authorities will conduct a comprehensive assessment.
Greig Aitken, an analyst at Global Energy Monitor, noted that a terminal that is about to open near Gdansk, Poland, has already signed contracts with U.S. LNG suppliers that will last beyond 2030.
This could make it difficult for the EU to meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030.
According to Rystad Energy, Italy, Greece, France, the Netherlands, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom all plan to build one or more floating LNG terminals.
Proponents argue that, in some cases, the ships could help environmental causes. For example, they point out that communities in Germany and elsewhere have been burning coal, which typically produces more emissions than natural gas, as supplies of Russian gas have dwindled. Increasing the supply of natural gas will make this less necessary.
Still, methane leaks regularly along the natural gas supply chain. So in some cases, the net climate effect of burning natural gas may not be better than coal.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that continued use of existing fossil fuel infrastructure will lead to global warming of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
At this level, high temperatures are expected to exacerbate climate change-induced flash floods, extreme heat, intense hurricanes, and longer-lasting wildfires, with loss of life.
“It’s a little frustrating to see Europe, with so much energy and action and bold emissions targets, double down on fossil fuel infrastructure in this particular way,” said Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at Brown University.
Three new export terminals are under construction in the United States, Europe’s largest LNG export market. Eleven additional terminals and four expansion projects are in the planning stages.
Some export terminals that have struggled to attract financing are now seeing more investment and interest, said longtime energy analyst Ira Joseph.
“What you’ve seen over the past two months — they’re signing the sale and purchase agreement, left and right,” Joseph said.
For example, Next Decade’s proposed export terminal in Brownsville, Texas, Rio Grande LNG, appeared to stall last year amid environmental protests. But this spring, a French company, Engie, signed long-term contracts to buy LNG from terminals with several Asian customers.
Now, Next Decade says it may get all the financing it needs.
Scarcity of natural gas in Europe has pushed up global LNG prices, leading buyers in China and elsewhere to sign long-term contracts with U.S. suppliers.
Rystad analyst Bromander said U.S. LNG exports could rise by 10 million tonnes next year.
Floating LNG ships are being promoted as a short-term solution to keep gas flowing for several years while building clean energy sources like wind and solar.
But critics say a ship that lasts for decades is unlikely to cease operations permanently after a few years.
Once floating terminals are built, they can be used anywhere in the world. So if European countries no longer need floating LNG terminals as they transition to clean energy, the ships could sail to another port, essentially locking in gas use for decades.
In some cases, notably in Germany, some proposed floating docks appear to be paving the way for the construction of land-based docks that will last 30 or 40 years — far more than countries should burn fossil fuels, environmental groups say.
“After the war, as we all hope, peace is restored, are they really going to say, oh, let’s take it to the scrapyard?” Sterman asked. “They wouldn’t do that.” (AP)
(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from the Syndicated News feed, the body of the content may not have been modified or edited by LatestLY staff)
[ad_2]
Source link
