The expansion of natural gas infrastructure puts energy transitions at risk
Source abstract
Abstract
Whether additional natural gas infrastructure is needed or would be detrimental to achieving climate protection goals is currently highly controversial. Here we combine five perspectives to argue why expansion of the natural gas infrastructure hinders a renewable energy future and is no bridge technology. We highlight that natural gas is a fossil fuel with a significantly underestimated climate impact that hinders decarbonization through carbon lock-in and stranded assets. We propose five ways to avoid common shortcomings for countries that are developing strategies for greenhouse gas reduction: manage methane emissions of the entire natural gas value chain, revise assumptions of scenario analyses with new research insights on greenhouse gas emissions related to natural gas, replace the ‘bridge’ narrative with unambiguous decarbonization criteria, avoid additional natural gas lock-ins and methane leakage, and take climate-related risks in energy infrastructure planning seriously.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Global Energy and Sustainability Research · Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics · Global Energy Security and Policy
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (91)
Show source-provided references
1. Natural Gas Information: Overview (IEA, 2021); https://www.iea.org/reports/natural-gas-information-overview
2. Peters, G. P. et al. Carbon dioxide emissions continue to grow amidst slowly emerging climate policies. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 3–6 (2020).10.1038/s41558-019-0659-6 ↗
3. Tanaka, K., Cavalett, O., Collins, W. J. & Cherubini, F. Asserting the climate benefits of the coal-to-gas shift across temporal and spatial scales. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 389–396 (2019).10.1038/s41558-019-0457-1 ↗
4. Wilson, I. A. G. & Staffell, I. Rapid fuel switching from coal to natural gas through effective carbon pricing. Nat. Energy 3, 365–372 (2018).10.1038/s41560-018-0109-0 ↗
5. Are We Entering a Golden Age of Gas? (IEA, 2011); https://www.iea.org/news/iea-special-report-explores-potential-for-golden-age-of-natural-gas
6. World Electric Power Plants Data Base (S&P Global Market Intelligence, 2021); https://datasets.wri.org/dataset/globalpowerplantdatabase
7. Global Gas Infrastructure Tracker: Summary Tables (Global Energy Monitor, accessed 23 May 2022); https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-gas-infrastructure-tracker/summary-tables/
8. Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Beschleunigung des Einsatzes verflüssigten Erdgases (LNG-Beschleunigungsgesetz—LNGG) (Deutscher Bundestag, 2022).
9. Fitzgerald, L. M., Braunger, I. & Brauers, H. Destabilisation of Sustainable Energy Transformations: Analysing Natural Gas Lock-in in the case of Germany STEPS Working Paper 106 (IDS, 2019).
10. Howarth, R. W. A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas. Energy Sci. Eng. 2, 47–60 (2014).10.1002/ese3.35 ↗
11. Alvarez, R. A., Pacala, S. W., Winebrake, J. J., Chameides, W. L. & Hamburg, S. P. Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 6435–6440 (2012).10.1073/pnas.1202407109 ↗
12. Zhang, X., Myhrvold, N. P. & Caldeira, K. Key factors for assessing climate benefits of natural gas versus coal electricity generation. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 114022 (2014).10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/114022 ↗
13. Qin, Y. et al. Air quality–carbon–water synergies and trade-offs in China’s natural gas industry. Nat. Sustain. 1, 505–511 (2018).10.1038/s41893-018-0136-7 ↗
14. Schwietzke, S. et al. Upward revision of global fossil fuel methane emissions based on isotope database. Nature 538, 88–91 (2016).10.1038/nature19797 ↗
15. Hmiel, B. et al. Preindustrial 14CH4 indicates greater anthropogenic fossil CH4 emissions. Nature 578, 409–412 (2020).10.1038/s41586-020-1991-8 ↗
16. MacKay, K. et al. Methane emissions from upstream oil and gas production in Canada are underestimated. Sci. Rep. 11, 8041 (2021).10.1038/s41598-021-87610-3 ↗
17. Alvarez, R. A. et al. Assessment of methane emissions from the US oil and gas supply chain. Science 361, 186–188 (2018).10.1126/science.aar7204 ↗
18. Schwietzke, S., Griffin, W. M., Matthews, H. S. & Bruhwiler, L. M. P. Natural gas fugitive emissions rates constrained by global atmospheric methane and ethane. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 7714–7722 (2014).10.1021/es501204c ↗
19. Hausfather, Z. Bounding the climate viability of natural gas as a bridge fuel to displace coal. Energy Policy 86, 286–294 (2015).10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.012 ↗
20. Caulton, D. R. et al. Toward a better understanding and quantification of methane emissions from shale gas development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6237–6242 (2014).10.1073/pnas.1316546111 ↗
21. Brandt, A. R. et al. Methane leaks from North American natural gas systems. Science 343, 733–735 (2014).10.1126/science.1247045 ↗
22. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al. Improving Characterization of Anthropogenic Methane Emissions in the United States (National Academies Press, 2018); https://doi.org/10.17226/2498710.17226/24987 ↗
23. Zavala-Araiza, D. et al. Super-emitters in natural gas infrastructure are caused by abnormal process conditions. Nat. Commun. 8, 14012 (2017).10.1038/ncomms14012 ↗
24. Shindell, D. T. et al. Improved attribution of climate forcing to emissions. Science 326, 716–718 (2009).10.1126/science.1174760 ↗
25. Myhre, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds. Stocker, T. F. et al.) 659–740 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
26. Saunois, M., Jackson, R. B., Bousquet, P., Poulter, B. & Canadell, J. G. The growing role of methane in anthropogenic climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 120207 (2016).10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/120207 ↗
27. Zhang, X., Myhrvold, N. P., Hausfather, Z. & Caldeira, K. Climate benefits of natural gas as a bridge fuel and potential delay of near-zero energy systems. Appl. Energy 167, 317–322 (2016).10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.016 ↗
28. Lenton, T. M. et al. Climate tipping points—too risky to bet against. Nature 575, 592–595 (2019).10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0 ↗
29. Cherp, A., Vinichenko, V., Jewell, J., Brutschin, E. & Sovacool, B. Integrating techno-economic, socio-technical and political perspectives on national energy transitions: a meta-theoretical framework. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37, 175–190 (2018).10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.015 ↗
30. Grubler, A. Energy transitions research: insights and cautionary tales. Energy Policy 50, 8–16 (2012).10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.070 ↗
31. Hoffart, F. M., Schmitt, E.-J. & Roos, M. Rethinking economic energy policy research—developing qualitative scenarios to identify feasible energy policies. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 9, 1–28 (2021).10.13044/j.sdewes.d8.0331 ↗
32. ten Kate, W, van den Noort, A., Vos, M & Özgün, O. European Carbon Neutrality: The Importance of Gas—a Study for Eurogas Report No. OGNL.180049 (DNV GL, 2020); https://www.europeangashub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/DNV-GL-Eurogas-Report-Reaching-European-Carbon-Neutrality-Full-Report.pdf
33. Höglund-Isaksson, L., Winiwarter, W., Purohit, P. & Gomez-Sanabria, A. Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the EU-28 from 2005 to 2050: Final GAINS Reference Scenario (IIASA, 2016); https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep15805
34. Submission under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol 2021 (German Environment Agency, 2021); https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/5750/publikationen/2021-05-19_cc_44-2021_nir_2021_0.pdf
35. Keyßer, L. T. & Lenzen, M. 1.5 °C degrowth scenarios suggest the need for new mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 12, 2676 (2021).10.1038/s41467-021-22884-9 ↗
36. Bauer, C. et al. On the climate impacts of blue hydrogen production. Sustain. Energy Fuels 6, 66–75 (2022).10.1039/D1SE01508G ↗
37. Howarth, R. W. & Jacobson, M. Z. How green is blue hydrogen? Energy Sci. Eng. 9, 1676–1687 (2021).10.1002/ese3.956 ↗
38. Ocko, I. B. & Hamburg, S. P. Climate consequences of hydrogen leakage. Preprint at https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-91/ (2022).
39. Hormaza Mejia, A., Brouwer, J. & Mac Kinnon, M. Hydrogen leaks at the same rate as natural gas in typical low-pressure gas infrastructure. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45, 8810–8826 (2020).10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.159 ↗
40. Hansen, K., Breyer, C. & Lund, H. Status and perspectives on 100% renewable energy systems. Energy 175, 471–480 (2019).10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.092 ↗
41. Mathiesen, B. V. et al. Smart energy systems for coherent 100% renewable energy and transport solutions. Appl. Energy 145, 139–154 (2015).10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.075 ↗
42. Schubert, D. K. J., Thuß, S. & Möst, D. Does political and social feasibility matter in energy scenarios? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 7, 43–54 (2015).10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.003 ↗
43. Clack, C. T. M. et al. Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6722–6727 (2017).10.1073/pnas.1610381114 ↗
44. Shaner, M. R., Davis, S. J., Lewis, N. S. & Caldeira, K. Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States. Energy Environ. Sci. 11, 914–925 (2018).10.1039/C7EE03029K ↗
45. Denholm, P. et al. The challenges of achieving a 100% renewable electricity system in the United States. Joule 5, 1331–1352 (2021).10.1016/j.joule.2021.03.028 ↗
46. Williams, J. H. et al. Carbon‐neutral pathways for the United States. AGU Adv. 2, e2020AV000284 (2021).10.1029/2020AV000284 ↗
47. McGlade, C., Pye, S., Ekins, P., Bradshaw, M. & Watson, J. The future role of natural gas in the UK: a bridge to nowhere? Energy Policy 113, 454–465 (2018).10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.022 ↗
48. Jones, M. D., Shanahan, E. A. & McBeth, M. K. The Science of Stories (Palgrave Macmillan US, 2014).10.1057/9781137485861 ↗
49. Hermwille, L. The role of narratives in socio-technical transitions—Fukushima and the energy regimes of Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 237–246 (2016).10.1016/j.erss.2015.11.001 ↗
50. Lovins, A. B. Energy strategy: the road not taken? Foreign Aff. 6, 9–19 (1976).
51. Wilson, C L. Coal: Bridge to the Future—Report of the World Coal Study, WOCOL (Ballinger, 1980).
52. Delborne, J. A., Hasala, D., Wigner, A. & Kinchy, A. Dueling metaphors, fueling futures: ‘Bridge fuel’ visions of coal and natural gas in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 61, 101350 (2020).10.1016/j.erss.2019.101350 ↗
53. von Hirschhausen, C., Kemfert, C. & Praeger, F. Fossil natural gas exit—a new narrative for the European energy transformation towards decarbonization. Econ. Energy Environ. Pol. https://doi.org/10.5547/2160-5890.10.2.chir (2021).10.5547/2160-5890.10.2.chir ↗
54. Safari, A., Das, N., Langhelle, O., Roy, J. & Assadi, M. Natural gas: a transition fuel for sustainable energy system transformation?. Energy Sci. Eng. 7, 1075–1094 (2019).10.1002/ese3.380 ↗
55. Dickel, R. Blue hydrogen as an enabler of green hydrogen: the case of Germany. OIES https://doi.org/10.26889/9781784671594 (2020).10.26889/9781784671594 ↗
56. Sánchez-Bastardo, N., Schlögl, R. & Ruland, H. Methane pyrolysis for zero-emission hydrogen production: a potential bridge technology from fossil fuels to a renewable and sustainable hydrogen economy. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 60, 11855–11881 (2021).10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01679 ↗
57. Gürsan, C. & de Gooyert, V. The systemic impact of a transition fuel: does natural gas help or hinder the energy transition? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 138, 110552 (2021).10.1016/j.rser.2020.110552 ↗
58. Unruh, G. C. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28, 817–830 (2000).10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00070-7 ↗
59. Seto, K. C. et al. Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 425–452 (2016).10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085934 ↗
60. Tong, D. et al. Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target. Nature 572, 373–377 (2019).10.1038/s41586-019-1364-3 ↗
61. Serkin, C. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Prospective grandfathering: anticipating the energy transition problem. Minn. Law Rev. 102, 1019–1076 (2018).
62. van Renssen, S. The hydrogen solution? Nat. Clim. Change 10, 799–801 (2020).10.1038/s41558-020-0891-0 ↗
63. A Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe (European Commission, 2020); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1594897267722&uri=CELEX:52020DC0301
64. Hydrogen’s Hidden Emissions—Shell’s Misleading Climate Claims for its Canadian Fossil Hydrogen Project (Global Witness, 2022); https://www.globalwitness.org/documents/20314/Hydrogens_hidden_emissions_-_January_2022.pdf
65. Sun, P. et al. Criteria Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Hydrogen Production in U.S. Steam Methane Reforming Facilities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 7103–7113 (2019).10.1021/acs.est.8b06197 ↗
66. The Future of Hydrogen - Seizing Today’s Opportunities (IEA, 2019); https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/8ab96d80-f2a5-4714-8eb5-7d3c157599a4/English-Future-Hydrogen-ES.pdf
67. Ueckerdt, F. et al. Potential and risks of hydrogen-based e-fuels in climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 384–393 (2021).10.1038/s41558-021-01032-7 ↗
68. Löffler, K., Burandt, T., Hainsch, K. & Oei, P.-Y. Modeling the low-carbon transition of the European energy system - A quantitative assessment of the stranded assets problem. Energy Strategy Rev. 26, 100422 (2019).10.1016/j.esr.2019.100422 ↗
69. Caldecott, B. et al. Stranded assets: a climate risk challenge. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Stranded-Assets-A-Climate-Risk-Challenge.pdf (2016).10.18235/0000517 ↗
70. Smith, C. J. et al. Current fossil fuel infrastructure does not yet commit us to 1.5 °C warming. Nat. Commun. 10, 101 (2019).10.1038/s41467-018-07999-w ↗
71. Mercure, J.-F. et al. Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 588–593 (2018).10.1038/s41558-018-0182-1 ↗
72. Sen, S. & von Schickfus, M.-T. Climate policy, stranded assets, and investors’ expectations. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 100, 102277 (2020).10.1016/j.jeem.2019.102277 ↗
73. ECB. Guide on climate-related and environmental risks https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/legalframework/publiccons/pdf/climate-related_risks/ssm.202005_draft_guide_on_climate-related_and_environmental_risks.en.pdf (2020).
74. BaFin. Guidance Notice on Dealing with Sustainability Risks https://www.bafin.de/dok/13470418 (2020).
75. Monasterolo, I., Battiston, S., Janetos, A. C. & Zheng, Z. Vulnerable yet relevant: the two dimensions of climate-related financial disclosure. Clim. Change 145, 495–507 (2017).10.1007/s10584-017-2095-9 ↗
76. Loew, T. et al. Corporate reporting on climate-related risks. Key findings of a German survey for decision-makers and multipliers https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/5750/publikationen/reporting-climate-related-risks-survey-summary-2021-02-01.pdf (2021).
77. Carbon Tracker Initiative. Unburnable Carbon: Are the World’s Financial Markets Carrying a Carbon Bubble? https://carbontracker.org/reports/carbon-bubble (2011).
78. Batten, S., Sowerbutts, R. & Tanaka, M. Let’s Talk About the Weather: The Impact of Climate Change on Central Banks Bank of England Working Paper No. 603 (Bank of England, 2016); https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.278375310.2139/ssrn.2783753 ↗
79. Mercure, J.-F. et al. Reframing incentives for climate policy action. Nat. Energy 6, 1133–1143 (2021).10.1038/s41560-021-00934-2 ↗
80. 2 Degrees of Separation—Transition Risk for Oil and Gas in a Low Carbon World (Carbon Tracker Initiative, 2017); https://carbontracker.org/reports/2-degrees-of-separation-transition-risk-for-oil-and-gas-in-a-low-carbon-world-2/
81. Methane Tracker 2021 (IEA, 2021); https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2021
82. Ansari, D. & Holz, F. Between stranded assets and green transformation: fossil-fuel-producing developing countries towards 2055. World Dev. 130, 104947 (2020).10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104947 ↗
83. van der Ploeg, F. & Rezai, A. Stranded assets in the transition to a carbon-free economy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12, 281–298 (2020).10.1146/annurev-resource-110519-040938 ↗
84. Wilson, D. Quantifying and comparing fuel-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions. Energy Policy 18, 550–562 (1990).10.1016/0301-4215(90)90206-J ↗
85. Tie, X. & Mroz, E. J. The potential changes of methane due to an assumed increased use of natural gas: a global three-dimensional model study. Chemosphere 26, 769–776 (1993).10.1016/0045-6535(93)90459-I ↗
86. Dobson, S., Goodday, V. & Winter, J. If it matters, measure it: a review of methane sources and mitigation policy in Canada. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3850984 (2021).10.2139/ssrn.3850984 ↗
87. Caldecott, B. & McDaniels, J. Stranded Generation Assets: Implications for European Capacity Mechanism, Energy Markets and Climate Policy (SSEE, 2014); https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:d1bd59c6-e447-4515-b30a-c748dc1c0282/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=2014.01.17_Stranded_Gen_Assets.pdf&type_of_work=Working+paper
88. Perspectives for the Energy Transition: Investment Needs for a Low-Carbon Energy System (IRENA, 2017); https://www.irena.org/publications/2017/Mar/Perspectives-for-the-energy-transition-Investment-needs-for-a-low-carbon-energy-system
89. Davis, S. J. & Shearer, C. A crack in the natural-gas bridge: climate change. Nature 514, 436–437 (2014).10.1038/nature13927 ↗
90. Yoshino, N., Taghizadeh–Hesary, F. & Nakahigashi, M. Modelling the social funding and spill-over tax for addressing the green energy financing gap. Econ. Model. 77, 34–41 (2019).10.1016/j.econmod.2018.11.018 ↗
91. Godin, A., Campiglio, E. & Kemp-Benedict, E. Networks of Stranded Assets: A Case for a Balance Sheet Approach https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:avg:wpaper:en7654 (2017).