Literature DB >> 17937317

Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation.

Paulina Jaramillo1, W Michael Griffin, H Scott Matthews.   

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that in the coming decades the United States' natural gas (NG) demand for electricity generation will increase. Estimates also suggest that NG supply will increasingly come from imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). Additional supplies of NG could come domestically from the production of synthetic natural gas (SNG) via coal gasification-methanation. The objective of this study is to compare greenhouse gas (GHG), SOx, and NOx life-cycle emissions of electricity generated with NG/LNG/SNG and coal. This life-cycle comparison of air emissions from different fuels can help us better understand the advantages and disadvantages of using coal versus globally sourced NG for electricity generation. Our estimates suggest that with the current fleet of power plants, a mix of domestic NG, LNG, and SNG would have lower GHG emissions than coal. If advanced technologies with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are used, however, coal and a mix of domestic NG, LNG, and SNG would have very similar life-cycle GHG emissions. For SOx and NOx we find there are significant emissions in the upstream stages of the NG/ LNG life-cycles, which contribute to a larger range in SOx and NOx emissions for NG/LNG than for coal and SNG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17937317     DOI: 10.1021/es063031o

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Technol        ISSN: 0013-936X            Impact factor:   9.028


  10 in total

1.  Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure.

Authors:  Ramón A Alvarez; Stephen W Pacala; James J Winebrake; William L Chameides; Steven P Hamburg
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-04-09       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Approaches for controlling air pollutants and their environmental impacts generated from coal-based electricity generation in China.

Authors:  Changqing Xu; Jinglan Hong; Yixin Ren; Qingsong Wang; Xueliang Yuan
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 3.  Extensive review of shale gas environmental impacts from scientific literature (2010-2015).

Authors:  Daniele Costa; João Jesus; David Branco; Anthony Danko; António Fiúza
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-04-28       Impact factor: 4.223

4.  Estimates of carbon dioxide emissions based on incomplete condition information: a case study of liquefied natural gas in China.

Authors:  Lingyue Li; Jing Yang; Yan Cao; Jinhu Wu
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 4.223

5.  The assessment of health impacts and external costs of natural gas-fired power plant of Qom.

Authors:  Reza Fouladi Fard; Kazem Naddafi; Masud Yunesian; Ramin Nabizadeh Nodehi; Mohammad Hadi Dehghani; Mohammad Sadegh Hassanvand
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  Modeling the relative GHG emissions of conventional and shale gas production.

Authors:  Trevor Stephenson; Jose Eduardo Valle; Xavier Riera-Palou
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 9.028

7.  Energy use and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of drones for commercial package delivery.

Authors:  Joshuah K Stolaroff; Constantine Samaras; Emma R O'Neill; Alia Lubers; Alexandra S Mitchell; Daniel Ceperley
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 14.919

8.  Cumulative environmental and employment impacts of the shale gas boom.

Authors:  Erin N Mayfield; Jared L Cohon; Nicholas Z Muller; Inês M L Azevedo; Allen L Robinson
Journal:  Nat Sustain       Date:  2019

9.  Enrichment of radon and carbon dioxide in the open atmosphere of an Australian coal seam gas field.

Authors:  Douglas R Tait; Isaac R Santos; Damien T Maher; Tyler J Cyronak; Rachael J Davis
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 9.028

10.  Increase in fertility following coal and oil power plant retirements in California.

Authors:  Joan A Casey; Alison Gemmill; Deborah Karasek; Elizabeth L Ogburn; Dana E Goin; Rachel Morello-Frosch
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 5.984

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.