Literature DB >> 25668051

Methane emissions from natural gas compressor stations in the transmission and storage sector: measurements and comparisons with the EPA greenhouse gas reporting program protocol.

R Subramanian1, Laurie L Williams, Timothy L Vaughn, Daniel Zimmerle, Joseph R Roscioli, Scott C Herndon, Tara I Yacovitch, Cody Floerchinger, Daniel S Tkacik, Austin L Mitchell, Melissa R Sullivan, Timothy R Dallmann, Allen L Robinson.   

Abstract

Equipment- and site-level methane emissions from 45 compressor stations in the transmission and storage (T&S) sector of the US natural gas system were measured, including 25 sites required to report under the EPA greenhouse gas reporting program (GHGRP). Direct measurements of fugitive and vented sources were combined with AP-42-based exhaust emission factors (for operating reciprocating engines and turbines) to produce a study onsite estimate. Site-level methane emissions were also concurrently measured with downwind-tracer-flux techniques. At most sites, these two independent estimates agreed within experimental uncertainty. Site-level methane emissions varied from 2-880 SCFM. Compressor vents, leaky isolation valves, reciprocating engine exhaust, and equipment leaks were major sources, and substantial emissions were observed at both operating and standby compressor stations. The site-level methane emission rates were highly skewed; the highest emitting 10% of sites (including two superemitters) contributed 50% of the aggregate methane emissions, while the lowest emitting 50% of sites contributed less than 10% of the aggregate emissions. Excluding the two superemitters, study-average methane emissions from compressor housings and noncompressor sources are comparable to or lower than the corresponding effective emission factors used in the EPA greenhouse gas inventory. If the two superemitters are included in the analysis, then the average emission factors based on this study could exceed the EPA greenhouse gas inventory emission factors, which highlights the potentially important contribution of superemitters to national emissions. However, quantification of their influence requires knowledge of the magnitude and frequency of superemitters across the entire T&S sector. Only 38% of the methane emissions measured by the comprehensive onsite measurements were reportable under the new EPA GHGRP because of a combination of inaccurate emission factors for leakers and exhaust methane, and various exclusions. The bias is even larger if one accounts for the superemitters, which were not captured by the onsite measurements. The magnitude of the bias varied from site to site by site type and operating state. Therefore, while the GHGRP is a valuable new source of emissions information, care must be taken when incorporating these data into emission inventories. The value of the GHGRP can be increased by requiring more direct measurements of emissions (as opposed to using counts and emission factors), eliminating exclusions such as rod-packing vents on pressurized reciprocating compressors in standby mode under Subpart-W, and using more appropriate emission factors for exhaust methane from reciprocating engines under Subpart-C.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25668051     DOI: 10.1021/es5060258

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


  8 in total

1.  Reconciling divergent estimates of oil and gas methane emissions.

Authors:  Daniel Zavala-Araiza; David R Lyon; Ramón A Alvarez; Kenneth J Davis; Robert Harriss; Scott C Herndon; Anna Karion; Eric Adam Kort; Brian K Lamb; Xin Lan; Anthony J Marchese; Stephen W Pacala; Allen L Robinson; Paul B Shepson; Colm Sweeney; Robert Talbot; Amy Townsend-Small; Tara I Yacovitch; Daniel J Zimmerle; Steven P Hamburg
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  A review of the public health impacts of unconventional natural gas development.

Authors:  P J Saunders; D McCoy; R Goldstein; A T Saunders; A Munroe
Journal:  Environ Geochem Health       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 4.609

3.  Detection Limits of Optical Gas Imaging for Natural Gas Leak Detection in Realistic Controlled Conditions.

Authors:  Daniel Zimmerle; Timothy Vaughn; Clay Bell; Kristine Bennett; Parik Deshmukh; Eben Thoma
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 9.028

4.  Assessing a low-cost methane sensor quantification system for use in complex rural and urban environments.

Authors:  Ashley Collier-Oxandale; Joanna Gordon Casey; Ricardo Piedrahita; John Ortega; Hannah Halliday; Jill Johnston; Michael P Hannigan
Journal:  Atmos Meas Tech       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain.

Authors:  Ramón A Alvarez; Daniel Zavala-Araiza; David R Lyon; David T Allen; Zachary R Barkley; Adam R Brandt; Kenneth J Davis; Scott C Herndon; Daniel J Jacob; Anna Karion; Eric A Kort; Brian K Lamb; Thomas Lauvaux; Joannes D Maasakkers; Anthony J Marchese; Mark Omara; Stephen W Pacala; Jeff Peischl; Allen L Robinson; Paul B Shepson; Colm Sweeney; Amy Townsend-Small; Steven C Wofsy; Steven P Hamburg
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Methane emissions from US low production oil and natural gas well sites.

Authors:  Mark Omara; Daniel Zavala-Araiza; David R Lyon; Benjamin Hmiel; Katherine A Roberts; Steven P Hamburg
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-04-19       Impact factor: 17.694

7.  Estimating Regional Methane Emission Factors from Energy and Agricultural Sector Sources Using a Portable Measurement System: Case Study of the Denver-Julesburg Basin.

Authors:  Stuart N Riddick; Fancy Cheptonui; Kexin Yuan; Mercy Mbua; Rachel Day; Timothy L Vaughn; Aidan Duggan; Kristine E Bennett; Daniel J Zimmerle
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 3.847

8.  Majority of US urban natural gas emissions unaccounted for in inventories.

Authors:  Maryann R Sargent; Cody Floerchinger; Kathryn McKain; John Budney; Elaine W Gottlieb; Lucy R Hutyra; Joseph Rudek; Steven C Wofsy
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 11.205

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.