Literature DB >> 26195284

Methane Emissions from the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage System in the United States.

Daniel J Zimmerle1, Laurie L Williams2, Timothy L Vaughn1, Casey Quinn1, R Subramanian3, Gerald P Duggan1, Bryan Willson1, Jean D Opsomer4, Anthony J Marchese1, David M Martinez1, Allen L Robinson3.   

Abstract

The recent growth in production and utilization of natural gas offers potential climate benefits, but those benefits depend on lifecycle emissions of methane, the primary component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas. This study estimates methane emissions from the transmission and storage (T&S) sector of the United States natural gas industry using new data collected during 2012, including 2,292 onsite measurements, additional emissions data from 677 facilities and activity data from 922 facilities. The largest emission sources were fugitive emissions from certain compressor-related equipment and "super-emitter" facilities. We estimate total methane emissions from the T&S sector at 1,503 [1,220 to 1,950] Gg/yr (95% confidence interval) compared to the 2012 Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) estimate of 2,071 [1,680 to 2,690] Gg/yr. While the overlap in confidence intervals indicates that the difference is not statistically significant, this is the result of several significant, but offsetting, factors. Factors which reduce the study estimate include a lower estimated facility count, a shift away from engines toward lower-emitting turbine and electric compressor drivers, and reductions in the usage of gas-driven pneumatic devices. Factors that increase the study estimate relative to the GHGI include updated emission rates in certain emission categories and explicit treatment of skewed emissions at both component and facility levels. For T&S stations that are required to report to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), this study estimates total emissions to be 260% [215% to 330%] of the reportable emissions for these stations, primarily due to the inclusion of emission sources that are not reported under the GHGRP rules, updated emission factors, and super-emitter emissions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26195284     DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01669

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


  11 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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Super-emitters in natural gas infrastructure are caused by abnormal process conditions.

Authors:  Daniel Zavala-Araiza; Ramón A Alvarez; David R Lyon; David T Allen; Anthony J Marchese; Daniel J Zimmerle; Steven P Hamburg
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 14.919

5.  Methane emissions from the Marcellus Shale in southwestern Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia based on airborne measurements.

Authors:  Xinrong Ren; Dolly L Hall; Timothy Vinciguerra; Sarah E Benish; Phillip R Stratton; Doyeon Ahn; Jonathan R Hansford; Mark D Cohen; Sayantan Sahu; Hao He; Courtney Grimes; Ross J Salawitch; Sheryl H Ehrman; Russell R Dickerson
Journal:  J Geophys Res Atmos       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 4.261

6.  An open source algorithm to detect natural gas leaks from mobile methane survey data.

Authors:  Zachary D Weller; Duck Keun Yang; Joseph C von Fischer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Temporal variability largely explains top-down/bottom-up difference in methane emission estimates from a natural gas production region.

Authors:  Timothy L Vaughn; Clay S Bell; Cody K Pickering; Stefan Schwietzke; Garvin A Heath; Gabrielle Pétron; Daniel J Zimmerle; Russell C Schnell; Dag Nummedal
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.