Conclusion

Assumptions:

 

• The Largest Growing Economies today are powered by Coal. [WCA]

• Natural Gas does provides a greener source of fuel, it is not a zero-carbon alternative.

• CCS Technology has not yet been commercially proven on an integrated basis or at the scale required to meet global GHG concentration targets. [WCA]

• Global Gas Demand will continue to be driven by the need for clean, efficient and competitively priced Power Generation. [WCA]

• A key challenge to Natural Gas Power Generation World Wide is supply and access to Natural Gas in the developing world.

• The developing world currently doesn’t have the pipelines or infrastructure to import or export Natural Gas.

• Global Clean Energy Initiatives require adequate financing, and future consumers should expect higher electricity prices in the future.

• International Pipelines create a huge geopolitical and environmental challenges.

• The developing world’s expanding economies have a desire to find and use cleaner burning fuels. [NERA]

• Once Emission Goals are achieved, and a green energy initiative has been implemented worldwide, the policy will no longer be needed.

• The policy does not restrict LNG exporting to any individual region, but allows the exporting nation to play the markets if desired.

• Substitution of natural gas for other fossil fuels cannot be the sole basis for long-term U.S. efforts because natural gas is a fossil fuel and its combustion emits greenhouse gases.

 

Baseline Outlook

 

In a scenario that adheres to the above proposed assumptions, it is our team’s belief that the use of LNG as a Power Fuel in place of coal, will lead to substantial reductions in carbon emissions worldwide. LNG will provide a greener, economically attractive and geo-politically neutral fuel source to the developing nations.

 

From a social viewpoint, the exportation of LNG for replacement of coal fired power plants gets mixed reviews. From a local perspective the implications are mostly enticing to the unemployed looking for work. The investment in energy will produce positive effects in the terms of employment and increased monetary spending which will have a significant beneficial effect on the local economy. The downside will come in terms of social fallout in response to growing GHG emissions and their effects on the local environment. Nationally, the implications are similar to the local. By exporting LNG, the US will limit its domestic supply to natural gas. This will drive an increase in natural gas production domestically. This increase will cause blowback from environmentalist groups due to the fact that more environmentally unfriendly unconventional sources will comprise over 70% of our natural gas supply. On a national scale, the supplying country can also expect resistance to exporting LNG because it will put a kink in their future energy security. But on a positive note, we can also expect support from environmentalist who support replacing coal with natural gas for power generation. Importing countries can expect similar backlash and support. They should expect support for decreasing their environmental emissions and diversifying their portfolio, while receiving criticisms for relying on another country for sources of energy. The local environmental and economic benefits/drawbacks are similar for both liquefaction and regasification terminals.

 

The social implications from exporting LNG as a replacement for coal power generation have driven changes in the political arena. As LNG is still in its infancy in the United States, it’s not very well understood by most of the general public. The public’s knowledge of the GHG emissions and its effects on climate change are even more alarming. This uneducated public is following their parent’s views on energy policy and views on GHG initiatives. Based on our survey most young Americans (18-24) support the idea of a greener energy future, but none seems to want to pay for it. As a result, getting legislation passed is a political nightmare. For example getting approval from the DOE can be an extremely long and inefficient process. While we have assumed the US has approved the exportation of LNG to the developing world, we needed a way to improve the approval process.  The streamlining of FERC and DOE in regards to project approval has been a recent aim for policy in the US government, and a unique approach was outlined and presented in our Greener Initiative Policy.    

 

Following the IPCC’s projections, mitigating our emissions by 2050 is imperative to establishing a clean and sustainable future. Our project proposal suggests a viable idea to reduce emissions in the largest emitting source globally, coal for power generation. In the Life-Cycle Assessment of GHG Emissions of Coal Power vs LNG Fueled Power, both parties agreed that LNG was a viable environmental replacement to Coal Power in the developing world. While LNG isn’t the cleanest natural gas alternative, and does have higher methane emissions from coal, we believe it is the most viable option to providing the developing world an ample supply of an alternative fuel to help curb their GHG emissions from coal power. We have proposed a list of possible processing improvements to reduce LNG’s emissions, especially methane.  We recognize that the use of natural gas for power generation is still combusting hydrocarbons for power, and it will never be as clean or green as renewables, but we believe it is a destination fuel to our greener energy future. For every coal fired plant replaced by LNG, reduces GHG emissions on par with removing 250,000 cars over a year.

 

It is no surprise that LNG is also one of the most expensive alternative sources of hydrocarbons as a result of its additional processing, liquefaction, and regasification facilities. Yet, it is still competitive in the worldwide market due to regional gas price fluctuations and high demand in the Asian Pacific. It is imperative for the United States to continue to invest in LNG Infrastructure. The cost of this infrastructure will be staggering, but with the aim of exporting to Asian Pacific Countries initially, the US should be able to cover its intensive upfront capital cost. Recent studies have shown the cost of LNG from production to power plant is just below the $4/ MMBtU. With Gas Prices in Asia averaging above $14/ MMBtU the return on capital investment should be rapid. LNG also provides a more economical alternative to long international and transcontinental pipelines. LNG is the more economic choice for offshore transportation over 700 miles, and onshore transportation over 2,200 miles, compared to gas pipelines. In order to cover the capital cost in the developing world, we have proposed a Green Initiative Fund that will allow the developed world to provide monetary incentives to the developing world to integrate a cleaner energy portfolio.

 

Our policy has provided the opportunity for the United States to provide an alternative to coal power generation in the developing world, via the avenue of LNG. In a scenario where all our assumptions are observed, we believe that our policy, driven by our equity, environmental, economic and energy research, is a realistic opportunity to make a significant decrease in GHG emissions globally.

 

Alternative Outlook Scenario

 

If our assumptions are not met, we cannot conclude a successful implementation of our policy. Therefore, we cannot expect that the exportation of LNG to the developing world for power generation will result in dramatic emissions reduction worldwide. Without our assumptions being met, we also cannot confirm the economic feasibility and equity of exporting LNG. 

 

 

**Note** 

We were able to conduct a survey that generated the attitudes, of energy related topics, in our American culture.

The link below provides the results  generated from our survey.

https://www.esurveycreator.com/results/07fbb12-a27bd04