Energy chief Granholm warns against 'unfettered exports' of liquefied natural gas

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2024, 05:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: AP

Updated 5:55 PM EST, December 17, 2024


WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States should proceed cautiously as officials consider new natural gas export terminals, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said Tuesday, warning the incoming Trump administration that “unfettered exports” of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, could drive up domestic prices and increase planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

Granholm’s statement came as the Energy Department released a long-awaited study on the environmental and economic impacts of natural gas exports, which have grown exponentially in the past decade. The analysis found that U.S. LNG shipments drive up domestic wholesale prices and frequently displace renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

Increased LNG exports also would lead to higher global greenhouse gas emissions, even with use of newly developed equipment to capture and store carbon emissions, the report said. “Unfettered exports of LNG would increase wholesale domestic natural gas prices by over 30%,’' costing American households an additional $100 a year by 2050, Granholm said

“We have recently lived through the real-world ripple effects of increased energy prices domestically and globally since the (COVID-19) pandemic, she said, adding that an “export-induced price increase” would make it harder for some families to meet basic needs. “Today’s publication reinforces that a business-as-usual approach (to LNG exports) is neither sustainable nor advisable,″ Granholm said.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/lng-exports-biden-europe-climate-russia-625e8e2dfa0a98d81267ff2609b132c9

---

Link to DOE PRESS RELEASE - U.S. Department of Energy Completes LNG Study Update, Announces 60-Day Comment Period

Link to DOE STUDY page - 2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Export

Link to DOE STUDY (PDF) - https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/LNGUpdate_SummaryReport_Dec2024_230pm.pdf

[speak easy]

1. Um ... "U.S. LNG shipments drive up domestic wholesale prices

- and frequently displace[s] renewable energy sources such as wind and solar"


Um ... If domestic gas prices rise, this would increase (not displace) the adoption of wind and solar at home.

Internationally, U.S. LNG exports are displacing (not augmenting) Russian gas in the EU.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what Secretary Granholm's point is.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. I added a link to the press release and study if you want to plow through it to see

Study (PDF) - https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/LNGUpdate_SummaryReport_Dec2024_230pm.pdf

[speak easy]

3. Higher natural gas prices at home

would be plus, not a negative, for the adoption of renewables here, yes?

[SunSeeker]

4. Higher prices will hurt the rural poor who can't switch, at least not in the short term.

And they are more likely to rely on natural gas for heating.


They're also more likely to have voted for Trump. Ironic.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. I think it was added as a reply

but you have many many rural people who use LNG (like propane) for heat.

I remember years and years ago when I got out of college and was driving around to places for interviews in the Philly suburbs and in at least one of the small towns, was shocked to see a big propane tank installed on the outside of houses. This wasn't rural but suburban. However these things were alternatives to oil heat (and I grew up next door to a neighbor who was the only one on the street who got oil heat when everyone else used natural gas).

A "transition" most definitely needs to happen but it needs to be thought through and not pushed with sloganeering. E.g., might heat pumps be something that can quickly replace those propane/oil users, etc.?

[speak easy]

6. ty :hi:

[Blue Full Moon]

7. No

They want to make as much money as possible. Will not allow competition.

[Igel]

8. And in another story that made the media rounds today,

there's no point in additional LNG terminals because the international market's actually saturated so the terminals would largely sit unused and it would be a wasted investment.

Personally, I find that needing to have a terminal for export is a bottleneck, which is to say, a fetter of a different sort. And given that some countries rely on Russian natural gas or on coal or oil from whatever source, and US methane is to be preferred over all three of those, this is a case of those focused on a Platonically pure ideal insisting that others go without rather than be tainted by something less pure than the Perfect.