36-72 % METHANE IMPACT ON THE CLIMATE GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL OF SUBSTANCES 2-3 Н 2 О CO CH % N 2 O

Transcription

1 0 METHANE IMPACT ON THE CLIMATE Н 2 О % CO % CH % N 2 O PFC- 14 PFC- 116 SF6 Greenhouse gases are gaseous components of the atmosphere which absorb and re-emit the main (infrared) part of earth's radiant heat flux cuased by the Sun heating the surface of the planet The created greenhouse effect increases the average temperature of the planet (within the standard concentration it mitigates the differences between daytime and nighttime temperatures) UNREGULATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL LAW GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL OF SUBSTANCES

2 1 GLOBAL METHANE BUDGET ( )

3 2 GLOBAL ANNUAL NATURAL AND ANTHROPOGENIC METHANE EMISSIONS, Mt ( ) NATURAL METHANE EMISSIONS ANTHROPOGENIC METHANE EMISSIONS 217 SWAMPS ( )* LAKES AND RIVERS 40 (8-73) 54 OCEAN (33-75) 15 WILD ANIMALS TERMITES HYDRATES 11 (2-22) 6 (2-9) FIRES PERMAFROST 3 (1-5) 1 (0-1) 89 RUMINANTS (87-94) 50 (36-64) OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY (biofuel included) 35 BIOMASS COMBUSTION (32-39) 75 WASTES (67-90) 36 RICE (33-40) * Range of estimations Source: 4th and 5th Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, 2013

4 3 THE RUSSIAN GAS SECTOR S SHARE OF TOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 94 % NATURAL GHG EMSSIONS 1 % METHANE S SHARE (ANTHROPOGENIC) OF TOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: 0.1 % % GLOBAL OIL & GAS INDUSTRY METHANE S SHARE RUSSIAN GAS INDUSTRY METHANE S SHARE 6 % ANTHROPOGENIC GHG EMISSIONS ~ 8.2 (7,6-9,2) ~ 1.2 (0,9-1,6) ~ 0.03 Gt of CO2-eq. per year ( ) Gt of CO2-eq. per year ( ) Gt of CO2 -eq. per year (2015) Gt of CO2-eq. per year (2015) Source: 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013 Source: Rosstat

5 4 PREREQUISITES FOR A CORRECT «CARBON FOOTPRINT» ASSESSMENT OF RUSSIAN NATURAL GAS COMPARISON OF AVERAGE CARBON INTENSITY using various types of fuel? In this study, the lifecycle Carbon Intensity (CI) of petrol, diesel, kerosene and natural gas have been assessed in a Well-To- Tank approach. A chain of significant process stages of oil and gas, such as exploration, exploitation, upgrading, transportation, transmission, refining, distribution, dispensing etc. are considered; thus excluding the final stage of combustion in the vehicle internal combustion engines The previous version of this report has been published by the JEC Consortium in July 2013 (JRC - EU Commission s Joint Research Centre, EUCAR - the European Council for Automotive R&D and CONCAWE the oil companies European association for environment, health and safety in refining and distribution)

6 5 CARBON FOOTPRINT OF NATURAL GAS CONSUMED IN CENTRAL EU Updated best available data for Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Russia used within GHGenius Carbon Footprint [gco 2 e/gj] Углеродный Carbon Footprint след природного of Natural Other (as газа, CO Gas 2 -eq.) потребляемого consumed 0.1 % in в Центральной Central CH 4 EU (as CO Европе 2 -eq.) 20,000 16,000 12,000 8,000 4, ,755 14,643 CO 2 8,922 8, Exergia (with dispensing) DBI (without dispensing) Source: DBI IPCC AP4 38 % 62 % 7,939 Exergia (without dispensing) Source: Own illustration DBI based on

7 «CARBON FOOTPRINT» OF NATURAL GAS FOR THE RUSSIAN EXPORT FLOW TO CENTRAL EUROPE Carbon Footprint [gco 2 e/gj] Carbon Footprint of Natural Gas consumed in Central EU CNG Stream Russia (weighted average) to Central EU 40,000 32,000 24,000 16,000 8, ,880 31,675 16,449 15, Exergia (with dispensing) DBI (without dispensing) Source: Own illustration DBI based on * Gas transportation to the border of Central EU (in the case of Norway and Russia) 12,239 Exergia (without dispensing) g СО 2eq. /GJ (< 0.02 %) Transportation, Storage & Distribution in Central EU Gas transportation to the Central EU border Gas production Gas treatment (CО2 & H2S removal) 9.6 % 75.6 % 14.8 %

8 7 ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF RUSSIAN GAS EXPORT FLOWS Flow rate of gas consumption for own operational needs, % 18.1 % Share of gas consumption for own operational needs for 4 thousand km transportation, % 9.3 % Urengoy Pomary Uzhgorod, Soyuz (through Ukraine) 7.5 % Yamal - Europe 4.2 % The Northern corridor Ukhta - Torzhok Bovanenkovo - Ukhta Nord Stream 3.1 % 2.9 % Type of transportation Environmental driver Natural gas trunk pipeline of 5.5 MPa, LNG (liquefaction) Emissions of CO2-eq., thousand tones/bcm per 100 km Natural gas trunk pipeline of 7.5 MPa Natural gas trunk pipeline of 12 MPa Natural gas trunk pipeline of 22 MPa Natural gas trunk pipeline pressure, MPa New technologies from the Northern corridor reduce the gas consumption for own transportation needs by 6 times in comparison with the Gas Transportation System (GTS) of 5.5 MPa and 3 times in comparison with the GTS of 7.5 MPa

9 8 RESULTS STREAM RUSSIA TO CENTRAL EU. DBI STUDIES Result for the Russian stream is a weighted average of the 3 different corridors Rising share of gas transport via the Nord-Stream decreases the Carbon Footprint of Russian gas consumed in Central EU Carbon Footprint [gco 2 e/gj] 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, ,675 (without dispensing) 18,211 17,554 15,053 16,282 16,375 13,621 10,005 9,671 9, Exergia DBI (Ukrainian Corridor) DBI (Belarussian Corridor) DBI (Nord-Stream Corridor) Share of gas export [%] Russia 3 (Nord-Stream Corridor) Russia 1 (Ukrainian Corridor) Russia 2 (Belarussian Corridor)

10 9 «CARBON FOOTPRINT» OF «NORD STREAM 2» NORD STREAM 2 55 BOVANENKOVO-UZHGOROD-BAUMGARTEN YAMAL L = GREIFSWALD bcm / yr YAMAL L = WAIDHAUS DIFFERENCE IN GHG EMISSIONS Calculated according to GHGenius 4.03 PER YEAR Mt of СО 2 -eq. 8.9 ANNUAL EMISSIONS More than ICELAND + MALTA or CYPRUS IN 25 YEARS 223 More than the NETHERLANDS or THE WHOLE TRANSPORT SECTOR OF GERMANY

11 10 COMPARISON WITH LNG. THINKSTEP STUDIES

12 ALTERNATIVES TO «NORD STREAM 2» 55 BCM PER YEAR 11 NORD STREAM MW PER UNIT OIL TANKER VOYAGES 275 TT PER UNIT, VLCC LNG-VESSEL VOYAGES 138 MCM OF LNG PER UNIT UNITS OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS 400 MW PER UNIT NEW NPP POWER UNITS WIND TURBINE 2 MW PER UNIT SQUARE KILOMETERS OF CORN FIELDS FOR BIOETHANOL PRODUCTION