Its an important point, with the conclusion being that the LNG export market isn't sustainable when GHG emissions are accounted for. The good news is that the demand for LNG exports from the US appears to be on the decline. The bad news is that renewables, batteries, and transmission must ramp much faster to destroy demand for this shipped energy in the markets currently importing and consuming LNG. Coal is rapidly on the decline, natural gas will be right behind it (hopefully, based on manufacturing and deployment rates).

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-lng-export-do... ("Reuters: US LNG export dominance tested as Europe's demand wilts")

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61683 ("EIA: The United States was the world’s largest liquefied natural gas exporter in 2023")

> The countries that imported the most U.S. LNG were the Netherlands, France, and the UK, with a combined 35% (4.2 Bcf/d) of all U.S. LNG exports. LNG imports increased in the Netherlands after the Gate LNG regasification terminal was expanded and two new floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs) were commissioned. Germany began importing LNG in 2023 when three new FSRUs were commissioned. We expect another four terminals (three of which are FSRUs) to come online between 2024 and 2027.

Due to the EU pricing GHG emissions, this is likely to update and send price signals against LNG consumption (based on updated LNG emissions impact information available).

> The bad news is that renewables, batteries, and transmission must ramp much faster to destroy demand for this shipped energy in the markets currently importing and consuming LNG.

It's not simple. If a country/company has made capital investments in LNG procession or consumption (say an LNG electric power plant), they will want to get their returns on that investment. If the prices of renewables are much lower than LNG, then, those plants will not be able to sell their electricity, and go bankrupt.

But that doesn't mean a loss of the capitalists. Many global south countries have built plants using foreign loans that will need to be paid whether the plant produces or goes bankrupt. So many countries will attempt to keep these LNG plants going for as long as possible.

It’s true, and unfortunate for unsophisticated investment into fossil fuel assets that will likely end up stranded.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01356-y

And seemingly also process of liquifying it seems bad. So you are better off likely not doing it, but just using it as straight up natural gas.

Arguably, but the resolution is in the first paragraph. When it comes to energy and emissions the whole situation must be taken into account. For example, a country like Germany that bet big on renewables needs natural gas to buffer the volatility, and ever since the Russian invasion they rely a lot more on LNG. That said, coal ouput can't be quickly regulated like natural gas, so the situation is even more complicated.

> Arguably, but the resolution is in the first paragraph.

True, but how many people read articles versus responding to just the headlines?

It's visible even on HN.

NG is L'd for the purposes of moving it where there aren't pipelines to just move it as NG.

So export and LNG are nearly synonymous.