Greenhouse gases are extremely important for making our planet habitable. However, the high concentration of these heat-trapping gases is now raising the temperature of the earth’s surface significantly, leading to global warming and climate change.
While carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, methane (CH4) is far more potent. This comparatively short-lived gas traps 80 times more heat than CO2 over a period of two decades. According to the UN Environment Programme, since pre-industrial times, methane has accounted for about 30% of climate change.
This second most abundant greenhouse gas is the main component of natural gas and biogas.
Methane is colorless, odorless, and highly flammable. Natural methane is found below the ground, with wetlands being its largest source. It is also found under the sea bed, beneath the Antarctic ice, and in oceans. This gas is also produced by volcanoes as well as the decay of plant and animal matter.
An important contributor to methane’s release into the environment is human activities which include landfills, agricultural activities, livestock, manure, coal mining, and oil and gas production.
When emitted into the air, methane reacts in hazardous ways. Not only it releases carbon dioxide emissions through oxidation but also contributes to the forming of the ozone. This way, it decreases air quantity, leading to premature human deaths, reduced crop yields, and causing health issues in animals.
In humans, this potent greenhouse gas can also cause issues like asthma, cardiovascular disease, and increased risk of stroke. Methane gas poisoning, meanwhile, can lead to asphyxiation.
High levels of methane can also cause issues like memory loss, slurred speech, nausea, flushing, headache, vomiting, mood changes, and vision problems. Meanwhile, contact with liquefied methane released under pressure may cause frostbite.
Given the harmful effect of methane, there has been a greater focus on better quantifying and drastically reducing methane pollution to prevent the worst climate impacts.
Methane Emissions from Manure Far Greater
Farm livestock are a prominent source of methane emissions from agriculture. As per the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimation, it accounts for 12% to 14.5% of all human-induced GHG emissions.
The national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions meanwhile report that emissions coming directly from the digestive systems of animals (enteric fermentation) are three to nine times greater than those from manure management, including the storing and spreading of slurry and manure. However, the emissions from these two cases could be much closer to 50:50.
According to new research, though, the actual methane emissions from slurry stores on dairy farms could be as much as five times more than what the official statistics suggest.
Conducted by the University of East Anglia (UEA) and a not-for-profit association, the International Fugitive Emissions Abatement Association (IFEAA), the study is based on calculations from two dairy farms in England.
The research suggests the ‘Tier 2′ calculations currently being used by countries to report their emissions annually to the IPCC may not be robust, hence the underestimation.
The measurements of emissions from slurry lagoons were analyzed by researchers during 2022-23. To capture methane, airtight covers were used to enclose the slurry lagoons, which showed that they generate far more CH4 than previously suggested.
As per the findings, the actual emission was 145 kg per cow per year on one farm and 198 kg per cow per year on the other farm. This is 3.8 – 5.2 times higher than the existing official figure of 38 kg per cow reported in the UK’s National Inventory.
While the standard international methodology seems to underestimate slurry storage methane emissions, the research says that today, we have the technology that can help “turn this problem into a business opportunity.” Methane can actually be easily captured and then used as a fossil fuel alternative, which also creates “an additional income stream for farms.”
Highlighting the huge potential for turning that methane into a renewable energy source, Professor Neil Ward of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA noted that using methane as a fuel can help farmers reduce their energy bills and become energy independent.
Capturing and turning emitted methane into biogas could save an average-sized dairy farm about £52,500 in fuel costs. In total, this cost saving could be over £400 mln for the dairy sector.
Existing technology can capture the gas, and using it across the EU’s dairy herds could cut emissions by an estimated 5.8% of the budget for limiting global warming to 1.5°C, according to research.
The significant underestimation of manure management emissions means that not only are the estimates inaccurate, but priorities regarding reducing options may also be distorted.
“This research therefore represents an urgent call for action and further work to better understand methane emissions from manure management.”
– Prof Ward
So, the research recommends the government to raise the grants for slurry lagoon covers as well as associated gas processing equipment in addition to introducing tax breaks for supply chain investment in the recovery and use of methane and making the process of planning and permitting simpler.
“The technology exists for capturing, processing and utilizing the methane that is currently lost to the atmosphere and contributing to GHG accumulation, and looks economically promising particularly if an incentives framework for capital investment on farms, coupled with regulatory support, can be implemented.”
– Prof Penny Atkins, CEO of IFEAA
Reducing methane emissions, meanwhile, according to George Eustice, chair of IFEAA and former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is “critical to the pathway to Net Zero.” Given that methane is a potent but short-lived GHG, reducing emissions can also help limit global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees.
With that, the study concluded that the collective CH4 contribution from manure management by dairy farms is notable and that there are significant advantages to acting sooner rather than later to limit emissions.
The Carbon Footprint of LNG is Also Much Higher
A new Cornell study meanwhile says that the carbon footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is far worse, 33% more than coal when its processing and shipping are also factored in.
During the extraction, processing, transportation, and storage of LNG, CH4, and CO2 are released, and those emissions account for about half of its total greenhouse gas footprint.
When analyzing the comparison of the atmospheric impact of different greenhouse gases, it reveals that the carbon footprint of LNG is one-third larger than coal over a period of two decades. Even on a century-long time scale, LNG’s carbon footprint either equals or still surpasses coal.
Both shale gas and natural gas are bad for the climate, according to study author Robert Howarth, but LNG is “worse.” While LNG is made from shale gas, the process requires supercooling (minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit) it to liquid form and then using large tankers to transport it to market and all of that takes energy.
This transportation mode has an environmental cost. Modern tankers with two- or four-stroke engines have lower CO2 emissions than steam-powered ships, and they burn LNG during storage and transportation, resulting in CH4 escaping into the exhaust.
As for tankers powered by steam, they emit almost no methane in their exhaust gases. And this may offset, in part, their higher emissions of CO2.
Tankers’ methane emissions, as per the study, range between 3.9% to 8.1%, depending on the ship. During the natural gas liquefaction process, this comes close to 8.8% of the total when using the global warming potential.
According to the study, tanker type has relatively little influence on the LNG greenhouse gas footprint since they are more fuel efficient and, as such, have lower CO2 emissions but greater methane slippage in their exhaust.
When talking about the effect of a tanker’s speed on emissions, the author notes that slower speeds lead to considerably greater efficiencies, which reduce both CO2 and CH4 emissions. The paper stated:
“Nonetheless, emissions from tankers are a small part of the total for LNG.”
It’s the upstream and midstream emissions from shale gas that are most responsible for the carbon footprint of liquefied natural gas that the US exports.
CO2 from end-use combustion of liquefied natural gas actually contributes just 34% of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint of liquefied natural gas while upstream and midstream methane emissions are responsible for 38% of total LNG emissions. Adding CO2 emissions from the energy used to produce LNG, total upstream and midstream emissions make up on average 47% of the total GHG footprint of LNG. According to Howarth:
“Almost all the methane emissions occur upstream when you’re extracting the shale gas and liquefying it. This is all magnified just to get the liquefied natural gas to market.”
This means that liquefied natural gas “always” has a bigger climate footprint than natural gas, and with that, it “ends up substantially worse than coal.”
According to the research, these findings have implications for liquefied natural gas production in the US, which is currently the world’s largest exporter. While the nation banned the export of LNG, it lifted the ban in 2016, and since then, exports have risen dramatically. In 2023, the US represented 21% of all global LNG transport, and President Biden only placed a moratorium on these increasing exports earlier this year.
Also, nearly all the increase in natural gas production in the US over the past decade has been from shale gas. The production of shale gas along with liquefaction to make LNG and the subsequent LNG transport is energy-intensive, contributing significantly to its greenhouse gas footprint.
So, while governments around the world are calling for a rapid move away from fossil fuels, including natural gas, as part of their global climate policy, liquefied natural gas has a much higher carbon footprint than natural gas. Howarth said, “Ending the use of LNG should be a global priority.”
As such, switching from coal to LNG is not the way to go, as per Howarth, due to its need for massive infrastructure expenditures. He recommends utilizing financial resources to build a fossil-fuel-free future as rapidly as possible as a far better approach.
A Powerful Alternative: Using Methane Gas to Mine BTC
With Bitcoin mining facing criticism for its energy-intensive nature, converting methane gas from animal waste into energy presents an innovative and proactive approach to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
This combination of BTC mining with methane capture allows these emissions to be transformed into a valuable source for cutting-edge technology instead of contributing to global warming.
Given that Bitcoin miners can operate from basically anywhere in the world, this opens up opportunities for even the most isolated, remote, and overlooked landfill sites. Landfills are a major source of methane. In the US, they are the third largest source of human-related methane emissions.
Bitcoin mining firms can capture the methane from landfill waste and then convert it into electricity to power their mining rigs, effectively turning all this waste into a valuable resource.
Another way Bitcoin miners can harness this energy is by setting up mining operations near oil fields, where methane is often burned off due to a lack of infrastructure for its use. By capturing this gas, waste and pollution can be further reduced.
Such a project offers other advantages, including monetizing methane directly on-site without requiring expensive investments, which means rapid deployment and revenue generation. With minimal investment, Bitcoin miners can further gain access to low-cost sources of renewable energy and reduce their dependence on local electricity grids while converting harmful gas into energy.
This way, Bitcoin can help promote a shift toward cleaner and more sustainable energy sources. Meanwhile, Bitcoin miners can operate sustainably, positioning the network as a potential environmental boon.
Chainergy is a company that has been actively working on converting methane gas to energy to mine Bitcoin. This move also gave the company access to electricity at a competitive rate and solidified its presence in the energy market.
Crusoe Energy Systems is yet another company that captures waste methane emissions from oil and gas operations and uses it to power Bitcoin mining data centers. In 2021, ExxonMobil (XOM +0.04%) partnered with Crusoe to use excess gas from one of its oil fields to mine Bitcoin.
#1. Mara Digital Holdings (MARA -2.46%)
This Bitcoin mining company has been exploring sustainable and off-grid energy solutions and for that, it has been working with various energy providers. One such initiative includes experimenting with using methane gas from landfills to power its operations.
In Nov. 2023, it announced a partnership with Nodal Power, which develops and operates renewable energy assets, to launch its BTC mining project in Utah. This 280 kW pilot project is entirely powered by landfill methane gas and is already fully operational. Marathon CEO Fred Thiel at the time said:
“At Marathon, we are constantly seeking innovative ways to diversify our operations, lower our energy costs, and leverage the unique aspects of Bitcoin mining to better the environments in which we operate.”
By capturing the CH4 which is emitted from landfills and then converting it into electricity to power the company’s Bitcoin miners, Thiel noted, it makes Marathon “uniquely positioned to help convert this harmful gas into a productive source of clean, renewable energy.”
Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (MARA -2.46%)
The company shares (MARA: NASDAQ) are currently trading at $16, down 31.93% year-to-date (YTD) compared to Bitcoin’s 61.4% increase in value during the same period as it trades near $62,300. With a market cap of $4.70 billion, Mara has an EPS (TTM) of 1.73, a P/E of 9.22, and a ROE (TTM) of 26.26%.
Last week, one of the world’s largest publicly traded bitcoin miners reported unaudited updates for September, during which it increased its energized hash rate to 36.9 EH/s, a jump of 5% from the previous month. The company is expecting to reach 50EH/s by this year-end. Meanwhile, BTC production increased by 5% to 705 BTC.
“We are proud to have surpassed a marathon worth of bitcoin HODL in September and currently have almost 27,000 BTC on our balance sheet.”
– CEO Fred Thiel
Mara also submitted a disclosure to the Climate Disclosure Project (CDP), backing its “commitment to environmental transparency and corporate responsibility.”
Conclusion
Climate change continues to be a pressing challenge as the global average temperature rises at a rate of 0.175 °C each decade. A significant contributor to this current warming is methane (CH4), which causes far more warming than CO2.
While reducing methane emissions from livestock production has been seen as a difficult problem, as we reported, it can actually have a large and speedy impact on reducing warming while offering economic opportunities to be used as a way to replace fossil fuels. Then there’s converting methane from animal waste to energy for BTC mining, which represents yet another unique and profitable solution that addresses the energy-intensive nature of Bitcoin mining while converting all the waste into economic value. These efforts can effectively pave the way for a sustainable future.
