the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Methane quantification of LNG gas-fired power plant in Seoul, South Korea
Abstract. Methane emissions from a liquefied natural gas (LNG) gas-fired power plant in Seoul, South Korea were measured using a mobile greenhouse gas measurement platform. Twenty-one mobile measurements were conducted between February and July 12, 2023. Methane emissions were quantified using the Gaussian Plume Dispersion Model and the OTM-33A method. The measurements identified three key emission hotspots: two associated with natural gas pipelines (S1 and S2), and one linked to an exhaust pipe from internal facilities (S3). The average methane emission rates were 0.09 ± 0.0086, 0.018 ± 0.0015, and 0.55± 0.0583 tons hr-1 at S1, S2, and S3, respectively. Notably, S3 had a significant methane emission rate of 2.053 ± 0.283 tons hr-1, approximately six times greater than our corresponding bottom-up estimate of fugitive methane emissions (0.35 tons hr-1). This significant discrepancy, particularly at S3, highlights the limitations of bottom-up inventory approaches and underscores the importance of field measurements for accurately assessing real-world emissions. This study provides crucial evidence that mobile measurements are useful in identifying and quantifying fugitive methane emissions from urban LNG power plants. These findings are essential for developing a more precise understanding of effective methods to reduce methane emissions from these facilities.
- Preprint
(7521 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 03 Jan 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4379', Hossein Maazallahi, 09 Dec 2025 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4379', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Dec 2025
reply
This study presents the measurements of an LNG facility in South Korea based on mobile transects and stationary measurements of methane concentration enhancements and Gaussian plume modeling to estimate methane flux rates. The paper is well written and the study design is well executed. The following comments should be considered and addressed to further improve the manuscript.
- Consider reporting all quantification estimates in units of kg per hour rather than tonnes per hour. In addition, consider using no more than two significant figures in the reported quantification estimates, given the precision of the methods used here.
- OTM-33A was previously tested and validated by Thoma et al. for specific methane emission rates, but field performance can vary depending on several factors, including meteorology, near-field obstructions, etc. Did the authors attempt a validation of the two methods here to better understand performance accuracy? If so, it would be great to report the results either in the main text or in the supplemental. Notably, the reported estimates of 2 tonnes per hour is well above the methane emission rates previously included in OTM-33A validation.
- Include average distance from known source location in Table 3.
- The terminology “top-down” has come to mean observations of methane enhancements from above-ground sensors, such as remote sensing instruments on aircrafts and satellites. The use of the terminology here is technically correct in that the methane estimates account for atmospheric transport as opposed to “bottom-up” approaches that estimate emissions fluxes directly at the source. Nevertheless, the measurements are still conducted at the ground-level. To avoid confusion with true “top-down” approaches such as aircrafts and satellites, I’d suggest providing a clarification in the text that this method entails ground-based facility-scale measurements of methane enhancements and methane fluxes are estimated by accounting for atmospheric transport.
- It would be helpful to contextualize the emission rates reported here. That is, how do these emissions rates compare with typical facility-level emission rates at well pads or compressor stations or processing plants, where similar measurement methods are used?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4379-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 181 | 71 | 20 | 272 | 13 | 13 |
- HTML: 181
- PDF: 71
- XML: 20
- Total: 272
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please see the attachment.