Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieRich
how do you figure this?
|
Aren't they? I thought I had heard lots about that, but am no expert. This report has comments like this:
Quote:
|
Emissions in the US include a much largercontribution from gastransmission and distribution than Canada and are therefore more spread out across the country(Sheng et al. 2017). The US has more extensive inter-and intra-state transmission pipelines withatotal length of nearly 500,000 km (EIA 2007a,b)–five times that of Canada (NRCan 2014). Longer transmission pipelines require more compressor stations. There are more than 1,200 compressor stations in the US (EIA, 2007a, b), compared to about 200 in Canada(ArcGIS online 2015). The US also uses more natural gas and has much larger distribution systems –about2 million km (the American Gas Foundation, 2012) compared to Canada's 450,000 km (Natural Resources Canada, 2014). Furthermore, the US distribution systems have more,high-emitting cast iron and bare steel pipes (9% of the totaldistribution system) than Canada (0.2%) (the American Gas Foundation 2012).
|
(p4)
Quote:
|
Most of the compressors driving the gas through pipelines are fueled by natural gas.Compressors emit CO2and methane emissions during fuel combustion and are also a source of fugitive and vented methane emissions through leaks in compressor seals, valves, and connections,and through venting that occurs during operations and maintenance. Thus, compressor stations are the primary source of vented methane emissions in natural gas transmission.
|
(p19)
https://ceri.ca/assets/files/CERI%20...ary%202019.pdf
So with the long distance of transmission from the states, I'd assume using local gas woudl reduce emissions. But again, no expert on this.