Sentences with phrase «emissions than pipeline»

Liquefied natural gas results in greater emissions than pipeline gas because cooling the gas to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit and then shipping and regasifying it requires more energy than pumping natural gas through domestic pipelines.

Not exact matches

Once the pipeline is complete, the Valley Energy Center will begin to reduce the region's overall emissions, protect and enhance the reliability of the region's electric grid, and start saving New York's energy consumers more than an estimated $ 600 million in electricity costs annually.»

When the new emissions data were combined with current pipeline mileage information, significant regional variations were observed, with the Eastern region of the United States accounting for more than a third of the total U.S. emissions from pipeline leaks, and the larger western region, where systems tend to be newer, contributing 17 percent of total emissions.

The system enables large - bore, multi-cylinder engines used in trains, pipelines, backup diesel generators and other fields to run efficiently while producing lower levels of harmful emissions than they do currently.

Cornell University researchers factored in the carbon emissions over the course of natural gas's life cycle when it is extracted using hydraulic fracturing — which includes drilling the wells, erecting the construction sites, building pipelines to transport the gas, fueling the pumps that force the water underground, and transporting the wastewater — and concluded that natural gas is dirtier than coal.

Amy Harder of The Wall Street Journal reports that «Republicans are responding with an amendment from Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota» that quotes from a section of the State Department which states that «the proposed pipeline would produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than an alternative mode of transportation, such as rail.

I have yet to see a serious challenge to the math on this done by Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba, who has noted that handling just 10 percent of today's carbon dioxide emissions would require more pipelines and other equipment than is now used worldwide to extract oil — a precious commodity — from the ground.

Either way, their survival depends far more on their adaptation than it does to US action, since no matter what policies we enact, there is warming already in the «pipeline» and the warming to come from the economic growth in the developing world will dwarf any attempts to limit our own emissions.

That said, reducing emissions by blocking the pipeline would likely be far more costly (primarily in terms of higher world oil prices but also, potentially, in terms of reduced Bakken production) than almost any other emissions - cutting approach that serious people contemplate.

However even the moderate scenarios which have eventual stabilisation give more warming than 0.8 C. Even in the extremely unlikely event that there is no further growth in emissions, the current planetary energy imbalance (estimated to be almost 1W / m2)(due to the ocean thermal inertia) implies that there is around 0.5 C extra warming already in the pipeline that will be realised over the next 20 to 30 years.

If all the coal plants in the pipeline were to be built, then by 2030 emissions would be five times higher than the level associated with a 2C pathway, according to

Extracting, transporting, processing and burning dilbit emits more climate - changing greenhouse gases than conventional crude, so the Pegasus and other dilbit pipelines have become part of the fight to reduce carbon emissions.

Most studies have shown that more than half of the methane leakage from natural gas comes from drilling sites and gas processing plants (i.e. upstream emissions), with the remainder coming from pipelines and storage systems (i.e. downstream emission).

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found in a survey of published literature that because tar sands oil is more carbon intensive than conventional crude oil, the Keystone XL pipeline would increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of «approximately 558,000 to 4,061,000 passenger vehicles» annually:

The renewable synthetic diesel and jet fuels will meet all applicable fuels standards, be compatible with existing engines and pipelines, and burn cleanly, with emissions of particulates and other regulated pollutants significantly lower than emissions of traditional fuels.

This means that in order to sequester just a fifth of current CO2 emissions we would have to create an entirely new worldwide absorption - gathering - compression - transportation - storage industry whose annual throughput would have to be about 70 percent larger than the annual volume now handled by the global crude oil industry whose immense infrastructure of wells, pipelines, compressor stations and storages took generations to build.Technically possible — but not within a timeframe that would prevent CO2 from rising above 450 ppm.

But building any of these pipelines ignores the fact that upstream oil and gas emissions under Alberta's plan, given NEB projections, will account for more than three quarters (76 %) of Canada's emissions by 2040 and 100 % by 2050 — if emissions reduction targets are to be met.

We have two main concerns: the risk of oil spills along the pipeline, which would traverse highly sensitive terrain, and the fact that the extraction of petroleum from the tar sands creates far more greenhouse emissions than conventional production does.

Let's state that again more clearly: just one of the two proposed bitumen pipelines through BC will add more greenhouse emissions per year than the entire Province produces now.

Further, the pipeline would help the environment, because moving oil by pipeline produces 42 percent fewer emissions than transporting oil by rail, which is how the oil is being transported in lieu of the new pipeline.

In a report to Congress, the estimated effect of the pipeline on the U.S. greenhouse gas footprint would be an increase of 3 million to 21 million metric tons of GHG emissions annually — less than one percent of U.S. emissions.

Those actions alone did more to reduce emissions than the symbolic victories of passing a watered - down cap - and - trade bill or shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline would have.

Reining those in «is going to have a much bigger emissions effect in the long run than one pipeline,» Trembath said.