Inkoon LNG ja energian tuonti merten takaa on saastuttavaa ja kallista.

Anonyymi-ap kirjoitti:

The difference with LNG supply is striking: LNG imports generate between 61 per cent and 176 per cent more GHG emissions than the supply from Russia via the TurkStream pipeline. These higher emissions are a result of energy-intensive liquefaction (including purification) and LNG carrier transport.

In the case of Algeria, Australia (Queensland) and the United States, high fugitive emissions occur in production and processing. As a result, there are potential savings of between 19 and 48 million tons CO2-eq per year for South-East Europe and Turkey if natural gas from Russia via the TurkStream pipeline is used instead of natural gas via LNG imports.

There is also a difference between natural gas supplied by pipeline via Ukraine Russian and TurkStream. The global warming potential for natural gas transported via Ukraine is one third higher than that supplied from Russia via the TurkStream pipeline.

The reason for the difference between these two routes is the long-distance pipeline transportation and design and age of the transport systems. The pressure in offshore pipelines is higher than in onshore pipelines, which reduces the amount of compressor stations needed and reduces potential fugitive emissions.

Sanna Marin esti putkikaasun oston Venäjältä ja vuokrasi 400 000 000 euroa maksavan muistomerkin saasteita tuottamaan Inkoon satamaan.
Nyt kärsii Vuosaari jo puupulasta, halvan putkikaasun pulasta puhumattakaan.
Ei ole ihme jos asuminen kallista Vihreässä Helsingissä, kun asumistukikin poistuu.

kirjoitti:

Anonyymi

Kirjoita kommentti

5000

Lähetä