Comments on: Clearing the Air on Liquid Natural Gas

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:50:18 +0000

ROD KNOWS WHATS UP.

By: bobbi

bobbi — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:13:19 +0000

I am doing a research paper on liquifying natural gas in the midst of the gas crisis and need several different types of referencing material. Do you have any suggestion

By: Gina-Marie Cheeseman

Gina-Marie Cheeseman — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:54:14 +0000

I enjoy reading all of the comments. I would like to point out, however, that natural gas is not an unlimited fuel source. It is a fossil fuel. It is NOT renewable. We must move away from fossil fuels if we are going to combat global warming.

By: Shannon Arvizu

Shannon Arvizu — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:50:50 +0000

Another important distinction: CNG (compressed natural gas) is the cleaner of all the natural gas alternatives. When one speaks of the environmental benefits of natural gas, they are usually referring to CNG (not GTL or LNG).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 21 May 2008 10:19:13 +0000

Natural gas is burned (CO2 & other pollutants) to heat up massive amounts dirt to separate bitumen out, in Canada this consumes water and creates huge toxic tailings. Then more natural gas is used to upgrade it into synfuel. Then more energy is used to in the refine it. In essence a multiplier effect on the CO2 for the gasoline burned in a hybrid car. This makes about as much sense as using natural gas to manufacture nitrogen fertilizer to grow corn. Nitrogen pollution soluble in ground water and runoff and NOx in the atmosphere. Then burning more natural gas to distil it into ethanol. If the natural gas cost becomes linked to petroleum on a BTU basis then we can stop this madness. It is not a matter of using natural gas in transportation; it is already feed stock, just the most efficient least polluting way.

By: Clean_Burning

Clean_Burning — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:25:43 +0000

Natural Gas is becoming increasingly popular as an alternative to conventional fuels (gasoline, diesel). The main reason: natural gas burns with very low emissions. When compared to diesel, the California Energy Commission found that Natural Gas produced up to 23% lower emissions, it reduces Nox by 50% and Particulate Matter by 70%.
That “oil guy,” T. Boone Pickens is also the founder of “Clean Energy,” the largest provider of vehicular natural gas (CNG and LNG) in North America with state-of-the-art fueling stations strategically located throughout its markets.
According to Clean Energy’s website, “LNG is 600 times denser than natural gas, making it easily transportable and highly efficient as a fuel for heavy-duty, long-distance fleets, such as those serving major ports around the country…”
Also, natural gas is more than ” an industrial byproduct of the worldwide oil industry.” Many experts agree that Natural Gas is the practical bridge to energy independence and sustainability. In fact, 98% of it is in North America and according to the Natural Gas Supply Association, reserves point to at least a 60-year supply.
All alternative fuels have their drawbacks. However, in all the categories that matter i.e. (price, emission reduction, and viability,) Natural Gas comes out ahead each and every time. It’s cleaner, it’s cheaper, and there’s enough to go around.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:29:07 +0000

T Boone Pickens (the oil guy) is investing $10 – $12 billion in 4,000 megawatts of wind poower he inteds to sell @ $.10 – $.12 cost per Kilowatt Hour (before transmission cost). He strongly advocates that this and other renewable grid power be used to retire natural gas electricity generation and that the natural gas be used in transportation which is easily done with existing internal combustion technology. Cars such as Honda Civic GX emit almost no other pollutants other than CO2, and for that matter eliminate other pollutants during combustion. This includes NOx which is 296 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and often over looked both in current gasoline / hybrid and diesel discussions. This plan can use existing infrastructure for distribution and reduce total greenhouse emissions. Equivalent BTU of cost natural gas is currently ¬Ω gasoline or diesel, currently would translate to $1.00 a gallon (lower transportation cost and no road taxes). Significantly less energy (greenhouse gas) is used in its production and distribution than oil based fuels.

By: Gina-Marie Cheeseman

Gina-Marie Cheeseman — Thu, 15 May 2008 00:45:38 +0000

Ah methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. A ‘natural gas,’ yes. Do you know why methane is so plentiful? The majority of methane comes from the digestive tracts of livestock, and animal agriculture has more than doubled since 1961.
For more information about methane and global warming, please see the following article:
Hold Meat, Help the Environment

By: regeya

regeya — Thu, 15 May 2008 00:24:28 +0000

Natural gas is indeed a petroleum product–but it’s also largely methane, which is about the most common biogas in use. Yes, biogas. Anaerobic bacteria can give the stuff off, and can be used much like ground-based NG, because that’s what it is–’natural gas.’

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:05:38 +0000

Please see my addendum to this article: http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/update-on-clearing-the-air-abo-003114.php Gina-Marie Cheeseman

By: John McNary

John McNary — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:08:06 +0000

This article is not only inaccurately framed at the start, but ignores the major issues:
(1) The process of extracting methane, compressing it 600 times, shipping it across the globe and regasifying it, adds significantly to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, making it as dirty as coal.
(2) Natural gas is an industrial byproduct of the worldwide oil industry. By inducing reliance on another “plentiful” source of petroleum from overseas, we are making the United States further reliant on petroleum imports from suppliers like Russia, Iran and other unfriendly states. Even imports from “friends” like Indonesia, Nigeria or Australia strengthens the geopolitical hand of our enemies.
(3) Bringing LNG into America will mean that our electricity bills will become irrevocably linked to the world price of oil. If you can find a way make a profit on $4 a gallon gas, or the prospect of $200 a barrel oil, like the members of the Center for LNG (a division of the American Petroleum Institute) can, you will just love LNG.
(4) LNG from other nations has higher concentrations of other petroleum gases, and burns hotter. This is not a big deal in Japan, where hot water heaters and electrical generators are designed to burn the “hot gas”. But in North America, the “hot gas” will cause massive pollution and wastes of energy, much like putting 100 octane racing fuel in a car that can run perfectly well on 87 octane.
(5) The congressional research office says that the safety of largescale LNG transport ships and regasification facilities is a guessing game, and that no tests have ever been made on large-scale “pool spills” that would follow an accidental or terrorist breach. In fact, the Sandia National labroatory has relied on 30-year-old movies of a very-small LNG fire on a pond in China Lake, CA, for its data on how very-large spills of cryogenic slush will regasify. Sandia declared LNG ships “safe” based on simply mulitplying the effect by a million or so and assuming a big uncontrolled spill and fire would behave the same way as a little controlled test.
(6) The Bush-Cheney oil policy has stripped local governments of any regulation of LNG terminal or gas pipelines, and adopted a “market-based” policy in which any Texas oil company can propose to come into any town, buy off a few local officials, and condemn property for their facilities. FERC does not have to do a needs assessment, or determine which project is better for the environment or safer.

By: yasha husain

yasha husain — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:44:33 +0000

Another book to check out is High Noon for Natural Gas by Julian Darley. According to the author, LNG (natural gas made liquid so it can travel via double hulled ships from one expensive terminal to another)involves a costly and insecure infrastructure (it could explode or be exploded), in addition to it being energy-intensive. To import the gas is quite different from using domestic resources.

By: Robt Mann Ph.D

Robt Mann Ph.D — Mon, 12 May 2008 19:01:47 +0000

This piece is a mess of disinformation.
The term ‘LNG’ means – and means only – liquified natural gas. The other verbiage about “fuels that can be produced from … coal, and biomass using a Fischer-Tropsch chemical reaction” is a fog of deception produced by PR agents.
Natural gas is cooled to -161 ¬∞C to liquify it. The resulting LNG is many hundreds of times denser than the gas it was cooled from. Ocean-going tankers carry LNG in huge ‘thermos flasks’ – several per ship. If just one of these fragile tanks is ruptured by collision or sabotage, under some weather conditions the gas cloud released will still be flammable 100 km downwind. James A. Fay, professor of mechanical engineering at M.I.T, published a definitive paper in Combustion Sci. Tech. proving this conclusion, by an explicit mathematical model. On the other hand, ‘Science Applications Inc’ produced for a corporation proposing a Calif coast LNG depot a hazard radius of only a few km. – using a ‘proprietary’ secret model. It is not difficult to decide which to believe.
The nation of Qatar was practiaclly crippled for some years by a major mishap at an LNG depot.
‘Environment’ magazine had a good article 3 decades ago on LNG by UCS associate James MacKenzie. The book ‘Frozen Fire’ around the same time was another good source. I hope UCS does not again launder disinformation about this dangerous, unnecessary technology. Like nuclear power, it poses a ‘zero-infinity dilemma’ – it creates the potential for mishaps whose probability may approach zero but (if the unlikely mishap occurs) can do harm approaching, in a slang expression, infinity.

By: Robt Mann Ph.D

Robt Mann Ph.D — Mon, 12 May 2008 19:00:54 +0000