More On LNG
OK, I’ll admit that I was once anti LNG, but as many of you know I changed my opinion on all of that earlier this yearArticle Here. Personally, I think that the anti LNG movement is so vested in opposing it that they are not willing to consider other benefits of Liquid Natural Gas. I just finished listening to an anti LNG show on KMUN where the host and three guest spewed rumor and half to no truth for a half hour with no one from the opposing side present and no opportunity to call in to dispute their so-called facts.
As I’ve stated in the past these anti LNG factions say that they are opposed to foreign gas supplies entering the country, even though much of the LNG we would get will come from Australia. Yet they don’t mind filling their Subaru or Prius at the pump with refined oil products from the countries they have disputes with. So it’s OK for technology you are presently dependent on. You are real good at sacrificing for your principals, aren’t you?
I think that not only should we embrace LNG but we should convert all of our automobiles to run on it. We are currently paying $4.00 per gallon of refined gasoline or diesel, while LNG is selling as fuel for under $1.80 per gallon. Other advantages of natural gas include that it can be used directly as it is taken from the ground, while other fuels must be refined. It has an octane rating of about 130 as compared to 83 for gasoline. Natural gas leads to reduced engine maintenance and to longer engine life. Natural gas vehicles run about 80 percent cleaner than conventional vehicles.
If the Anti-LNG folks were truly working to better the environment on our planet they would abandon all their gasoline burning devices and go 100% Natural Gas or gas generated electricity. This will never happen because they already have too much money and energy in opposing this clean energy source. Oh, and they will say it isn’t clean, but if you had to choose would you rather live in a community with an LNG terminal or an oil refinery. If you are of the total NIMBY mind-set, than maybe you shouldn’t drive. All communities need to share some sort of burden that keeps the fires burning for commerce and every day living. How can we think we are more self important than other communities.
Yes, there is natural beauty here just as there is natural beauty nearly every you go on this planet. Do you think the home you live made the vacant natural land look nicer with a structure on it? How about that driveway of yours? Is that beneficial to the environment because it is sealing in the nature below? Think of the foot print you are leaving on the planet just for your personal comfort.
The fact is that we demand energy and we consume energy and it isn't fair nor right to be xenophobic about an industry that wants to meet our demand and pay us tax revenue in the process. This may be the best thing that we can do locally for the environment. If you are anti LNG, please consider what is written here with an open mind before you continue your condemnation.
posted by The Guy Who Writes This at 4:00 AM
13 Comments:
Your post prompted me to do some research.
“Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of energy to the U.S. - providing 17% of U.S. oil imports and 18% of U.S. natural gas demand.”
www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm
I wonder how many people in the U.S. know that?
In Utah in April Compressed Natural Gas was selling for .639 a gallon!
http://jonrcarver.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!47A0DDB97138E2FF!1183.entry
It is sad that the Oregon Democrats hide this information from the average person. That a supposed unbiased study says we don't need LNG. Obviously, whoever did that study doesn't give a rats ass about the common working man who now has contribute the first work hour of each day solely to paying for the fuel it takes to get to work and back home. The next three hours go to taxes. The next four hours go to household expenses. Have to work overtime to pay for the parts on the car that the ethanol damaged, to pay for the kids braces, paying for after school activities (that they have to be involved in or we pay daycare of $175/week if we can get someone), pay for the broken arm from the sports activity, pay for clothes, pay for fuel, pay for insurances, pay for pills to stay happy, go to sleep, keep the kids from being too hyper, school supplies. Two people, trading night and day shifts, doing 60 hour weeks to survive in a county with the highest rent in the state. And we don't need no stinking industries to help us pay our local taxes and keep those lower??? We don't need cheaper fuel??? We don't need cheaper heating bills???
And these are the people that are for the working man?
I think most of the people who oppose this don't really have to worry about their finances much. Their not thinking about what's good for the economy or the environment they're thinking about themselves and their own comfort, not even considering it might actually help them as well. I think we need to find a way to appeal to their sense of greed, that ALWAYS works.
Build a green driveway:
http://www.frankejames.com/debate/?page_id=66
Build a house out of more natural materials:
http://www.balewatch.com/
http://mha-net.org/html/sblinks.htm
Look into solar energy and heating.
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/SolarHomes/constructionps.htm
I rode in a taxi in the Philippines 15 years ago that ran on natural gas or propane, I forget which. The tank was in the trunk, so it limited baggage carrying capacity. The car was also severely limited in range due to a lack of facilities for filling up. The same problem exists in the USA--it would require a huge change in infrastructure and outlay of cash to build it. All to be dependent on yet another fossil fuel.
My experience with the LNG issue is two fold when it comes to those opposed. There are two camps:
1. The NIMBY camp
2. The anti fossil fuel/big corporation camp.
I guess I'm in the world economic bigger picture camp. Either we embrace every fuel we can or make renewable energy a priority. If I was a bettin' guy, I'd bet on the "every fuel we can". What I see on the renewable front is encouraging, but a far cry from reality in the next 20 years. If our current policy keeps it incremental gains, we might see 20% renewables in the next 20 years.
You think you are paying high fuel prices now? Think again.
My favorite comical relief comes from the ones who say we won't benefit from an LNG storage facility here. My comment on that is google gas prices in oil rich states (you need to back out sales tax to make an apples to apples comparison)
We try to make our yearly pheasant hunting trip to South Dakota every year via I-90. Wyoming has a stretch along I-90 with oil rigs pumping away. We always wait to fill up in Wyoming because fuel is cheaper. I don't know about you but I'd much rather have paid 3.50/gal than the $4 I paid today.
They want to put in an LNG facility just around the bend from my house. I say bring it on! Put one here and one in Warrenton.
I'm an IMBY!
I'm taking a survey on the forum to see how many people have changed their minds for or against LNG. Somehow I sense more people are for it these days. We'll see.
Honda has a natural gas-powered model. It gets great marks for cleanliness. However, it gets a max of 36 mpg on the highway and the tank only holds 8 gallons, giving a max highway range of 288 miles and 192 miles of city driving. And then there's the suggested price of $25,000, but you can get a $4,000 tax credit. Still not cheap for a small car.
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/
Oh, and they're only available in California and New York. You'd run out of gas before you could drive one to Astoria...
Another point (sorry to clog up your comments), it costs $6,000 to $12,000 to convert a car to run on natural gas, and it has to be done by someone EPA certified with an EPA certified kit. Good news is you can get up to $7,000 in tax credits for doing it. That's a lot to fork out at once, even if you can get some of it back the next year.
It also costs a lot more to build a CNG refueling station than a regular gas station.
I looked to see where there were stations in Oregon and found only one in the northern part of the state, in Hillsboro. It is currently not operational--they're "looking into the problem." The nearest station to the south is one of two in the Medford area. To the north: Tacoma, WA. To the east, uh: Utah.
There are ways to tap into your home gas system, but once again, they cost money to install, something like $4,500 and up. The home filling option is also a slow fill, so it takes overnight to do. You also need permits and permission to do so, though I didn't look into the specific requirements in Oregon.
Do you still want everyone to convert their vehicles to CNG?
Sure I'd like to see it developed. With the price of gasoline rising at the rate of one cent per day, we may be paying $7 per gallon next year at this time.
I still maintain the future of autos is in battery power/electric. Plug it in!
I'm with you, g. I think there are some very big breakthroughs in battery technology coming in the near future.
http://pesn.com/2006/02/09/9600232_MIT_Battery/
Several things get me about the anti-LNG camp. First being that they are typically just as much energy consumers as you or I. Unless they're willing to shut off their power and ride bikes all the time, I don't know how much validity they'll ever have.
Another thing is that atrocious things go up and down the Columbia River on ships every day. Moreover, lots of toxic tankers run right through our main drag. What do you suppose would happen should one of those babies tip over and dump into the sewers below downtown? Pray nobody tosses a lit cigarette down a drain at the same time. Boom.
So, it's not like there aren't even bigger dangers going on every single day in the name of energy delivery. And LNG explosion would be a small risk compared to those that occur every single day.
There are lots of truly valid things to fight for, but this isn't one of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home