RonMar said:
LNG is a viable technology and has been on our roadways for decades at an affordable cost.
NG and LNG are great fuels. They can be completely oxidized into CO2, so no pollution, only greenhouse gas emissions. NG used to be abundant and very cheap. What has happened is that elec. utilities have shunned other fossil fuels (along with nuclear) in favor of NG piped directly into small generating facilities that have one large aircraft turbine burning the NG and blowing its exhaust into another turbine which is geared to a generator. These Co-Gen plants shunt the hot waste gasses off to boilers in attached paper mills or similar industries which pay for the waste heat. My cousin used to manage one of these Co-Gen plants in Modesto. These small facilities can react quickly to surges in demand, going on and off line in minutes. So much NG is now piped directly to these facilities that demand now equals supply and is in the process of exceeding it very soon. This is why CA is in the process of preparing to build new shipping docks/terminals where shiploads of foreign LNG will be unloaded. (More reliance on unstable foreigners and more trade deficit.)
It just seems to me that we whould be making the electricity from some other domestic fuel source (coal with CO2 sequestered, 4th generation nuclear, etc.) and using what was a surplus of NG to pressurize into LNG for autos, thus reducing imports from these unstable OPEC nations.
BTW, 4th generation nuclear is a design in which solid spheres of nuclear material the size of tennis balls are embedded in a ceramic matrix. There are no control rods, and no liquid that becomes contaminated. This matrix is not capable of overheating or melting down. Helium is pumped through this matrix, the gas picking up heat from the decaying isotopes. The Helium passes through a turbine (coupled to generator) where it cools, and then continues the loop. Alternate designs have the Helium passing through a heat exchanger, making steam to drive turbines. The depleted fissile materials, being solid rather than liquid, are more easily stored in deep underground deposits. Yuca Mountain has been ready to receive waste for years, but local politicians from BOTH parties in Nevada have done everything possible to block the facility from opening.
Another side note: Hydro makes a good on demand source. As someone who thinks of himself as an environmentalist and a pragmatist at the same time, I have written letters to politicians and political groups on both sides of environmental issues with the following propasal. Yosemite National Park actually has TWO beautiful canyons. In the early 1900s, the city of San Francisco managed to get the other canyon dammed up. Water is piped from there to San Francisco today. The dam is old and will not be able to stay up forever. There are other newer/larger dams downstream of the Hetch Hechy with enough capacity to replace the water. There is a dam site on the American River where a very large reservoir could be built that would do all the following: 1) provide drinking water for new development in this fast growing region. 2) provide recreation. 3) provide flood protection for Sacramento (Sacramento has greater odds of flood catastrophy than New Orleans. Their number simply came up on the roulette wheel before ours.) Environmentalists have blocked dam construction for nearly 35 years. My suggestion to all the groups and politicians has been a trade. Take down the dam in Hetch Hetchy and begin restoring Hetch Hetchy, while building a much larger reservoir in the American River Canyon at Auburn. Environmentalists would be trading an average valley to get back a jewel in Yosemite. Developers would get water for growth. Sac. would get its flood protection. Water rights trades could be made to insure SF has adequate drinking supply. Thing is, SF, normally so environmental, doesn't want to surrender alpine pure drinking water. I got a form letter from Sen. Feinstein saying that Hetch Hetchy shouldn't be taken down because of the cost. I say, since environmentalists want Hetch Hetchy back so badly, let them do fundraising to take down the dam, and since they get their jewel back, let them agree to giving up the canyon at Auburn. Let developers and elec. utilities pay for a $2 billion dam there in exchange for the power they'd get. Sac. gets flood protection. Then that on demand power could free up some NG for use in cars, lessening our dependance on unstable foreign oil. Well, as one of the few who believes in a middle ground, not many agree with me. Extremists on both sides want every last thing their way. The founders believed the word "compromise" was a good word. Extremists today consider the idea a sin. Why can't anybody see the benefits of being pragmatic and using common sense any more?
