LAT Q&A on LNG
The Los Angeles Times does a Q&A on Liquefied Natural Gas in advance of a hearing this evening in Long Beach:
But the Times, as usual, makes several misstatements of facts--instead just repeating myths put forth by opponents of LNG. If you read Patterico, this comes as no surprise.
For example, they say that LNG is explosive because it is so concentrated, but that natural gas can only burn when it is 5-15% concentration. So therefore, the high concentration of LNG makes it unflammable and non-explosive.
The Times mentions a 1944 incident where an LNG storage facility exploded without mentioning that there are already 100 LNG storage facilities across the United States or that LNG is currently fueling hundreds of busses that crisscross L.A.'s city streets each day!
The Times also cites a "new report" by assistant National Security Advisor Richard Clarke, who has not held that position for years.
Finally, the Times mentions that FERC is trying to take control of LNG siting under the new Energy Bill, but it does not mention that in all but one case in California, the regulatory process would remain the same under the proposed changes, since it only affects onshore projects.
The Times also cites an explosion at an LNG facility in Algeria, but fails to mention that it was a boiler that exploded causing the fire--not the LNG itself--which means that the accident could have happened wherever there is a boiler.
Natural gas is an attractive fuel because it can be applied to many tasks — from lighting a kitchen stove to turning the turbines of an electrical power plant — all without the breath-choking pollution created by its fossil-fuel cousins, oil and coal.
As world oil prices soar, natural gas has become a more cost-effective fuel to import from wells around the globe. But it can only be shipped overseas in a liquefied form known as LNG — a tricky proposition because the substance is highly combustible.
Now, state and federal authorities are dueling over who should have the ultimate say on whether onshore terminals such as that proposed for Long Beach should be built.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger weighed in last week with a letter to federal officials, and the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is expected to take up the issue this week.
Lost amid the furor are some of the basic facts about liquefied natural gas, the science behind its transportation and why so many people disagree over its safety.
But the Times, as usual, makes several misstatements of facts--instead just repeating myths put forth by opponents of LNG. If you read Patterico, this comes as no surprise.
For example, they say that LNG is explosive because it is so concentrated, but that natural gas can only burn when it is 5-15% concentration. So therefore, the high concentration of LNG makes it unflammable and non-explosive.
The Times mentions a 1944 incident where an LNG storage facility exploded without mentioning that there are already 100 LNG storage facilities across the United States or that LNG is currently fueling hundreds of busses that crisscross L.A.'s city streets each day!
The Times also cites a "new report" by assistant National Security Advisor Richard Clarke, who has not held that position for years.
Finally, the Times mentions that FERC is trying to take control of LNG siting under the new Energy Bill, but it does not mention that in all but one case in California, the regulatory process would remain the same under the proposed changes, since it only affects onshore projects.
The Times also cites an explosion at an LNG facility in Algeria, but fails to mention that it was a boiler that exploded causing the fire--not the LNG itself--which means that the accident could have happened wherever there is a boiler.
posted by CalEnergyGuy at 11:12 AM
<< Home