tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post6106344820577359312..comments2024-03-24T11:01:27.668-04:00Comments on Resource Insights: LNG comes to Boston, a harbinger of the future?Kurt Cobbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05330759091950742285noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-27205991580102316282018-02-22T19:40:23.426-05:002018-02-22T19:40:23.426-05:00Couple of problems with an energy economy based on...Couple of problems with an energy economy based on extensive LNG importation + exportation.<br />First is that typical seaborne transportation of natural or methane [or swamp] gas consumes about 5% of the product being shipped. The ERoEI or 'energy return ratio' [easier to pronounce + explain to people] thus drops further compared to shipment by pipeline. <br />Second is the reality of multiple sites of point-source fugitive methane release in the entire chain of natural gas infrastructure. The dilemma here is exemplified by a critical cross-over point. If as much as 3% of methane escapes then the ultimate 'levelized cost' of heat-trapping gases is as severe as that associated with the extraction + combusion of coal. Logically, above 3% the contribution to climate change is ironically even more severe. <br />Natural gas is not a bridge fuel after all, but rather a bridge to that small Alaskan island, speaking metaphorically.S. W. Lawrencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01654864579983316386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-8494568179697514472018-02-18T16:20:01.413-05:002018-02-18T16:20:01.413-05:00Sometimes if a problem seems to be intractable it ...Sometimes if a problem seems to be intractable it can be because we have asked the wrong question. Here we appear to be working with the question, “How do we best supply New England with natural gas?” <br /><br />Maybe a better question is, “How do the people of New England ensure that their homes and business buildings stay acceptably warm in the winter?” There are two ways of answering this question:<br /><br />1. Add energy to the buildings.<br />2. Reduce the amount of energy that is leaving the buildings.<br /><br />They appear to have selected the first option: adding energy. They have then assumed that the energy will come from natural gas, rather than say coal, oil or nuclear power.<br /><br />Another answer may be to to reduce energy losses by beefing up the insulation of the buildings so that less energy is needed. This option would have three other advantages. First, it would reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Second, it would reduce the chance of a serious incident to do with a large release of LNG. Third, if shale gas boom does indeed fizzle then it will be good to be less dependent on foreign suppliers.<br /><br />It may even be possible to examine the phrase “acceptably warm”. Would it be possible for the temperature in the buildings to be reduced yet for the people in them to live and work productively?<br /><br />Whether or not these ideas are economically feasible remains to be seen. But they are at least worth considering.<br />ChemEnghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168251215012150114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-73767755674146557432018-02-18T13:31:08.840-05:002018-02-18T13:31:08.840-05:00Shipping LNG out of one port and importing it back...Shipping LNG out of one port and importing it back in at another is a great way of wasting energy...Yvan Royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14810932887954689424noreply@blogger.com