From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 00:31:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.021225.242@netcom.com> ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
>	I was listening to Clinton's "economic summit" on the radio this
>morning.  There seemed to be as much pleading by business representatives
>for their specific industries as there were expressions of concern about
>problems as a whole.  A representative of the natural-gas industry recited
>a laundry list of the supposed benefits of natural gas, and claimed that
>structrual impediments (my words) had prevented natural gas from growing 
>as it should have during the 1980's (something I hardly doubt).
>
>	I have three questions.  First, this natural-gas representative was
>really selling his wares.  Clinton responded that he planned to have all
>government vehicle fleets running on natural gas.  Isn't natural gas a
>non-renewable resource?  Is it a good idea to tie our economy to something
>else that will evenutally run out, even if it is found in great quantities
>in the United States?
It's not our economy.  It belongs to the people who are selling their wares.
The word for commodity in German, interestingly enough, is "ware".  If it was
our economy, I think I could support using natural gas as a power source for
vehicles.  Hydrogen would be even better.  The Mercedes Corporation is having
their employees work on this sensible fuel.
As for the people who sell natural gas now, it would certainly be in their
interests to vend it till it ended, mainly because its eventual scarcity 
would drive its price ever higher.

>	Second, if I remember correctly, natural gas is composed mostly of
>low-molecular weight hydrocarbons (e.g., propane).  The natural-gas repre-
>sentative touted the environmental benefits of natural gas, but I'm suspi-
>cious.  Anyone care to comment?

No comment.

>	My third question is specific to California.  If I remember correct-
>ly, we have enacted air quality control standards in this state which will 
>require ten percent of the vehicles sold in this state by the year 2000 to
>produce _zero_ emissions.  Does it make sense to pursue natural gas tech-
>nologies if the goal is zero emissions?  I'm concerned that any new tech-
>nology will require an investment in infrastructure (e.g., filling stations,
>vehicle maintenance skills) and that, if natural gas fails to meet the
>zero-emission standard, we will be developing two new technologies in 
>parallel.

No comment, other than the hydrogen suggestion above.  Maybe, if we are 
ever really in control of the economy, we can vote directly on fuel use
and production.


>-- 
>== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
>"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
> they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
>(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
> stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
> Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
> stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
>============================================================================
BTW I think Groucho stole that property quote from Pierre J. Proudhon.


-- 
Don't just co863-WOBSmplain; orgPhone (415)aniz
Join the Wobblies.


Newsgroups: ba.transportation