From: pstonge@TrentU.CA (cmdr keener)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Reply-To: pstonge@TrentU.CA
Organization: Trent University, Peterborough
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:20:08 GMT

In article <tkdcnf4@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.021225.242@netcom.com>, ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
>> 
>> 	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?
>
>Why not use it while we have it?  When we run out, we can switch.  Really.
>Does it make sense not to use a resource that we have abundant quantities
>of, just because they aren't infinite?  Perhaps we will have perfected
>hydrogen by then, or fusion.
>
G'day.  Another thing that might be added is the source of the gas.  While 
America probably does have signifigant quantities of natural gas, it might 
be worthwhile noting that a sizable portion of the natural gas in America -  
come from *Canada* via the TransCanada PipeLine.  If memory serves, many of 
the eastern states reply on this source, and the amounts of gas flowing 
that way per year are *increasing*...
	Since this source isn't domestic to the US, once supplies start getting
scarse, and the supply contracts come up for renewal, there would be a 
possibility that these contracts might not be renewed, placing an additional 
pressure on the development of alternative technologies.  I know I'm 
speculating here, but I offer it only as one possibility.


>
>> 	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?
	On one hand, being lighter than air there is no fear of soil or 
groundwater contamination from a vehicle take.  On the other hand, NG can 
form explosive mixtures in closed areas, although this is not necessary a 
problem if the auto's tank is outside the vehicle (design consideration).
Of course, while the role that hydrocarbon gasses play in global warming 
may not be fully understood yet, prudence would dictate that a lot of 
effort should go into preventing gas leaks.
>
[Discussion of matching vehicles with fuel systems, carefully saved]

>> 	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.
	Although I think an investment in infrastructure would be required, 
it could be affected by at least two factors:  A reduction in the consumption 
or use of the services which require this infrastructure (which I think is 
critical) and using the already established infrastructure (existing NG 
facilities). 

>
>Zero emissions means electric batteries (which isn't really zero emissions,
>and especially isn't zero environmental impact -- just ask any environmentalist
>fighting a dam or a nuclear power plant).
	There is talk now about using combined cycle cogeneration for power 
production.  In my opinion, straight cogen is a good idea where sufficient 
quantities of heat are being produced - industrialized areas, f'rinstance.  The
other part of this combined cycle involves using NG in a gas turbine to turn a 
generator.  While this might be better than using coal (any stats out there?
I'd love to hear 'em!), but it seems to be that CNG might best be used in 
another way (assuming conservation, coal, large scale hydro and nukes have been 
dealt with, of course), like cooking...

>					    You'll probably see CNG limited 
>to fleet use, for the most part, while electric cars at first will be limited
>to people who have private garages, and don't need a range of more than 100
>miles (or maybe 80 on a cold day or 50 on a hot day).
	Sounds good, wonder if we'll ever get mass transit to work that 
way?  Cheers!  -- Pete