From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:26:05 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

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?

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.

> 	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?

The December 1992 issue of Transit California compares emissions from
buses with CNG, methanol, and particulate traps.  CNG emissions were
substanially lower than the others, so it appears that it is promising.
The problem with CNG is that it requires huge, heavy storage tanks.
It won't be too practical for many passenger cars.  But they can stay
with gasoline, since it can be cleaned up pretty well too.

> 	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.

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).  They aren't practial for many uses,
so we will still need combustion engines.  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).

jeremy