Posted on 04/05/2014 6:20:53 PM PDT by thackney
How would it be infeasible?
LNG won’t ignite. It has to be heated to vapor first, the diluted 15% concentration before it can be ignited.
By the time you have warmed and diluted it, it has risen up high above the surface facilities because methane is far lighter than air.
Explosions can only happen when contained inside a structure and mixed with air.
Lack of ports, oversease transportation costs and hazards, conversion cost from gas to liquid to gas ... the transportation and ports at the other end
Is all that economically feasible so that we could make a profit and it could be sold for a price people would pay?
Perhaps if energy get extremely expensive. But there are a lot of ifs in this proposition.
Yes. They already do it shipping from some other countries, including Qatar, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, Nigeria, Trinidad, Algeria, Russia, Oman, Brunei, Yemen, Egypt, UAE, Equatorial Guinea, Peru, Norway and some others.
We exported a small amount of LNG from Alaska for decades until the Cook Inlet gas supply got tight.
The only ifs are "if only" our population only understood history, science and economics.
This isn't something new and unknown.
You have heard of “MOAB”? The only point I would make is that I notice the “media” isn’t even interested. BTW, ever wonder why we don’t have H2 powered autos?
Yes, the GRU-43/B does not use LNG as an explosive, if for no other reason, it won't explode.
The only point I would make is that I notice the “media” isn’t even interested.
Interested in what? LNG won't ignite or explode.
BTW, ever wonder why we don’t have H2 powered autos?
Because H2 only real value as a fuel is energy per pound? It is expensive and takes a lot of volume.
Storage?
Yes, that is part of what makes it expensive.
And as I recall, H2 storage “scares” folks pretty easily.
H2 has a much wider range of ratio to air to be ignitable. 6 to 75% concentrations compared to methanes 5 to 15%.
H2 has a much higher flame speed, nearly 10 times that of methane creating a much stronger pressure wave if a cloud is ignited.
H2 has a much lower ignition energy requirement. It take more energy to ignite a methane air mixture (size of spark)
Those are all reasons why methane is considered a safer fuel than H2. Not to mention the much smaller molecule of H2 make leaks easier to occur. Hydrogen rated fittings have a tighter tolerance on the machining to be rated for H2 use.
I’m not sure the point of the H2 comparison. It just makes methane look like a safe fuel, which it is. But it is far, far cheaper and the reason it is widely used for fuel.
I am glad to see you are knowledgeable on these subjects. Like I said, the thing I want to point out is that the brown shirt media and even others don’t seem interested in this aspect of the issue. I am NO tree hugger, believe me. OTOH, I recall how easily Jane Fonda and a few others destroyed nuclear energy and I find it curious that safety hasn’t been even broached. Just curious, is all.
I have seen a lot of coverage of the safety on LNG for years, before it was a top of export and still a topic of imports.
Many of the companies have produced brochures of the topic to dispel the myths. From my point of view, the topic has been beat to death and more of the media and public is finally understanding it is a relatively safe method of energy transport.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/ngt/Quillen.pdf
https://www.iomosaic.com/docs/training/Managing_LNG_Risks.pdf
http://etc.am.szczecin.pl/files/download/HCB%20Nov%2006.pdf
http://www.conocophillips.com.au/sustainable-development/the-lng-story/Pages/lng-facts.aspx
I do say relatively safe. I've done oil/gas/petrochem work for a couple decades. It is a hazardous environment, mistakes do happen, fires and explosions due occur (although far less frequently than the used to) and people still get killed in the industry.
But by the vary nature of contained energy sources, there are potentials to release the energy in an undesired method. Safety is important and not to be taken for granted. But the risks and the discussions of them should be honest and based on reality, not "China Syndrome" fantasy.
Unfortunately, we both know reality has little bearing on political decision making. Especially now days.
yep, that is why I tilt at my windmills on FreeRepublic.com
I hope that a few will take factual information with them to the voting booth.
Cheers!
I wouldn’t invest in LNG export.
Okay, it is not for you.
But there are several companies who have decided the economics are right and are waiting permit approval, a couple have already been approved, construction has begun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.