Real Treehuggers Support Adding LNG Terminals
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 09.29.07
North American nations are considering a combined total of 64 liquefied natural gas import terminal proposals. These projects are somewhere between underway and identified. To view industry-supplied facts and perspectives on LNG, check out this site. If you are strongly opposed to LNG port additions, please don't just shoot us an angry comment before checking out the following reasoning.
We mentioned before that a major trade-off decision facing North America is coal vs conservation. Actually, that was something of an oversimplification.
Adding enough LNG import capacity in the next few years, combined with a sufficiently-low Federally imposed carbon cap in the US and Canada, could head hundreds of new coal and nuclear generators off at the climate pass*. And, the added LNG could play an important role in the sustainability of hybrid vehicle designs.
As long as gas supplies are adequate, gas fired generators are easier to permit, far cheaper to build, and vastly cleaner to operate than coal-fired generators* *. Some would argue that natural gas has a lower carbon footprint than nuclear power if an objective comparison is made over the full product life cycle. For the moment, however, let's hold off on the merits of adding nuclear plants. Taxpayers are going to be shocked once they find out what it would cost in public subsidies to build hundreds of new nuclear stations. That makes for a pretty uncertain debate.
We can be fairly certain of this strategic point: the sustainability trade-off between natural gas and coal is a near term issue that has great tactical significance for Congressional representatives considering whether to support a mandatory carbon cap.
Elected officials need to show that they are looking out for the electric bills of their constituents as well as working to mitigate climate change. Hemmed in by higher cost alternatives like mandating C02 sequestration for all new coal-fired plants or instituting a low enough carbon cap, they'll not be able support an effective climate management package if they are prevented from framing their support for it as a reasonable trade-off, given that natural gas will be a low-cost, clean, sustainable energy alternative.
If you agree that adding coal fired generation capacity is an unacceptable climate risk, then you should also agree we need all the alternatives to coal we can muster. LNG is one of the key alternatives. A handful of coastal locations either can assume the incremental risk of an LPG terminal Bleve or help accelerate the rate at which the planet goes down the climate tubes, and see the coastal cities for which LNG terminals were proposed get flooded.
Opposing LNG ports just because of the potential of increased local risk of fire or explosion is analogous (not similar) to opposing offshore wind turbines because of locally reduced shore property values and aesthetics: both hold the world's climate hostage. Both are self defeating on climate issues. Moreover, a similar risk posed by natural gas is an overlooked fact everyday fact of life* * *.
Caveats: multiple companies are proposing the candidate LNG sites. The overall effect of 64 proposed sites is one of mud being thrown on the wall to see what sticks. Obviously, only a subset of these will be permitted and a smaller number actually built. The proposals that 'don't stick' hopefully will be those which would clearly inconvenience peoples daily lives, severely impact fish and aquatic life, or require local government expense to compensate for other material and non-material losses. Additionally, Homeland Security definitely will have something to say if the owners of the port or ships are 'not our best friends,' for example.
But, if all one is basing opposition on is incremental personal risk of fire and explosion, then that needs to be looked at in terms of the incremental risk of climate change induced local flooding. (We doubt that anyone would publicly claim they don't care if the coastal flooding skips a generation or two - though they might feel that way.)
"Of the 64 sites, 49 are proposed projects in the United States, of which 13 hold one or more approvals, either from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or another U.S. agency."
"In Canada, two terminals have been approved, and another five potential sites are identified. In Mexico, three terminals have been approved and another five are considered potential."
"Additional proposals are frequently put forward by developers and more are expected in North America."
"Six terminals are operating on the United States: one on the Louisiana Gulf Coast, one offshore Louisiana, three on the East Coast and one in Puerto Rico. How many projects might be built in the United States? Industry analysts suggest perhaps only 12 of the 49 terminals being considered will ever be built."
"Despite the aggressive response by U.S. gas producers to higher gas prices, domestic production is expected to remain flat, said Michael Zenker, managing director of global gas for Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Even the addition of proposed supplies from Canada's Mackenzie Delta and Alaska's North Slope are not ample to meet anticipated demand. "The supply response is not enough," he said."
A representative of the American Petroleum Institute is quoted as saying, "You can't drill your way out of this." Maybe they've been reading the green blogs?
Footnotes:
* The coal/LNG tradeoff won't work if NIMBY outrage shuts down the addition of sufficient LPG terminals, or if Congress fails to enact a timely, low enough carbon cap.
* * Natural gas is one third hydrogen by weight. And very little of the "H" is associated with moisture. Conversely, coal is 40 to 85% carbon by weight, and much of the hydrogen content in coal is from moisture. While a great deal of the energy liberated from natural gas combustion is from formation of water by uniting hydrogen with oxygen, in coal, much of the energy liberated is from oxidation of carbon.
* * *A great many of us have near-infinite natural gas sources in our kitchens and somehow can live with that risk. It's called a gas range. Plenty of us have 20 to 140 pound cylinders of partly liquefied natural gas on your decks. A grille.
Via:: Platts Insight Image credit:: Eric Seigmund and Marine Service Gmbh
Umm, am I delusional or have I read that production of natural gas has already peaked in North America? And if that is the case, then why is it sensible to assume other nations with their own economic interests to satisfy will happily share their own diminishing resources with the US?
Are we ever going to get past the notion that fossil-fueled business as usual is our birthright and will last forever? That thermostats will not be cranked endlessly to 70 degrees and there will be enough of everything for everybody? Where in the world is the science to support that?
I heard on NPR yesterday about natural gas fires in africa, where they just burn it off instead of capturing it. Somehow I don't think their economies depend on natural gas at the moment. That said, you're right about most of the rest of the world being willing to give that up.
Mark Barnette, you are far from delusional! US natural gas production has peaked, soon to be followed by Canada who we get tons of it from. The idea behind importing LNG is identical to what we did when Oil production peaked in the 70s in the US: get it from the middle east. Its truly sad that Americans and even "Real Treehuggers" refuse to pursue lifestyle changes (i.e. conservation) that would enable us to become energy independent of unstable regions like the middle east!
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101071001,00.html
cover of latest TIME issue: "Who owns that Arctic?"
Perhaps more Natural Gas reserves than we previously thought? Interesting that the emergence of the North West passage may unlock huge amounts of Natural Gas, and fulfill the cravings of those very countries seeking immediate energy satisfaction.
Here's a really easy way to increase our natural gas supply.
Stop making biofuels.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/33925-natural-gas-investors-to-benefit-from-global-ethanol-boom
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png
The "reasoning" presented is seriously flawed.
It presents a false either/or choice.
America needs to get over its NIMBY attitude about conservation and efficiency not a reluctance for more of one of the fossil fuels.
Thanks John, for another great post. A bit of reality and not so warm and fuzzy.
TIME TO WAKE UP FOLKS
It is not reasonable to think that the US will kick its 'energy habit' with conservation and renewables in the very near future, therefore we must look for the least damaging sources during this transition time. What our crappy reality boils down to is: coal or NG? Nukes take huge amounts of time and subsidies, beside the fact that when the Lifecycle Cost Analysis, risks, security isues, and wastes are factored in, they still suck.
So, what do we have? Peak oil, peak gas, and eventually peak coal (not the "250 years-at-CURRENT-usage-rates" so often mis-stated). The US is in for a rude awakening in the next 20 years (probably sooner) and drastic conservation measures (read: ratoning) will be imposed if we do not take them ourselves - all of us.
This NIMBY crap about wind farms and LNG terminals comes from the same source of mass-denial that we suffer regarding the current/coming energy and economic crisis in this country. Suck on a lump of coal for bit before making the "choice" to have you precious view preserved.
Or better yet -- time for us treehuggers to grow some and make some real political trades -- we'll give them ANWR if they'll give us 50 mpg CAFE and 70% renewable rebates. No Cape Cod? ... fine, take a 150% hike in your electricity rates!
Guess that's just my 2+ cents. Rant over, have a good night all :-)
Three words:
Efficiency
Efficiency
and Efficiency
That is the solution. Not Coal, nor Nuclear, nor LNG.
give them ANWR?
NEVER. EVER.
(yes, I'm shouting)
The above polemic is brought to you by the LNG lobby, masquerading as treehuggers.
They've pretended to be enviros before, and are doing it again.
The above polemic is brought to you by the LNG lobby, masquerading as treehuggers.
They've pretended to be enviros before, and are doing it again.
Mr. Laumer,
I believe your view in support of LNG is not widely shared by various environmentalists and others, including those who do not ally themselves with coal and oil magnates to kill wind projects as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has done in Massachusetts against the Cape Wind project.
I am especially curious about your work as an "independent consultant " who carried out "recent service with a multinational chemical firm" according to your Tree Hugger bio.
http://www.treehugger.com/authors/index.php?author=John Laumer
Do that "multinational chemical firm" or other current or past clients of yours have an interest or involvement in use or development of LNG.
Also, do any TreeHugger.com's major advertisers have an interest in LNG or LNG terminal development?
I think this information would be of interest to readers in pondering this post strongly in favor of LNG terminals.
Also, by the use of "we" in the above post, are the readers of TreeHugger.com to presume that this position in favor of LNG terminals represents the view of TreeHugger.com including the founder and leader Graham Hill?
Would TreeHugger.com be amenable to posting as a guest editorial a perspective or two from critics of LNG plants?
Thank you.
Bernardo Issel
NonprofitWatch.org
http://www.NonprofitWatch.org
bernardo @ nonprofitwatch.org
==== author's response follows ====
I have no idea whether any TreeHugger advertisers have vested interests in LNG projects.
I personally have no position one way or the other, past present or future, on any LNG proposal or group of LNG proposals. If you read the post carefully, you will have noticed that no LNG projects were named in it.
Citizens of North America, whether they realize it or not, have an interest in LNG due to the trade-offs cited in my post. The 64 proposals have already been made. I emphasize that my points are all theoretical regarding political and environmental trade-offs.
My supposition is that most of the points I made in this post are already being discussed with the appropriate Congressional staffers at the Federal level and with local elected officials per the needs of local permits. However, I have no specific knowledge that this is so.
I had hoped the post would get people thinking about the long term implications of a series of one-off decisions being made largely at the local level. Is it not better to lay out these questions publicly, and in a circumspect manner, than have public policy made behind close doors, one at a time?
The title was intended to provoke reader interest and get people thinking beyond NIMBY. Given the personal nature of some of the comments thus far received, it seems that the title may have been more a distraction than a help. (Exception:-I was taken aback by the comment that LNG distribution has a high carbon emission burden and would like to learn more about that issue.)
Please do message me about possible guest posts: john-at-treehugger.com Perhaps something can be arranged.
"The above polemic is brought to you by the LNG lobby, masquerading as treehuggers"
Right, you can't attack the actual argument so you make up ad hominem conspiracy theories? Nice.
Yes, because we've seen this trick before.
The BHP Billiton public relations agency posed as "Cal Energy Guy" and ran a fake California Energy Blog for years.
The day that BHP folded its tent and left California, the "energy blog" stopped.
The energy industry is spending millions for astroturf campaigns like this.
Quit your sanctimonious howling. This is an industry plant and it stinks.
You people never stop, because so much money is at stake.
"It is dead wrong to think LNG is better than any other fossil fuel. It is not. In fact, it’s worse than domestic natural gas because it’s hotter, meaning that it has a different chemical composition from North American natural gas, and will release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In addition, creating a market for LNG where one does not exist necessary leads to increased prices, and once LNG has led to increased prices, then different kinds of coal-burning becomes economically equivalent. Far from being a substitute for coal, it will actually create a market for new coal plants."
- Loretta Lynch
former California Public Utilities Commission member and lone voice in the woods
Interesting how my earlier post was deleted.
I apologize for the personal nature of it. The internet makes it too easy to digress into the personal.
I am astounded, however, that anyone writing for something called "Treehugger" would fall so completely for the industry line on LNG.
So, to repeat, the fact of the matter is that LNG is NOT a clean fuel.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel. Burning natural gas instead of oil is a slightly cleaner process.
But the physical process of extracting natural gas in Asia, running it through massive compressors to shrink its volume by 600 percent, hauling it across the ocean in giant thermos bottles, and regasifying it takes enormous amounts of energy.
Take into account the global pollution toll and greenhouse gas emissions caused by liquefying natural gas and shipping it to America, and LNG is a filthy, dirty choice.
Carnegie Mellon University researchers have published a peer-reviewed analysis and conclude that LNG is 35 percent dirtier than the cleanest coal power.
In addition, the chemical composition of pacific-basin LNG is different than what comes from domestic wells. The South Coast Air Quality Management District in Los Angeles estimates that the new LNG terminal supplying California will add the equivalent emissions of four large coal-fired power plants to the air over L.A. just from the existing ujse of natural gas in factories, businesses and residences.
Smog from four coal plants from one LNG terminal, and that does not account for any new power generation!
That DOES NOT mean we should rush to coal. It simply means that LNG is not the clean fuel that the industry is spending millions to convince us that it is.
I've never heard of Treehugger and frankly overreacted to the bad science that the original column is based on. Again and again, we see fake pro-LNG articles planted on web sites.
The LNG industry - under a campaign orchestrated by the American Petroleum Institute - is spending millions on blogs, op-ed pieces and letters to the editor planting this false story.
I'm afraid Treehugger fell for that.
Saying LNG is clean is like saying electricity is clean - of course, both are clean when they come out of the wall. It's what happens upstream that is important!
=== author's response follows ====
Apology accepted gladly. Keep the comments flowing.
The CA South Coast AQMD issues you mentioned are not C02 related. The emissions of local concern for the District are mainly CO, photochemically active VOC's, SOX, NOX, and particulates. Maybe mercury as well (yes, natural gas does come out of the ground with mercury vapor in it. Scrubbing is done to remove mercury prior to domestic but not for commercial distrubution). Not to say these SCAQMD concerns are insignificant; but, imagine if California were trying to supply it's energy demand growth with coal what the SCAQM concerns would be!
The press release for the C-M study in ES&T that you refer to is here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/cmu-cmr082207.php
Incidentally, TreeHugger has published several posts on the important and highly credible work being done by Carnegie Mellon researchers, including a recent one bounding a US carbon cap level that would pprosepctively make investment in cleaner technologies and conservation programs cost effective.
The following excerpt from the linked C-M press release indicates that the LNG/Coal comparison you cited applies ONLY to "coal used advanced power plant technologies." And, I might add, the tone is judiciously somewhat speculative sounding.
One "driver" point I made in this LNG post was that the 'advanced coal technologies' are very expensive. A larger point we all would acknowledge, I presume, is that the commonly used coal technologies of today are very highly polluting and need replacement, either by conservation or by cleaner technologies. Currently, US Taxpayers are underwriting all or many of the costs of the development of the "advanced coal technologies". Something has to give.
What happens to politicians who support more spending and with no savings offered elsewhere? They leave office with no progress made. My point about Congress and the role of LNG in public policy stands.
"In the upcoming Sept. 1 edition of the journal Environmental Science and Technology, Carnegie Mellon researchers Paulina Jaramillo, W. Michael Griffin and H. Scott Matthews show that liquefied natural gas (LNG) imported from foreign countries and used for electricity generation could have 35 percent higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal used in advanced power plant technologies."
That's right, the LA SCAQMD study addressed local, non-CO2 emissions alone. Factor in life-cycle GHG - and last I checked the AQMD is on the same globe as where this LNG would be compressed and shipped - and the impact of LNG imports is even bleaker.
You're right, imagining Southern California trying to replace these enormous amounts of LNG with coal is scary.
But it is not an either/or decision, and it is disingenuous to suggest those are the only two choices.
Appropriate technologies, conservation and - yes - lifestyle changes are also in the mix.
But adding LNG to the menu of choices under the pretense that it is clean is simply wrong, and simply repeats industry lies.
LNG is very analogous to the promises of hydrogen as a fuel. Hydrogen is clean! Hydrogen cars emit only water vapor! Never mind what it takes to produce the hydrogen ...
What would we do with more energy?
Answer: waste it.
The so-called tree-hugger says of the multitude of LNG proposals:
"The proposals that 'don't stick' hopefully will be those which would clearly inconvenience peoples daily lives, severely impact fish and aquatic life,"
No. The way the system works is the first one to the finish line wins -- there is no programmatic analysis of which are the best proposals. The one's that stick are the ones ahead, even if other proposals make a whole lot more sense.
LNG is NOT a transitional fuel, between oil and renewable -- it is simply another crutch that postpones our conversion to renewable energy.
LNG is not a clean energy, like NG. The carbon footprint of extracting it, cooling it, compressing it, shipping it (and if across the Pacific, shipping it across sensitive whale migration routes), re-heating it, and putting it into pipelines (in the case of the project in my area, a 230 mile pipeline to California). I hear the carbon footprint of all that, plus the minute methane leakages along the way, make LNG almost as dirty as some forms of coal.
Sure, not in my backyard (the 230 mile long, 36" Diameter pipeline would go to within 150 feet of my house, clearcutting 7 acres of my forest with the power of eminent domain), but not in anyone's back yard. The whole earth is our backyard.
The US can no longer depend on foreign governments, often unstable foreign governments like Russia, for our fossil fuel addiction.
Peak oil is a con-job on America. I wish you guys would
> investigate a little more on the subject of oil and natural gas in America.
> Back in 1976, on Gull Island, Alaska, the biggest and largest oil and natural
> gas pool in North America, possibly the world, was discovered. The US govt.
> immediately classified the find and told all the parties in the discovery to
> keep their mouths shut. Lindsey Williams, a baptist minister who was given
the
> job of catering to the men's religious needs, working on the Alaska pipeline,
> became very close to Ken Fromm, a senior CEO of Atlantic Richfield Oil
Company.
> Ken, showed Lindsey Williams in 1976, the stats on the 3 oil wells they had
> drilled on Gull Island, Alaska and told him, that this find was enough to last
> America for over 200 years, the next day ken told him he had to keep his mouth
> shut, the US govt. had classified the find. Mr Williams, kept quiet for a few
> years, but decided that he couldn't do it any longer. He wrot
> e a book back in 1980 called "The Energy Non-Crisis", 20 chapters in length,
it
> can be accessed on the internet and read for free by typing on google search
> Lindsey Williams, the oil on Gull Island, Alaska. You will get several hits.
> The first hit is about Gull Island, the second hit is Lindsey Williams book
"The
> Energy Non-Crisis" scroll down a little bit and you will see the 20 chapters,
> click on each chapter and read the book. You also can get 8 speeches by
Lindsey
> Williams on utube by typing on their search engine Lindsey Williams. This
> information has been in a few news papers, such as the American Free Press,
and
> a few other small news papers. It has been on Coast to Coast talk radio and
> Lindsey Williams has been speaking around the country for 30 years telling
this
> story. This has not been mentioned on any major media outlet. This story
has
> got to be the biggest fraud in the history of America, because Americans are
> paying billions of dollars they should not be pay
> ing. Lindsey Williams says that if that oil in the Gull Island area was
brought
> down to the lower 48 states, within one year the price of oil would drop below
> $1.50 per gallon at the pump. You check with the Energy Dept. and their EIA
> (energy information administration) and all they keep saying is there is
limited
> oil and energy in the North slope of Alaska, so they have to be in on the con
> job. I wish that you would research this subject and write an article
about
> it and write your congressmen or try to get the major media to cover the story. Thank You Jack Faulk
The hubris of the author is amazing. His assertion that natural gas is "a low-cost, clean, sustainable energy alternative" bespeaks of his ignorance of the issues. Holding a degree in Energy Mgmt and having worked for public utilities, private energy auditors and non-profit energy assistance organizations I have some level of experience and expertise in the field.
Natural gas is neither low-cost, clean, nor sustainable. Prices have climbed as have oil. Perhaps the author considers CO2 emissions clean, but scientists and anyone with connected brain cells don't. And it is sustainable only to the extent of a renewed host of dinosaurs decaying being introduced on a continuous basis allows it. Perhaps the author wants to continue further reliance on foreign sources of energy. In which case he should be honest enough to say so directly. Primary sources such as Russia, Alegeria, Qatar, Nigeria and Iraq. All super-good friends of the US, right? And lets just ignore the environmental laws of those countries in terms of extracation being non-existent.
LNG will and does contribute to greenhouse gases and ergo climate warming.
And seriously....comparing it to wind turbines??? If you're not a shill for LNG companies, you should be. They're full of likewise mis-guided, greedy me-firsters who only see as far as their bank account and have no concern for our children or our grandchildren. Shame on you for being part of the problem, not part of the solution.
=== author's response follows ===
I too have a degree in environmental mgmt. And I may not be as smart as you, but I do have over 30 years of professional experience and I do understand the importance of trade-off analysis and scenario thinking. Suggest you go read it again.
For the moment, however, let's hold off on the merits of adding nuclear plants. Taxpayers are going to be shocked once they find out what it would cost in public subsidies. For another hand, we all would acknowledge, I presume, is that the commonly used coal technologies of today are very highly polluting and need replacement, either by conservation or by cleaner technologies.