by Rhonda Moniz
18. January 2012 05:12
We have all heard the debate that rages on in the race to look at alternative fuels. Proponents of natural gas have weighed in on the discussion. Natural gas, which is largely methane burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels and is easily transported via pipelines and tankers. It can be used in homes in a variety of ways including heating and running appliances. It runs cleaner than gasoline and therefore can also be used in vehicles. It is relatively abundant and easy to distribute.
Those concerned with the use of natural gas as a viable alternative point out that LNG is created by treating natural gas, (giving it a greater concentration of methane), and then cooling it into liquid form. Because of the higher concentration of methane it is 21 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide for greenhouse warming. In a house hold using natural gas the house must be insulated properly or it becomes expensive to use. Electrical appliances must be high voltage, which can be dangerous and expensive. Transport of LNG is significantly more polluting than using pipelines, because of the energy needed to liquefy and transport it. Public concerns of terrorism are a major factor in siting LNG terminals and the LNG industry has not had a standard security assessment or methodology to assess the risks. In this post 9/11 world all transportation systems are seen as vulnerable and credible targets. Most will agree on several things, expectations for security have changed and there are significant challenges ahead for HAZMAT. New risks require continual analysis of vulnerabilities, risk management and an overall strategy for security as a function of doing business in a post 9/11 world.
Subscribe