Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LNG terminals planned for Baja, CA

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 04:02 PM
Original message
LNG terminals planned for Baja, CA
The California Public Utilities Commission, charged with protecting California ratepayers and implementing a sensible state energy plan, is about to deliver ratepayers into the hands of oil companies wanting to hook the state into a dependency on expensive, imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) that comes at the end of a long supply chain over which Californians have no control.

Energy companies have been lining up to push for LNG re-gasification terminals to supply California's huge energy market. But so far, environmental concerns have slowed the siting of these terminals in the state. And so the attention has turned to nearby Baja California, Mexico, where a free-for-all has ensued, leading to the emergence of Sempra Energy as the first to secure a site: Costa Azul, a few miles north of Ensenada.

Sempra wants to locate a sprawling industrial facility on this beautiful bit of unspoiled coastline that is one of the last remaining unbroken stretches of coastal sage scrub in the Californias. This is a marine treasure with a world-class surfing wave, a fishing community and a tourism economy.

(...)

Finally, the question must be asked: why is the CPUC willing to increase California's dependence on foreign fossil fuels and at the same time subject ratepayers to another round of Enron-izing? The answer may have something to do with the Governor.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/041305A.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sempra Link Here:
http://www.sempra.com/news_spotlight4Q2002.htm

"The answer may have something to do with the Governor..."

Heh, no kidding. Why do you think they selected him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danmel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. One planned for Long Island Sound too!
It's an insane proposal but it's in the hands of FERC, which has 3 of 4 commissioners appointed by *. We're fucked.

http://www.ferc.gov/about/com-mem.asp
http://www.rpalumni.org/nolng/news.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChemEng Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. So what is your alternative?
Coal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-30-05 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Nuclear power.
Edited on Sat Apr-30-05 01:14 PM by phantom power
Plus wind power, thermal solar (and PV, where it makes sense. Mostly on southwestern rooftops).

Also, I'm not utterly opposed to LNG. If we're going to burn irreplaceable fossil fuels, at least NG is the cleanest of them. However, it's still irreplaceable, and even if it weren't, burning it dumps CO2 into the atmosphere.

Once you accept that CO2 is a pollutant, you are forced to accept that there are *no* clean fossil fuels.

(which does not cover the case of a carbon-neutral fuel cycle, but in this scenario the hydrocarbons are only energy storage, not energy source)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. Coast Guard study
About 40 years the "HazMat" Division of the Coast Guard began an on-going series of studies on LNG carriers.

They used the same methodology that was used in the Rasmussen Study (WASH-740) on nuclear reactor safety - failure mode effect analysis ("Fault Tree Analysis") and verified various scenarios in Chesapeake Bay.

As long as the Coast Guard and DOT rules are followed - the major risks are sabotage and collision. And, you can control the collision risk with "traffic controls" (as in armed Coast Guard escorts).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC