So I am going off memory here so some of this might be off but I think I read they are about to build a $800 million LNG plant and export terminal (shipping mostly LNG to Asia......which will help with our trade deficit there I hope). I read it was being built in Louisiana somewhere. Are these LNG plants at the end of pipelines or do they ship by rail? Just curious as I think we are going to see a lot more built to export LNG.
Seriously as a country we need to export a lot more in the area of fossil fuels vs holding just for internal consumption about time we started to make that shift.
CMStPnPAre these LNG plants at the end of pipelines or do they ship by rail?
Therein lies something of a subject. Widespread transport of LNG in railroad cars is I believe currently still not legal ... although transportation of it on-road is. In my not-humble opinion that is stupid.
All the designs of LNG exporting facilities I have seen involve gas pipelines to the facility, with compression and liquefaction of the gas being conducted at the site. (Usually the compressors and such are driven by gas, since it's right there and available, but any cheaper source of process shp or electricity could be used, especially if carbon cap-'n-trade rigmarole is in effect on the process emissions.)
I doubt you will see a practical "LNG" pipeline built, although with the advent of good nanoinsulation (both multiple-shield and aerogel) it is at least technically possible to build such a thing.
Last I looked, there was some agitation in AAR and some other groups to get designs for LNG transport by rail 'approved' by FRA/PHMSA or whoever. In my opinion LNG is one of the very best and (relatively) safest carrier fuels for vehicular use, and developing an effective internal transport infrastructure for it (analogous to the one now used for ethanol) ought to be high up on a list of national fuel priorities. The exception, ironically enough, would be transport to an export facility, as the concentration of required traffic into that facility and the amount of infrastructure to build and then operate the needed number of trains, and perhaps provide security, outweighs the cost and complexity of compression/liquefaction on site. Much of the needed infrastructure of gas pipelines already exists for 'other purposes' and, of course, much of the expected expansion of trunk or branch gas-pipeline capacity can be used for other industries or domestic use (perhaps particularly distributed generation).
I don't see LNG by rail as having an economic advantage over pipeline, because there'll be so few terminals capable of receiving it and loading it onto ships. One of the neat and driving characteristics of Crude By Rail (CBR) is that the shipper could then choose which of several/ many refineries to ship it to, depending on price - as each had the necessary and relatively simple off-loading facilities. That flexibility to obtain better prices - than if tied to a specific pipeline and destination - compensated for the slightly higher cost of CBR as opposed to pipeline. But I don't see LNG having that flexibility and hence a value-added aspect.
- PDN.
I agree that we probably won't see unit trains of LNG to ports, however, I have seen proposals for domestic LNG by rail, IIRC Wyoming.
Paul, I understand that many oil refineries don't have unit train unloading, and large unit train unloading treminals in the Gulf Coast (St. James?) and for East Coast (Albany) are for barge loading, as refineries in these areas usually have waterside unloading.
RME I doubt you will see a practical "LNG" pipeline built, although with the advent of good nanoinsulation (both multiple-shield and aerogel) it is at least technically possible to build such a thing.
Compared to the plmbing required for the liquid helium used by the Large Hadron Collider, an LNG pipeline would be a walk in the park by comparison - at least from technical aspects. Economically, the pipeline is likely to be a non-starter (the LHC is in a long tunnel - not cheap) unless there was some pressing need for the liquefaction plants to be far removed from the end use.
For any significant length of pipeline, there would need to be some sort of refrigeration needed to keep the methane below the critical point.
As for tank cars, I would wonder if the cars should have some sort of refrigeration as opposed to letting the product boil off, although boil-off would be a good fuel for a small engine.
New LNG terminals on the Gulf coast are located because of proximity to supplies, on shore or off shore.
They are essentially displacing shipments (gas phase) over existing pipelines.
One example is the (formerly) Trunkline LNG, south of Lake Charles, originally built starting in 1978 as an IMPORT terminal, now being modified to become an Import/Export terminal.
from the Far East of the Sunset Route
(In the shadow of the Huey P Long bridge)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.