The short answer is there are not enough pipelines to get it where needed. Its also not the cheapest or easiest thing to store.
It's literally under construction in Finland, it's in the process of happening, sweet Christ, it's just a mine for all intents and purposes. And DGR's are in use for other forms of waste and have been used in that capacity for ages, this isn't new technology.
When people think of terms like "leaking" they think that something is able to "leak out". SNF is a solid, it's not "leaking" anywhere. The concern is that the concrete casks might develop cracks that could allow radiation to escape, potentially creating an unsafe dose, though I would assume everybody who is in close enough proximity of these containers for it to matter, is wearing a radiation detection device.
So, polluting the atmosphere, lakes, rivers, oceans...etc all A-OK, but having some casks that are already managed, and super simple to supervise, is some insurmountable obstacle that daren't be passed on as a legacy lest our progeny be so wholly mentally deficient that they cannot continue this most basic of tasks? That's about the gist of your philosophy here?
You don't see the importance in highlighting the difference between this:
Here is a plot of natural gas as prices in the USA. Just before the Great Recession, hydraulic fracturing of horizontal wells was developed and the Marcellus became a huge gas producing basin, and helped drive down natural gas prices, producing an overabundance that threatened producers and caused numerous bankruptcies. With the cheap gas, LNG terminals were developed and the USA became a LNG exporter. This has cause a climb in natural gas prices and producers will repeat the cycle except this time they have no interest in blowing their brains out like last time.
Methane (natural gas) has about half the emissions intensity when burned as coal. It also doesn't have the other nasty elements that burning coal has, such as radioactive fly ash and soot, though scrubbers can help significantly reduce particulate emissions from coal plants.
You posted: “Compress natural gas enough and you get LNG - a liquid - easy to transport.”
I think the main issue is politics.
There is lots of natural gas in Canada. And it is relatively clean burning (compared to coal anyway).
I’m going to interject here. If there is a bit of misunderstanding. LNG plants have massive compression and massive cooling going on. It’s just that it’s the refrigerant that is getting compressed. The refrigerant then cools the natural gas. Yes it is easy to transport once it aboard the carrier. It’s an everyday operation.
Thanks. We have no gas stove but are quite happy how much our electric bill dropped like a rock when we went from electric heater to nat gas furnace, same with water heater and clothes dryer. So once again it feels like the dog chasing his tail. It just seems each time we find reasons to stop any other forms of energy to "go all electric!" (not accusing u saying that) we smack into that same brick wall. We will have to throw more demand onto the over used , weak (we are told) electric energy grid. The electric grid we will need to ramp up to the amount we will need to replace the latest form of energy we shut down. Thing is most electricity + extra electricity we will need (plus for all the EVs) is still being produced with fossil fuels with no end in sight. Here we go around in circles.....There is lots of natural gas in Canada. And it is relatively clean burning (compared to coal anyway).
A problem with natural gas is that when you burn it in a kitchen range the combustion products are toxic and are being released into the home environment. I suspect that's the reason it is being discouraged (at least) for that purpose.
Cooking Up Indoor Air Pollution: Emissions from Natural Gas Stoves | Environmental Health Perspectives | Vol. 122, No. 1
Environmental Health Perspectives is an Open Access journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.ehp.niehs.nih.gov
Yes I was really only commenting on the critical point for methane. But I’d disagree that transportation of a cryogenic liquid is easy. Yes it is an everyday operation but it’s not like transporting a liquid at ambient temperature. Not like the production and transport of propane for example which can be liquified by pressure alone.
Your the one that took great offense to a single word, and decided to write a book to correct my ignorance. Please tell me from my initial post, what is factually incorrect beyond the word barrel? It was a brief but concise sentence that summarized the current state, IMHO.
Jesus Christ guy, I didn't take great offence, I simply pointed out the Greenpeace use of term "barrels" is factually incorrect, but they use it on purpose, in their media to mislead people, like I showed in those pictures. THAT is why using the correct terminology is important. If you want to get all butt-hurt over it, go right ahead, but I wasn't out of line in correcting you. And, if you notice, I ALWAYS write long posts. I type 140+wpm, I can afford to be verbose.
No, Finland is building the DGR to store their own waste, just like we are getting ready to build one in Ontario here for ours (once site selection is complete). The US will have to overcome its own issues with Yucca Mountain or another site if that ends up being the choice made. In the interim, it would make far too much sense to pursue something like PUREX to reprocess the SNF and turn it into more fuel like France is doing (they even import SNF from Japan and reprocess it for them).
But the earth is better off in the latter scenario. SNF decays over time, as I explained, quite unlike other waste streams which are perpetually toxic. Building more nuclear IS doing something about it, curbing pollution and abuse of the planet is the goal.
The problem is that the same folks fighting any new nuclear, and pushing for existing sites to be shutdown, are fighting against DGR's and any form of long term waste disposal. They know that if the waste problem gets solved, then they'll lose a significant component of their argument. It's far better for them that no solution is built, because then they can continue to rail against it.
You hit the nail on the head. The trouble for most average Joe , the majority of whom are highly busy with LIFE. No time for them to get out there. Working and slaving for their families and trying to be productive citizens when many of those "nutters" are not real working folks. They have all the free time in the world to cause turmoil over things many really do not give a hoot about. We actually have "nutters" who have come forth and admitted (another way they gain money is to get paid by cable news to confess) they are scheduled and coordianted and paid, with free airline tickets etc... to cruise across the USA to show up and stay in the paid for hotels before going to their "part time work/job" that is marching and waving signs in the streets and moaning & crying on camera "on demand" to act like they are the down trodden real patriots who are takin it to the streets for all of us. NOT. They are the ones too , unfotunatley who create the kaos and violence which causes many innocent folks along with the Police, EMTs who are there to protect folks to get injured and some times worse. But our gov seems to want to protect them more than the innocents. Too **** politicial **** sorry folks / the end.
No sweat with that. On the other hand the USA liquifies over 10 BCF a DAY and exports it. Another ho hum day for these guys. All good.
NatGas lost some luster due to the amount which is vented to the atmosphere or flared, concerns over groundwater contamination from fracking and poorly sealed abandoned wells, along with distribution leaks. Venting is the worse of the two scenarios because the GWP of methane is 26x greater than CO2.
One of the big bogeymen is the fear of a train derailment or roadway accident when transporting waste to the final depository (Yucca mtn). Of course nuclear proliferation has always been a hurdle with regards to reprocessing.
