On the Waterfront: Ports plan shift to LNG trucks to reap savings

Let's put some other facts into the LNG presentation:

1. trucks burn 1.8 gallons of LNG for every gallon of diesel they would normally burn.
2. the LNG engine cannot reach the environmental standards that are being rolled out next year for diesels (2010 standards) and there is no retrofit to make them as clean.
3. We, the people, subsidize LNG by $.50 gallon to make it economically competitive with diesel.(sounds like the ethenol story).
4. T Boone Pickens has invested heavily in the Southern California political machine to grease the track of mandating the LNG vehicle.
5. These trucks cannot leave the LA basin because of lack of fueling stations, and inability to pull loads effectively up the hills that surround our city. They cannot carry enough fuel for long distances. Therefore the resale value of these trucks will be limited by the market demands of a metro area such as LA.
6. The flagbearers who are investing in these trucks are doing so with grants. Not their own money. These trucks are currently $220,000 each, vs a diesel truck costing $80,000. For each one we the people help buy, we could have 3 new clean diesels replacing old dirty trucks.

Let's measure things on a balanced scale. We need the media to help focus the picture we're getting, not be an advertisement for a yet to be proven fuel.

The ILWU hurts it's members by actions like the May Day work stoppage. I understand that the union had approved the walkout, and then later changed it's mind. The union has a contract to supply reliable labor to operate the ports. It should be sued for damages, but I doubt that will happen. The more unreliable our ports become, the more busines will gravitate elsewhere, and the fewer dock workers will be hired each day. The Mexican port facilities would love to handle the business which flows through Long Beach / Los Angeles. Wise up.

Fred J wrote:

Let's put some other facts into the LNG presentation:
1. trucks burn 1.8 gallons of LNG for every gallon of diesel they would normally burn.
2. the LNG engine cannot reach the environmental standards that are being rolled out next year for diesels (2010 standards) and there is no retrofit to make them as clean.
3. We, the people, subsidize LNG by $.50 gallon to make it economically competitive with diesel.(sounds like the ethanol story).
4. T Boone Pickens has invested heavily in the Southern California political machine to grease the track of mandating the LNG vehicle.
5. These trucks cannot leave the LA basin because of lack of fueling stations, and inability to pull loads effectively up the hills that surround our city. They cannot carry enough fuel for long distances. Therefore the resale value of these trucks will be limited by the market demands of a metro area such as LA.
6. The flagbearers who are investing in these trucks are doing so with grants. Not their own money. These trucks are currently $220,000 each, vs a diesel truck costing $80,000. For each one we the people help buy, we could have 3 new clean diesels replacing old dirty trucks.
Let's measure things on a balanced scale. We need the media to help focus the picture we're getting, not be an advertisement for a yet to be proven fuel.

I think you are stating as "facts" things that are misconceptions or plain falsehoodson your part.
1) Natural gas is usually sold as a GGE or DGE (Diesel Gallon Equivalent)- i.e. the same amount of energy. 1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent is 1.67 LNG gallons.
2) Mack announced a 2010 level engine two years ago. It really is not that hard to meet emissions standard starting from LNG. With diesel you and up with pretreated low sulfur diesel, post treatment, catalysts, filters, etc. etc. And maybe throw in some urea to boot.
3) You get your conversion price from the price of one brand of engine conversion kit. There are other - much lower cost - conversions.
4) Your statement that natural gas engines cannot go up hills was partially true ten years ago. It is not true today.
5) I can't comment re. Pickens - you may be right.
6) There are 400+ Hp natural gas trucks trucks with two fuel tanks with a range of 900+ miles. But yes - more fueling stations are needed.

Lets see, no pay for the day they did not show up. Next day they work their shift and eight hours o.t. to do want they didn't do the first day. Let's see...a day off plus an extra day and a half in pay...sounds like the fire department.
Also, since cigarettes are now on a level with deisel exhaust for cancer causing agents, why don't smokers get five years or more to adhere to any new smoking prohibition laws???

If Fred J is correct, then the general public should take advantage of the subsidies. They should buy new LNG-powered truck tractors, get the subsidy for the purchase, and get the 50-cent subsidy for this unproven fuel. Then, instead of hauling containers up and down the Long Beach Freeway, they can just drive their new truck tractors(no trailer) to work and back, to the market, mall, etc. Just think, now the general public can play "Big Truck" just like all of the Panchos do every day on the 710. Tailgating, locking up the brakes and horn blasting will be available to everyone. Viva LNG.