I think that using nat. gas as a fuel for trains would be a great way to reduce our use of diesel fuel. It should be rather easy to run a line from a tank car to a train engine. I see compressed nat. gas going though my town quite often. I also remember Cat. running it's Joliet factory with diesel generators using nat gas. The engines ran fine on it. Less pollution too.
It is so obvious that one has to wonder what kind of political hijinks is going on that prevents this. Also Qatar is converting it's entire airline to LNG. The "energy crisis" is a bunch of bull. It's politicians like obama (who is in 'clean coal's' pocket) who are the problem.
Actually, the Qatar fuel is not LNG. It's a liquid fuel made from natural gas and kerosene. The cost is completely prohibitive at present, which is one reason why it was done by a state that has money to burn. I believe regular LNG is not energy-dense enough to use in aircraft. That's why you see those giant tanks on the tops of LNG powered buses. This doesn't necessarily affect the use in trains, though.
People need to go to symbol SEP and look uo the article on Nuclear Renaissance. John Rowe who is the CEO of EXc which is the largest owner of Nuclear plants stated e days before the Japan disaster that Natural Gas is 50-60% cheaper than New Nuclear and burns clearner than it and new Coal.He says that the growth is not in consumption at least over the next decade because the supply is so abundant here and prices probably wont increase much,however, the increased usage will result in increases for the Storage and Transportation of it.Makes sense to me . I bought SEP when it was 23 and before all the dividend increases and SE when it was lower then this price.