I have heard that LNG is cost competitive closer to $4, but don't wish to quibble.
I agree that LNG should be a big source, but I don't think that you have been watching the politics. Nobody wants an LNG terminal in their back yard. Osamma Bin Laden's damage wasn't to the World Trade Towers, it was to the American psyche, and we have become totally risk averse. If i hear, "What if there is a terrorist attack," one more time I will have a fit.
FERC has LNG siting authority, but it is being contested by the states. FERC has asked congress to clarify and reinforce its authority. Yesterday Sen Reed from RI introduced legislation to give authority back to the states. Kennedy and Markey in Massachusettes have launched a frontal assault on any new or expaded terminals in that state. Searsport Maine shot down a terminal. I think the only new sites are at the extreme NE in Cobscook Bay, Maine on an Indian reservation, and in Baja California (Mexico). Pat Wood at FERC wants to build a bunch, but it isn't happeneing.
What do you see for pure energy plays?? Cherniere got a big pop off of its GOM terminal (I think that was a restart or expansion, but it could have been brand new). I see little efficiency fixes here and there - more efficient automobiles (will you buy GM??), IGCC plants (would you buy a utility because they burn less coal to make a KW?), pebble bed reactors will happen (again, not excitement in a utility - but there may be special gear associated with a pebble bed - but GE will probably make it - GE is just another mutual fund). |
