Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HubcapMotors t1_ivkh2bv wrote

From the article:

> In the worst-case scenario, a cluster of states with a combined economy bigger than Japan’s will run out of fuel to keep the lights on and heat homes and businesses.

This appears to be the one thing the editor honed in on when writing the headline for the article (writers don't write the headlines, editors do).

But the writer doesn't quote anyone directly saying as much, so it's unclear whether any expert on the matter is predicting a gas shortage significant enough to shut down power plants.

I can't stress enough how important it is to think critically about who is being interviewed how for stories about energy in particular. There are vested interests who want to keep making money off fossil fuels, and will throw around threats of freezing to death in the winter to keep their assets profitable.

Will it be an expensive winter to heat your home with fossil fuels? Yes. Is that a big problem for vulnerable populations? Absolutely. Does that mean CT will have roiling blackouts and gas shutoffs? I don't see anyone credible saying that.

1

buried_lede OP t1_ivkjem0 wrote

There have been warnings that under certain circumstances - cold snaps, maybe prolonged cold snap- we could have blackouts. ISO New England says that and always includes urging us to solve our energy problems. We do rely too much on two fuels.

Almost all the gas power plants in CT run on either gas or oil, and every winter the plants stock up on oil because with people heating homes with gas, it causes gas supply to get stretched. They switch to oil in the winter on cold days because of that. Supposedly their supplies of oil are below average this year. Last I looked in eia, the gov energy info site, this checked out, if I recall correctly.

I question the author’s assertion that we use a lot of imported oil (?) not sure where that comes from.

I think the article is probably right about a lot of it but seems to have gotten some details wrong and seems to be a panicky story. A little hyperbole.

We’re so late getting offshore wind going and the Quebec hydro line us way overdue too.

Unfortunately we are also screwing up the offshore wind so much that they’ve changed the auction rules to protect consumers more because of the crazy prices the leases went for here in NE.

It sucks, but someday we’ll figure out how to get this monkey off our back

4

jon_hendry t1_ivklea8 wrote

I think we’re a little better off than some other places due to our mix of heating energy sources.

My house has an oil burner heating water for baseboard heaters but we also have mini-split heat pump AC that can heat, and also a fireplace. Due to the price of oil we’re trying to use the heat pump more.

3

buried_lede OP t1_ivknihw wrote

I really like heat pumps. I had those in the last place I rented. I think it’s really good to have a mix. Unfortunately New England needs a better mix

3

1234nameuser t1_ivkpsfz wrote

>Unfortunately we are also screwing up the offshore wind so much that they’ve changed the auction rules to protect consumers more because of the crazy prices the leases went for here in NE.

Was this in regards to the last auction round in spring? I recall seeing some crazy high prices.

Shame that oil & gas companies are just sitting on their offshore leases doing nothing while offshore wind scrambles to make up the gap in energy supply.

1

buried_lede OP t1_ivl0tdk wrote

I’ll try to dig up the reports I was reading. They were from a variety of sources but one key report was an offshore wind report the Dept of Energy publishes. In particular, an offshore NY lease went ballistic, but they are all bringing in high bids.

Seeing this, and worried that these costs would be passed on to consumers (naturally), the auctions coming up in the mid Atlantic ( Carolina’s? Va? ) are trying to build in some protections and the DOE mentioned a rule change.

The end result is all the other offshore wind will protect consumers more than ours will.

Now, seeing the auction prices, which would reflect intense interest to get in on these projects, Eversource decided to sell its stake in our new offshore farm, the one that will be staging construction at the state pier in New London. They want to cash in. I am really concerned how that will impact consumers too. I’m actually planning on organizing the information and sending a letter to state officials about the proposed sale so they can ensure consumers don’t end up paying more because of that. Whoever buys it will pay more than Eversource put into it - making money on the deal is why Eversource wants to sell. I think we should get it somehow from Eversource, if we can but that’s probably a pipe dream. At the very least, Eversource should be forced to address this question and the AG and Pura, and legislators see what they can finagle to keep it from costing us more. Whoever buys it will want to make that money back.

Edit: it’s possible, maybe, the state can dictate some terms into any sale by Eversource as to how the future owner prices it’s kWhs so that we don’t get the brunt - what costs it can pass on. I don’t know

2