Higher energy prices are a call for more renewables and maybe nuclear, not more pipelines

Submitted by TeacherGuy1980 t3_yzqjq3 in massachusetts

Correct me if I am wrong here, but if we have all sorts of new natural gas pipelines and even new plants, what would that do? It's not like there is an infinite supply of cheap, natural gas just waiting to be pumped into the state. The supply is diminished and this is causing worldwide energy prices to be high. Two years ago we had the same existing infrastructure and our energy prices were not super cheap, but reasonable enough.

We are dependent on natural gas and other fossil fuels to be sure and more energy crunches will happen. It's time to diminish their impact by investing in renewables and maybe nuclear.

EDIT: It is my understanding that new pipelines really only benefit us when we have extremely cold stretches when we need liquified natural gas to make up for a lack of pipeline capacity. The existing pipelines are pumping in high priced natural gas due to obvious market conditions. Now my question is whether building new pipelines is a cost advantage long term versus our usual LNG injections. If so, then I amend my original post to support a new pipeline.

222

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheSausageKing t1_ix1w8cm wrote

The problem is we’ve been doing none of the above for a long time. No cape wind, no grid connection to hydro in Canada, no nuclear, and also no gas pipelines.

Until we we actually start building things again, I’m voting for it all and against politicians who block it.

84

dew2459 t1_ix2c9gt wrote

>no nuclear

We are shutting down nuclear plants in the northeast and not really replacing them with anything except more natural gas plants, and a little bit of solar.

Even if Cape Wind had actually completed, it was only going to be about 2/3 the power Pilgrim nuclear plant could generate (before it shut).

We are going backwards on electricity generation, and depending more and more on those natural gas power plants ... without even the simple infrastructure to pipe cheap gas in from the nearby Marcellus shale fields.

I have to agree the current politicians are failing us.

40

LuiShirosagi20 t1_ix2qlse wrote

Nuclear Energy is by far the best possible idea, if handled correctly. Knowing America however, it'll be handled in the worst possible way, if implemented at all.

26

aseriousfailure t1_ix3f3x0 wrote

Nuclear's been slandered by the fossil fuel bigwigs because it is the best clean energy competitor we have right now to fossil fuels.

25

Wrexem t1_ix35hdw wrote

Why build a pipeline when you could build a plant near the fields? Shipping it as electricity almost has to be the best option right?

3

mmelectronic t1_ix3e9ue wrote

Transmission line losses would probably make it less efficient than a pipeline. Otherwise they would

5

movdqa t1_ix3ystg wrote

You also have less risk with distributed production due to outages in production or transmission system failures.

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix671fk wrote

What is the failure of government that th you are against? ?

Specifity needed.

Electric plants are created by non government corporations.

The power line from Quebec through Maine restarted construction after the Maine Supreme Court overturned parts of the Maine referendum law halting it

Coal and oil and nuclear plants have gone out of operation because of cheap natural gas, also provided by non governmental corporations.

Wind power and Solar power are growing rapidly from very small beginnings. It takes time to build an industry.

1

TheSausageKing t1_ix89hgh wrote

Pilgrim was closed because of local NIMBYs and politicians inc. Warren blocked every attempt to make it continue or expand, and pledged to phase out all nuclear by 2035. The costs of lawsuits and regulatory risks made it too expensive, so every company that wanted to make it work gave up.

So, yes, technically it was cost (and risk) that caused Pilgrim to close, but it was costs created by protestors and politicians.

Had the project been welcomed with open arms, it would be operating today.

2

wittgensteins-boat t1_ixamr1y wrote

Warren has no authority to block anything. She is not the NRC, not FERC, nor a shareholder.

Entergy already had the nuclear license extension in hand, for the extended life of the reactor. The plant would need major rebuilding as a 50 year old project.

Selling electricity at a loss compared to ability to recover new expenditure of capital for repairs is decisive.

When natural gas was tremendously cheap, and a natural gas powered electric plant easy to build or convert from oil, nuclear did not demonstrate capability for return on capital for an aging plant and showed low prospects with gas likely to stay cheap for the coming forseeable future and decade, in a changing electricity market regime.

1

TheSausageKing t1_ixb19ru wrote

You don’t think a sitting senator writing dozens of letters to the NRC and publicly opposing a plant in her district makes a difference in the odds that plant happens?

ok. 👍

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ixbj8p4 wrote

The plant had the license, and authority to continue operating.

This was an economic decision of the follow-on owner, Entergy, subsequent to Boston Edison's sale to Entergy, deciding to exit. Entergy had received a license extension in 2006, relicensed through 2026, but exited in, 2019, not even bothering to take six more years of operating income on the plant.

Entergy transferred to a decommissioning organization, and exited the merchant nuclear power business, fulfilling its corporate plan to divest itself of merchant nuclear assets. It continues to operate nuclear plants in its home utility territory in Southern US.

References.

"Accelerated Decommissioning of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station: A Progress Report." Power Magazine. March 2022.
https://www.powermag.com/accelerated-decommissioning-of-pilgrim-nuclear-power-station-a-progress-report/

Entergy completes plan to exit Merchant Nuclear operations
Energy Corporate announcement https://www.entergynewsroom.com/news/entergy-completes-sale-palisades-power-plant-holtec/

1

TheSausageKing t1_ix888ou wrote

Thank Sen Warren. She’s strongly anti-nuclear and was instrumental in forcing the Pilgrim plant to be closed.

> The Democratic presidential hopeful pledged to not only prevent the building of new power plants, but also said she would phase out all nuclear power by 2035 and replace it with renewables. After 52 years of producing energy, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station closed its doors on May 31.

https://www.masslive.com/news/2019/09/sen-elizabeth-warren-pledges-not-to-invest-in-nuclear-energy-and-focus-on-renewables-instead.html

1

ChuckerGeorge t1_ix20qyv wrote

Blame Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine for us not having a connection to Quebec

29

mini4x t1_ix3snun wrote

Don't forget NY! They blocked the pipeline too.

Also we need to dump the Jones Act.

2

cheesy-alias t1_ix44370 wrote

Getting rid of the jones act would put an entire industry of American workers into the unemployment line while giving consumers little relief.

1

AccomplishedGrab6415 t1_ix5l06c wrote

>Getting rid of the jones act would put an entire industry of American workers into the unemployment line while giving consumers little relief.

Can you explain why you say this to me like I'm 5?

1

cheesy-alias t1_ix5lv9y wrote

The jones act ensures that goods moved between two American ports are transported on American flagged vessels, which provide high paying jobs to American sailors. If this was repealed, the goods would be moved by foreign flagged vessels. The savings on cost would not be passed onto the consumer but only increase these corporations profit margins. To get rid of the jones act would get rid of thousands, if not hundred of thousands, of highly skilled and paying jobs for Americans.

2

dew2459 t1_ixa5sbk wrote

>which provide high paying jobs to American sailors.

I don't think this is the original purpose of the Jones act.

It was #1 to keep a shipbuilding industry alive in the US. It was added just after WW1 to avoid the current hand-wringing about allowing advanced chip manufacturing to mostly move offshore.

The #2 reason was similar - to keep a ready supply of merchant marines (civilian sailors) available if needed for another major war (note, that is a different reason than "create high paying jobs", even if the two overlap).

The #3 reason is because foreign-flagged ships have almost zero safety checks (today probably 95%+ are flagged in Panama or Liberia because they are cheap to register there and have no real safety standards or inspections).

1

2tuna2furious t1_ix88q95 wrote

This is bullshit 😂😂😂

0

cheesy-alias t1_ix8bc8d wrote

How so?

1

2tuna2furious t1_ix8hkam wrote

US merchant marine employment is like 10,000 people and they wouldn’t necessarily be unemployed by a repeal in the Jones act

Domestically shipped goods are rarely shipped between US ports because the Jones Act makes it expensive compared to truck and rail. This congests the roads and increases carbon emissions. Areas like Puerto Rico and Hawaii don’t have truck or rail connections so they get screwed bigly

The Jones act has been in place for 100 years and the US merchant marine and shipping industry has been decimated anyway. It has been an abject failure

1

cheesy-alias t1_ix8lnzo wrote

I think you’re grossly underestimating with 10,000 jobs. Also, the merchant marine and commercial vessels, which are governed by the jones act, are two separate things. Most goods aren’t moved by US flagged vessels because not much is made here sadly. Most of the jones act vessels are moving your fuel, not the goods you see in Walmart. Advocating against the jones act is advocating against American workers and American unions.

1

hateEverett t1_ix33o5f wrote

Yeah! Thanks, officer duffy. Just turn that brain right off!

−2

Cost_Additional t1_ix1tada wrote

Not maybe nuclear. It's should be definitely nuclear.

58

wwoliver04 t1_ix29sis wrote

Came here to say exactly this. If we’re actually serious about going carbon neutral in time then we have to get over our fear of nuclear

27

iamspartacus5339 t1_ix3e99b wrote

Yes. I won’t take any climate proposal seriously unless nuclear is involved.

6

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix697uf wrote

It takes big capital and 20 years to build a nuclear plant.

Few US utilities are willing to take the risk any longer.

−2

wwoliver04 t1_ix6gqbl wrote

More like 5 - 7 years, literally took 1 google search

And we could easily fund those new plants with just a portion of the amount of capital going into new LNG projects. If we wait for utility companies to do the right thing then it will never happen. LNG delivers their shareholders profit much faster, hence the heavy investment

4

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix6i1rh wrote

You left off the.

  • planning and system power demand regime trend planning,
  • site research and aquisition,
  • engaging with an overall contract. with a design engineering construction consortium,
  • developing a site specific design,
  • and nuclear plant design and operating licensing.
  • and environmental impact research and report,
  • and other water and govermental permits and regulatory processes,
  • and bonds for financing,
  • overall, of 10 years.

Construction occurs after all of these activities have alignment.

To build a house you need a construction permit and other permits, acquisition of a site, and a capable construction entity, materials acquisition and financing, and that is before the land is first dug up.

1

wwoliver04 t1_ix7ot0g wrote

Yes, I’m fully aware of all the complexities regarding planning and licensing. My point was that it doesn’t take 20 years to build. And it definitely doesn’t mean we should rule it out as a viable option. These things can be fast tracked if the government changed regulations to incentivize faster construction. I’m not saying nuclear is the perfect solution but it’s a hell of a lot better than continuing to dump cash into new fossil fuel plants

3

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix7s4f7 wrote

Let me know how it goes, starting construction tomorrow on your seven year plan

−2

PHD_Memer t1_ix5zq6w wrote

Massachusetts is looking to Nuclear as a possibility, however I believe the preferred and more cost effective production method is wind, if wind turns out to be less realistic w/ overall production and battery storage then it has nuclear as plan B

2

goPACK17 t1_ix1ib4x wrote

MA is a great candidate for nuclear. There is no place on earth less susceptible to natural disaster than New England.

35

MoonlessPrairie t1_ix1n0ht wrote

It’s utterly amazing that there is fear of pipelines but nuclear plants would be welcome…

−25

siwmasas t1_ix20w1w wrote

its more amazing that you don't get this... I have neither the time, patience, or crayons to explain this to you in a manner you'd understand

7

MoonlessPrairie t1_ix380rg wrote

I’m glad you’re suggesting your town for a SMR or large scale reactor. New York just shut down nine Mile point in part due to its proximity to New York City.

So, with my crayons, I think this entire argument is about carbon and not about energy.

So rather than obfuscate the issue, I am sure there are folks that would rather have nuclear power plants built vs a natural gas fired plant that has carbon emissions.

Nuclear has always been high-priced. In fact, if you look at some of the issues in Europe, they are caused by EDF having major issues with the reactor design. I think 12 of their 30 nuclear reactors are currently off-line due to critical flaws with the reactor design.

I am not in any way anti-nuclear power. But to assume that nuclear power can be produced cheaply reliably, and without safety concerns would be an assumption that is blind to the nuclear power industries history.

−2

siwmasas t1_ix4fdjg wrote

Ah yes, because we all know municipalities make decisions based on reddit threads. Regardless, bring it the f on, I'll take a reactor downtown. Maynard is already a superfund site! All you seem to care about is somebody else's money. I don't give two shits how much it costs if its massively better for the environment in the long run.

How is everyone burning fossil fuels not an immediate danger to everyone on the planet, regardless of proximity to where the fuel was consumed?

So how safe are nuclear reactors?

>In the 60-year history of civil nuclear power generation, with over 18,500 cumulative reactor-years across 36 countries, there have been only three significant accidents at nuclear power plants

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

one of those three is Three Mile Island in NY, nice cherry-pick. How dangerous are they?

>Of all the accidents and incidents, only the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents resulted in radiation doses to the public greater than those resulting from the exposure to natural sources

Same sources as above.

So how do nuclear power plants compare to fossil fuel powered ones?

>On a levelized (i.e. lifetime) basis, nuclear power is an economic source of electricity generation, combining the advantages of security, reliability and very low greenhouse gas emissions. Existing plants function well with a high degree of predictability. The operating cost of these plants is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors, with a very low risk of operating cost inflation. Plants are now expected to operate for 60 years and even longer in the future. The main economic risks to existing plants lie in the impacts of subsidized intermittent renewable and low-cost gas-fired generation. The political risk of higher, specifically-nuclear, taxation adds to these risks.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

Cheaper than fossil fuels. The main barrier to nuclear energy is politics, not cost. CO2 emmisions for nuclear are 12g/kWh vs 41g/kWh for rooftop solar and a whopping 820g/kWh for fossil fuels.

So, your assertion that nuclear is more expensive, less safe, and unreliable is pure fabricated BS. Do some more research before you continue blabbering

We need more R&D to improve some of the designs, sure, but thats not a reason to discredit it, the same can be said for

0

Daily_the_Project21 t1_ix3409e wrote

What's wrong with nuclear power plants?

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix7m1vy wrote

So far, in the USA, no state has a permanent repository for high level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, and spent uranium fuel rods are typically stored indefinitely on site awaiting the existence of same.

1

Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_ix1q0rk wrote

See this is why people are stupid. MA HAD a Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth. But all the retarded environmentalists campaigned against it and it is now closed. Now the new environmentalist want nuclear.

Do you see how utter moronic they are? Do you see why no one wants to listen to them any more? They did the same thing with paper bags. They said it was causing deforestation, so we switched to plastic, now there are paper bags again and plastic is out.

CAN SOMEONE JUST PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE IDIOTS.

−26

The-Shattering-Light t1_ix1xblq wrote

This is a pretty disingenuous statement.

“Environmentalists” aren’t one monolithic group. I’ve always been an environmentalist and always been pro-nuclear.

Paper bags were causing deforestation - then changes were made to replace lost trees. Plastic became ubiquitous because it was a lot cheaper to make in bulk.

30

thepasttenseofdraw t1_ix2ascm wrote

Hey I’m about as green as they come, but yeah, that’s a pretty accurate description of what happened.

7

siwmasas t1_ix20p0p wrote

PEOPLE DID IT WRONG IN THE PAST!!! IT CAN NEVER HAPPEN!!!

oh ffs...

7

Daily_the_Project21 t1_ix33xkb wrote

Wasn't it planned to be shut down for a while? And then they sped it up because of financial reasons?

5

somegridplayer t1_ix3e1ur wrote

It wasn't environmentalists that shut down Pilgrim, it was Entergy citing economic reasons. They could have easily spun it down but they're not in the business of keeping assets around it seems. They pick up plants at pennies on the dollar run them for a few years, then sell them off to decommissioning companies, amusingly enough, making a profit.

The only thing now that's making life difficult by environmentalists is dumping of water. They think it's going to irradiate their dunks ice coffee and kill their dog.

5

pab_guy t1_ix3ns7p wrote

"They" aren't the same people for the most part but do go on yelling at the internet in all caps.

2

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix6b7q2 wrote

Pilgrim was closed because cheap natural gas made it unecononic to properly maintain and renew the aging plant.
Environmentalists did not have influence on Entergy, who had obtained a 20 year extension on the license to operate, and walked away from it.

1

DDups2 t1_ix375p3 wrote

I miss my plastic bags, always had a second use for them.

0

saltthefries t1_ix26lc6 wrote

There is more abundant supply of natural gas in Pennsylvania / the Marcellus basin, available at lower prices, that cannot economically get to New England without more pipeline capacity*. The New England utilities must import liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the winter to provide sufficient energy to meet demand in the region. It is not infinite, but it's better. There's also room to drill more in the mid-continent or displace industrial demand by price sensitive consumers (like petrochemical plants and aluminum smelters).

Piping in gas also is more energy efficient and cost effective, because it doesn't have to be chilled to a liquid at -254 F and kept at that temperature for ocean or rail transport.

LNG prices are going to the moon because Europe has replaced most of its pipeline imports of gas from Russia with ocean borne LNG since Russia invaded more of Ukraine this spring. French nuclear production also under-performed this summer, due to weather and technical issues, and this caused Europe to burn more gas than forecast over the summer.

LNG export capacity (and shipping capacity, to a lesser extent) is constrained over the short to medium term. Adding capacity / building terminals takes several years at best. More gas from the mid-continent would be liquefied and shipped (likely to Europe) if the capacity existed today.

The short term impacts of more pipeline capacity into New England would do the following:

  • significantly reduce energy prices here,
  • slightly increase them in the mid-continent
  • might make a significant dent** in global LNG prices which would help importers like Europe and Japan while costing exporters like Qatar and Russia

Not adding more energy supply to New England quickly, whether through pipelines or transmission lines is not just a regional political / economic blunder, but an unforced geopolitical error by the United States. The region skated by on cheap LNG prices for a while after decommissioning a lot of coal power plants, but now that gamble isn't working out.

I support more renewable energy in New England. I'm more skeptical on any greenfield nuclear expansion because there's not a good track record of building nuclear plants in this country that don't require massive bailouts / have cost blowouts in my lifetime. I'd be surprised if a nuclear power site could be agreed upon in less than a decade, given local politics.

I think that the MA political leadership needs to cut a deal with Maine to make the whole transmission line project from Quebec more appealing. Seriously, let anybody with a Maine license plate park at Logan for free, get free Red Sox tickets, let them redesign the MA state flag, or whatever....

I also think the congressional delegation might need to cut some kind of deal to force some more pipeline capacity through New York.

*This might change if gas prices double or triple... then you might see more rail cars and possibly trucks carrying LNG.

**This is due to the extremely tight market for LNG driven by the Russia / Ukraine war and related sanctions.

25

Jfrenchy t1_ix3ausd wrote

Also repeal the Jones Act

11

icwhatudiddere t1_ix3mmhv wrote

The problem with repealing the Jones Act is a huge amount of ocean transport is controlled by Chinese and other un-friendly countries. If we don’t develop an domestic shipping industry soon, we’ll be beholden to foreign powers. Can you imagine a scenario where the USA attempted to intervene on the behalf of an ally and the result was no power or heat in New England. Our economy collapses and people panic. If we want gas from Texas, we need to pressure our elected officials to incentivize an American LNG fleet.

4

MBOSY t1_ix5stya wrote

If the Jones Act is repealed, US shipbuilding is done for.

1

somegridplayer t1_ix3e9hg wrote

> I'd be surprised if a nuclear power site could be agreed upon in less than a decade

It won't ever happen. You can't even build a fucking cell tower without some asshole claiming it'll give their children cancer and fall down and set your entire town on fire.

9

mini4x t1_ix3t67u wrote

Why can't we rebuild Pilgrim?

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix6aowk wrote

A company owns the site, and the existing outdated, out moded and used up plant must be dismantled first.

1

saltthefries t1_ix3j357 wrote

Lol I was trying to be generous. It also seems like the Merrimack Valley is a somewhat politically convenient dumping ground in MA, with a river for cooling.

1

movdqa t1_ix3z3c0 wrote

Seabrook, NH has a second pad for another nuclear plant. NH exports power as it has Seabrook and the AEP NG plant in Londonderry. An additional plant would provide additional capacity for export.

3

saltthefries t1_ix4cm4r wrote

Yes, expanding nuclear production at existing brownfield sites makes sense. To clarify my earlier comment, greenfield = new location currently not permitted for nuclear power.

2

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix6ahb2 wrote

Federal law allows companies the authority to over-ride local zoning and state impediments to cell tower placements.

1

somegridplayer t1_ix7jtu5 wrote

Federal law allows local governments to deny construction permits for cell towers, however, such denial must be based on a reasoned approach; otherwise the FCC is authorized to preempt the local decision and grant the permit. The 1996 Telecommunications Act preserves local government zoning authority as it relates to cell tower siting, but it provides three key protections for firms seeking to erect a tower:

Local ordinances may not “unreasonably” discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. Tower siting policies must not favor one company, or one technology, over another;

Local government may not impose a blanket prohibition against the placement of telecommunications towers; and

Local ordinances may not impose more stringent “environmental effects” limits on radio frequency emissions than those adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Stolen from... I just closed the tab. Anyhow, in some cases the carriers will just throw up their hands and say "fuck, we'll put it somewhere else, enjoy your shitty service" if the locals are piss babies.

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix7kdz5 wrote

Half of the towers in my town are outside of the zoning regime for location. Tower owners regularly deal with the issue and construct where appropriate.

1

somegridplayer t1_ix7l408 wrote

In the case of my town, the location was absolutely perfect for my part of the town. The only catch was a massive douchebag across the street trying to sell their abomination multi million dollar home. So they took up the reign of "towers cause cancer! it'll fall down and set the day care not actually near where it would fall on fire and kill your children!" and shit like that.

A shitty website and a couple street fairs later and lots of mailers, AT&T noped out after listening to their bullshit at a town meeting about it and decided to put it elsewhere, which did not improve our neighborhood's reception at all.

And nobody still wants to buy the douchebag's house.

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix7nqxx wrote

5G and subsequent generations of highest frequency band cell networks are likely to be on telephone poles.

1

TeacherGuy1980 OP t1_ix3mf9r wrote

Thank you for this post. I now have a better understanding of the natural gas pipelines versus LNG.

2

Another_Reddit t1_ix3etff wrote

Exactly this. Yes we need to prioritize renewables to achieve our climate goals and ween ourselves off of fossil fuels, but it’s be disingenuous to say building more pipelines wouldn’t make an impact on energy prices.

1

mini4x t1_ix3t30s wrote

Didn't New York already block the PA pipeline?

1

saltthefries t1_ix3uhez wrote

Some political hardball with New York State might be necessary. Here's my speculative take-

Congress could pass a law to force it. It's interstate commerce. The MA congressional delegation + Republicans is sufficient to pass in the house. It probably gets through the Senate without needing Warren's vote because there are some Democrats in the Senate who would vote for a bill due to the geopolitics w/ Russia & Europe.

3

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix6a7r8 wrote

The Maine / Quebec line restarted construction after the Maine Supreme Court indicated that the project had the right to continue, having been started construction before the referendum was an idea

1

modernhomeowner t1_ix1i99l wrote

Renewable energy is cheaper when it's used as it's made. It is much more expensive when you need to build storage, both the storage cost as well as the loss of power in the storage process (as much as 60% loss). Natural Gas pipelines would provide a cheap stable source of energy when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. Nuclear would be a good alternative, I'd love to see it, but I don't think it's making a comeback in MA.

6

Hot-Cry920 t1_ix1qcpg wrote

Yes you are wrong, the northeast lacks pipeline infrastructure. This puts a strain on generation with homes competing for this gas as well. LNG being redirected to europe is the nail in the coffin. Rolling blackouts are gonna happen if we have a cold winter. Iso New England has already warned grid operators. Green energy is great however does really bad with PEAK power. Dems continue to block NG infrastructure.

4

Fit-Anything8352 t1_ix1ulko wrote

Nuclear has no problems with peak power. People just need to get over themselves and let people build nuclear plants.

8

TeacherGuy1980 OP t1_ix3m3cx wrote

Why didn't we have the possibility of rolling blackouts two+ years ago with the existing infrastructure? Is there enough natural gas to pump into the region that liquified natural gas injections couldn't solve?

1

Hot-Cry920 t1_ix3uetd wrote

Lng tankers we are now competing with Europe. Also decommission of pilgrim nuclear in Plymouth hasnt helped

1

Potato_Octopi t1_ix1smv6 wrote

Sure, but that only works if we can actually get things like nukes built quickly and efficiently. I don't think we can replace pipelines with renewables alone.. we need a lot of power for heat in the winter and solar isn't as productive in the winter.

Would love to see a big nuke / renewable build out next recession, but big builds need a long time to plan and approve.

4

Daily_the_Project21 t1_ix342j3 wrote

Okay? The best time was 15 years ago. The second best is literally right now, and that'll always be true. Do you think because it'll take time that we just shouldn't do it?

2

Potato_Octopi t1_ix3ti8d wrote

>Do you think because it'll take time that we just shouldn't do it?

I literally wrote that I want us to do it.

1

pab_guy t1_ix3o0vo wrote

Newer designs with much safer profiles shouldn't take as long to approve IMO... no idea what the regulations say of course, I'm just saying we should change them to fast track these.

1

rapper3000 t1_ix38c3b wrote

I moved from MA to SC early this year. Electric rates are 45% lower here. SC has 4 nuclear power plants. I think renewables will be a significant piece of power generation in the future but will not replace other power generation methods.

3

jingjishiyongnan t1_ix31zir wrote

Actually we should all be learning to live with less energy. Increased energy capacity only leads to more consumption. We need to consume less and degrow.

2

Polynya t1_ix33my1 wrote

Natural gas is an important complement to renewables , because it can be very easily ramped up and down to match variable renewable output.

Natural gas is also an important input to industrial processes and cheaper, more plentiful may tap gas may help retain what manufacturing is still in NE.

Also, we’re still at the phase where additions of natural gas and renewables are displacing oil and coal, which is a net win both for carbon emissions and air pollution that causes stuff like cancer and asthma and heart disease.

Finally, the real solution is fixing our environmental laws (NEPA, MEPA) so that they can no longer be weaponized by NIMBYs to block and kill renewables and transmission projects. All renewable projects should be exempt from public input, granted immunity from litigation, and be given streamlined and expedited approval.

2

SluggoRemains t1_ix39jag wrote

Not infinite but there’s a lot.

We sure could use some hydroelectric power from Quebec. Of course we would need transmission lines

2

somegridplayer t1_ix3dlfn wrote

Not "maybe nuclear" it should be "definitely nuclear".

2

AverageJoe-707 t1_ix3vjaq wrote

Yep, we keep doing more of what is going to eventually kill us all. It's time to replace decades long members of our government, and their oil, gas and coal loving lobbyist buddies, with young people whose future depends on doing what's right for the planet now. I worry about my grandchildren's future.

2

ariblood77 t1_ix4xz3z wrote

We absolutely need more nuclear.

2

thepasttenseofdraw t1_ix2am9w wrote

Just got a letter in the mail that our town will be switching over to a CCA. They’re projecting prices of .124 per kw/hr. Is there some downside I’m not seeing? Just about to pull the trigger on solar as well, though these prices make the solar deal I was offered less attractive. Anyone have experience with this, or opinions on it?

1

Waluigi3030 t1_ix2amzv wrote

Nuclear please. How can techie Massachusetts not be leading the world in Nuclear?

1

ExpatJundi t1_ix2rd75 wrote

They are a call for all of the above.

1

MoonlessPrairie t1_ix34oeb wrote

Nuclear has never brought low prices to anyone

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix7mbx5 wrote

Towns with municipal power companies as members of the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric power company are partial owners of Seabrook and other Nuclear plants, and have lower electric rates than commercial utilities as a consequence.

1

MoonlessPrairie t1_ix9wgsu wrote

I don't think those two things are actually correlated. The nuclear plants were extraordinarily expensive to build and operate with Seabrook bankrupting PS of New Hampshire in 1988.

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ixakzm2 wrote

PSNH defaulted on its bonds in 1988, and bond holders had initiated attachment of property securing the bonds.

The utility was too small to take on the lead of constructing two nuclear power plants, and got in over its head.

PSNH had veen ordered to reduce its share from 50% to 35.6% by the NHPUC by 1984.

Seabrook II was abandoned in 1984 at a cost of 800 million to shareholders of that unit.

Also Seabrook Co-owners formed Yankee NH , taking construction control off the hands of PSNH, in March 1984.

Seabrook I was completed. PSNH owned 35% Mass. Municipal Wholesale Electric Co. -- MMWEC continued as partial owners, along with other utilities.

PSNH filed for Bankrptcy protection when the NH Supreme Court issued an opinion to the NH Utilities Commission, confirming that ratepayers cannot be billed for non operating assets. In 1991 PSNH exited bankruptcy, and six months later agreed to be taken over by Northeast Utilities, which paid 2.3 billion for the transaction, keeping the PSNH share of Seabrook.

A unit of Florida Power and Light, subsequently named NEXTRA, bought the non municipal shares of Seabrook I and 2002, and the Seabrook II assets.

Mass Municipal Utilities have about 50% of their total source electricity from Nuclear power, and large percentage of hydro sourcing, making them less affected by rising gas and oil costs.

References.

PUBLIC SERVICE OF N.H. FILES FOR CHAPTER 11. By John M. Berry.
January 29, 1988 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1988/01/29/public-service-of-nh-files-for-chapter-11/891cd39e-c273-4458-9a76-2697a87c27b3/

Public Service of New Hampshire. Reference for Business.
https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/88/Public-Service-Company-of-New-Hampshire.html.

Study by the Analysis Group entitled “Fuel Mix and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Municipal Electric Light Plants in Massachusetts”
(Via Hudson Power and Light, Hudson MA)

https://0946af93-e430-470c-9d25-b78c43e14141.usrfiles.com/ugd/0946af_48468fb1b651413489c815f9db9ddfde.pdf

1

bobbyblubbers t1_ix3trjz wrote

Cape Codders are protesting against landfall sites for offshore wind cable connections to the grid

1

movdqa t1_ix3ykce wrote

Pipelines made a lot more sense before the invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing energy policies of Europe. We now have much more demand for NG. $NATGAS ranged from $2 - $4 per million BTUs in 2019. It has ranged from $5 - $10 after the invasion. For reference, it use to spike to $15 back in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Utility companies wanted to put in pipelines many years ago and there was a strong NIMBY reaction along the NH/MA border and so they didn't.

There is NG demand for air conditioning during the summer and, of course, demand for heating in the winter. One way to ameliorate supply problems during periods of high demand are to build more storage tanks that get filled in the spring and fall. Someone has to build them, though, and buy the NG and store it and they take price risk along with storage costs in doing that.

One other way to resolve distribution problems is to get rid of the law that doesn't permit transport via ship from state to state. I recall MA getting a shipment from Russia many years ago because of that law.

One other purpose for pipelines into MA would be construction of a terminal to export LNG to Europe. Something that wouldn't help consumers but it would help shipping companies and NG producers.

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix7mkfk wrote

There is no law preventing ship transport inside the US.

Merely must be on US owned and operated ships.

1

Ok_Entrepreneur_dbl t1_ix4a0cx wrote

Considering most of our electricity is generated from natural gas and the current pipeline is maxed out the lack of being able to add natural gas is a limitation that has huge negative impacts with demand increasing especially with EV. Utilities across the region have been going over scenarios for limiting demand to accommodate existing infrastructure. If the was a secondary pipeline it would not be an issue. For more information check out iso-me.com you will see what our electric profile is.

1

NativeSon508 t1_ix4bz83 wrote

Just keep this in mind, pipelines are much safer than trains and trucks transporting anything really.

1

noodle-face t1_ix4o2k8 wrote

I live in Somerset. Then closing down our power plant was the biggest mistake I've ever seen.

1

AccomplishedGrab6415 t1_ix5kpw9 wrote

Good luck explaining this to the MAGA crowd.

They can't seem to grasp that pipelines don't produce energy, they transport it.

1

PHD_Memer t1_ix5z9qv wrote

Ohohoh! I actually emailed the mass doe about something kinda like this and they got back to me. It’s about de-carbonization mostly since I was asking about renewables for climate change but much of this may be applicable here/show where the interest is on new energy production, let me copy the email below:

Thank you for reaching out to us. I hope the following information will help answer your questions.

In December 2020, the Baker-Polito Administration released its Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap Report, which was the culmination of a two-year, comprehensive and science-based planning effort to map out our pathways to Net Zero over 30 years. The goal of the Roadmap Study was to provide the Commonwealth with a comprehensive understanding of the necessary strategies and transitions in the near- and long-term to achieve Net Zero by 2050 using best-available science and research methodology. The Pathways create optionality for the Commonwealth and demonstrate a range of options for policymakers and stakeholders to assess and consider. The 2050 Roadmap pathways are based on a least-cost economic model that selects a mix of energy resources that can meet demand and stay within the emissions limit.

Massachusetts is part of the New England regional electric grid that is managed by ISO New England. There are no nuclear generators currently operating in MA, however one plant in CT and one in NH generate electricity consumed in the ISO-New England region. The state of Connecticut and some of the municipal light plants (MLPs) in Massachusetts have long-term contracts for supply from the nuclear facilities in the region.

The Pathways in the 2050 Roadmap assume that existing nuclear power plants in the New England region remain operational through 2050. Relicensing of nuclear plants is the responsibility of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The modeling of the net-zero emissions pathways in the Roadmap Study dispatchable resources will be needed to back up renewable storage resources, which could be provided by a small amount of thermal fossil fuel generation or large-scale battery storage. Nuclear generation is generally considered baseload generation and cannot quickly respond to changes in electricity needs that may be created by renewable resources. Other resources may be more cost effective solutions in a portfolio with non-dispatchable renewable energy.

The “Offshore Wind Constrained” scenario pathway showed that if offshore wind resources available to serve Massachusetts are constrained, other low-carbon resources, including additional energy imports or new nuclear power in the region, would be needed to achieve a least-cost decarbonized power grid.

The modeling in the 2050 Roadmap indicates that, in New England, balancing solar and wind generation can be achieved through a mix of battery storage, non-battery storage options (e.g., pumped hydro), thermal plants using fossil or renewable fuels, and nuclear resources. The precise mix will depend greatly on how technologies and cost evolve over the next 30 years.

1

Db3ma t1_ixnceel wrote

The op of this wants to increase our investment/reliance on "renewables" and wants to volunteer to participate in the first nuclear/wind/solar powered lifeflight helicopter evac.

"Renewables" are a scam for now. Weak minded liberals parrot the "eliminate fossil fuels" talking point.

We The People need to return to every level of energy independence. And that takes an effective distribution infrastructure.

Wake up!

1

ConcernedCitizen13 t1_ix5pf9v wrote

We also need to get rid of the Jones Act. Eliminating that would be very easy and result in cheaper prices.

0

Creepy-Ad2944 t1_ix36fbb wrote

The USA has over 500 years of natural gas unfortunately this administration won’t allow the drilling, and a lot of NIMBYs won’t allow pipelines to go though

−5

Frunk2 t1_ix1yxcy wrote

Nuclear sounds good until your plant becomes a target for bombing during a war

−6

DustyIT t1_ix260ut wrote

If the US becomes a target for bombing during a war, there's already nukes attached to those missiles that are hitting, fucktard.

13

Frunk2 t1_ix26jdn wrote

You realize only a handful of countries have nukes that are capable of hitting the US today right? Its mostly the ones we dont regularly bomb, but if we gave every semi organized militia the ability to hit us with a simple rocket and cause a nuclear explosion.. yeah that is a big risk

0

DustyIT t1_ix26wtz wrote

If you use thorium reactors, that's not an issue.

6

wwoliver04 t1_ix2ai8o wrote

Nuclear plants don’t explode like how nukes do, the biggest danger would be a large scale radiation leak. And if the mainland United States is being bombed in a war, then I think we have bigger problems on our hands

2

MajorProblem50 t1_ix25fui wrote

Texas is the biggest threat but I'd like to think NY is our buffer zone.

3

BombShady12 t1_ix32a59 wrote

We have plenty of fossil fuels, its the dems / Biden’s epa that makes it difficult to drill. Stop wringing your hands and let them drill.

−6

somegridplayer t1_ix3ehc0 wrote

Jesus fuck stop making shit up. All the companies have mountains of permits to drill. They're not using them. And keep screeching about Keystone. Gas prices would be even higher if it went through.

5

BombShady12 t1_ix51u2r wrote

Of course they’re not. Epa regulate drilling and exploration and the Biden administration has made it very difficult and expensive to do both.

“Oct 6, 2021 — President Biden has promised to reinstate more than 100 rules and regulations aimed at environmental protection that his predecessor rolled back ...”

“The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List.”

You people are truly ignorant.

−1

somegridplayer t1_ix52d2t wrote

Those regulations existed before the fat orange turd and didn't stop drilling. Go back to fapping in conservative and pretending you know anything about oil.

Also you're too daft to know oil supply isn't the issue, it's cracking prices are still through the roof. Again, having nothing to do with regulation but the fact that demand was so low during the pandemic that they spun down the plants, and now that prices are skyrocketed and they're making money hand over fist, there's no reason to bring them back online.

3

Clear_Forever_2669 t1_ix6faxw wrote

If you look at the levels of the strategic petroleum reserves when trump took office versus when he left, it was significantly lower.

You can safely ignore the uneducated boomer scumbag screeching about "dems."

1

Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_ix1oy78 wrote

NO! How about we open the pipelines, increase production while the greenies get their act together and start putting in an infrastructure. I cannot believe that it has taken this long and nothing to little has been done.

Nothing has been done about charging for elec cars and making it available for quick charging, nothing has been done to sure up the electric grid so that it can handle the increased usage. You cannot even get solar panels for your home because it is too expensive and idiotic BS with how they contract it out to people.

Let's face it, there is no reason whatsoever why the renewable sector has done a crappy job getting things into place. Until then everyone still needs energy to live their lives.

−7

cathellsky t1_ix20bv5 wrote

"No reason whatsoever" I think you forgot about funding. How would we pay for the infrastructure? Aren't taxes evil? Surely you don't mean people should improve these things for the betterment of society on charity in this capitalist market?

5

TheValuableMuffin t1_ix373b8 wrote

We were energy independent under Trump

−9

We_R_Chaos t1_ix3dbbc wrote

Yup the dems sending us back to the Stone Age. Buy an extra blanket for heat and a horse to get around on it’s going to get ugly. My ceiling price for a tank of oil is $6.57 a gallon now 🫤

−6