ctrealestateatty t1_ixjs53x wrote
So basically, we rely on too much natural gas. Something we knew already.
Myotherside t1_ixlmno6 wrote
Don’t worry, our leaders have a plan to do nothing until we build another pipeline.
ctrealestateatty t1_ixlv4a1 wrote
Not much you really can do at this point. Renewables like solar farms are being pushed but that’s a tiny drop in the bucket, and are fought by every community they come near. The idea of building out more nuc capacity is a political minefield fought by way too many people, but even if it was approved tomorrow you’re talking 10-15 years to start generating.
Myotherside t1_ixuaa2v wrote
It was inevitable that monopolies would force new centralized infrastructure. Gotta keep the consumers alienated from the means of production, it’s capitalist monopoly 101. Better to cut down all the forests in the state than to allow people to produce their own energy at the point of consumption.
ctrealestateatty t1_ixubmro wrote
I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Overall production at a plant is far more efficient (cheaper) and environmentally friendly. If we didn’t care about the second part we’d still be running coal plants, but either way producing your own energy (outside of renewables like solar, which is very much encouraged), makes no sense.
Myotherside t1_ixubv1v wrote
I guess it’s a whoosh then. Look at the cost of nat gas burned in your home vs burned at a central power plant to generate electricity when used for heating and re-evaluate your comment because it is laughably factually wrong.
ctrealestateatty t1_ixuc78q wrote
Well first off, we are talking about electricity, not heating. So that’s irrelevant, even if you were right. And with the latest generations of heat pumps, you’re generally not right (but again, not relevant to this conversation). And when we are talking about heat, all the typical options are still available. The fact that electric generation in the state is based only on gas and nuc doesn’t have anything to do with it.
No one is burning fossil fuels of any sort to produce electricity outside of plants. And people are burning NG, propane, oil, wood, etc outside of plants for heat. So I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make at this point.
Myotherside t1_ixuoicp wrote
I think you’re just rambling. I actually have a science degree and I’m telling you that whatever base load you offset by generation at the point of production, especially if it can be generated for a lower overall amortized cost at economies of scale (very feasible), is always going to be more efficient than centralized generation and long-distance transmission/distribution. Just look at your electric bill and see how cost-inefficient centralized generation and distribution is.
brewski t1_ixw24ju wrote
This is a pretty bold statement and one I haven't heard before. We lose maybe 10% of the energy in transmission and distribution. Modern combined cycle NG power plants run at 50-60% efficiency. Overall grid efficiency in the US is about 35%, which includes lots of old inefficient plants.
You'd be lucky to get 25% with a home NG generator. Probably more like 15-20. And then you're exhausting pollution right at your house, without the benefits of scrubbers or modern emission control systems. We'd be better off building new efficient centralized plants. At least until more efficient distributed generation options or residential CHP are more cost effective.
ctrealestateatty t1_ixw5mkx wrote
Yeah 7% loss is usually what I see. Even at 10 his statement makes no sense. And that’s without getting into environmental factors.
Myotherside t1_iy3jhqt wrote
It’s because you can’t read, LOL. And I don’t think you have any intention of trying based on the effort made so far.
I’m talking about cost inefficiency not line inefficiency. I could hang superconductors all over and it would have very low line losses while being massively cost inefficient. But you’re an attorney you should be at least smart enough to figure that out right?
We have a convenient metric showing the real COST of delivery associated with centralized generation and it’s RIGHT ON YOUR POWER BILL. How is this so hard to figure out.
Myotherside t1_iy3jggk wrote
Read my comment again I did not say generator. I said to heat a home. Direct combustion vs delivered power at market rates.
Then go back and read again and realize I’m using that example because it’s familiar to someone who is allergic to solar, and solar is actually less cost per kWh than market rates for delivered power.
And we haven’t even brought up externalized costs that aren’t represented by market pricing.
brewski t1_iy41vtd wrote
You said "generation". Twice.
"...whatever base load you offset by generation at the point of production, especially if it can be generated for a lower overall amortized cost at economies of scale (very feasible), is always going to be more efficient than centralized generation and long-distance transmission/distribution"
I recognize that it's often hard to be clear on this platform sometimes. If you're not talking about electric generation, then maybe you need to clarify.
Edit: Are you saying that burning fuel at home is more efficient that electric heating? I agree, that is a no brainer. But this is why very few people heat with electricity in the Northeast.
Myotherside t1_iy58kbs wrote
I was referring to solar, not on site nat gas.
Scroll ALL THE WAY UP for context
ctrealestateatty t1_ixw5jbi wrote
My electric bill doesn’t tell me anything you just said. It only has one of the variables you’d need - that of how much centralized generation and distribution are costing.
Edit: and home generation would be buying NG on the same market, without the bulk buying power.
Myotherside t1_iy3j1s8 wrote
It’s literally half your bill, I hope you’re not an actual attorney.
JHolm915 t1_ixmvuth wrote
That's because Natural Gas was seen as the best option for the environment not too long ago and then the infrastructure was not updated to support the demand. Just like what is happening with the push to electric taxing the grid even more with no real plan still to update and prepare.
Short term, premature, and hardly intelligent decision making has ruled politics for far too long right now.
ctrealestateatty t1_ixnd7ys wrote
It wasn’t seen as the best option. It was seen as the only realistic option to get rid of the remaining coal plants . Which it was. And the infrastructure has supported demand. The problem became it’s susceptibility to a single market price spike - not any lack of ability or support.
Your EV comments are unrelated, for the most part, but that’s neither short term nor unsustainable either. It’s not like gas prices someone stayed low over the last couple years, which might make your comparative point valid. They jumped also.
JHolm915 t1_ixne8ch wrote
The price rise in natural gas is due to higher demand and lack of supply. Pipelines would have alleviated a lot of problems and price hikes and would have made transportation easier. They aren't pushing for Nuclear plants which would be the most ideal solution so a pipeline for the time being would be smart.
ctrealestateatty t1_ixneddn wrote
Yes, it could be someone cheaper if the pipeline was in place. That’s different than being an actual shortage or unable to fulfill demand or environmental thinking.
brewski t1_ixw38td wrote
They've built several new NG pipelines from Canada into the northeast over the last couple decades.
ctrealestateatty t1_ixw4nbs wrote
There’s a total of 5 pipelines in New England, 3 of which come through CT. 3 of which come from Canada (ok if you want to be technical there’s a dinky little one I’m not counting that goes just a few miles into Vermont from Canada). One of those comes to CT (Iroquois). The other two in CT are the Algonquin and the Tennessee.
The pipeline issue everyone keeps bringing up is about 6 years ago CT put the kibosh on new lines after MA and NH did the same.
The pipeline was intended to come up from the South for a significant alternate gas source.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments