We should build the Natural Gas pipeline that mass and nh shot down in 2016. It’s clear we need it for at least a decade as we build renewables.

Mean while LNG tankers are stacking up out side European ports with now way to unload their cargo.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dozens-lng-laden-ships-queue-off-europes-coasts-unable-unload-2022-10-17/

So basically, we rely on too much natural gas. Something we knew already.

A lot more detached single family homes need to get solar panels, which will decrease demand for centrally generated power.

How would that help the fact that the natural gas is expensive upstream in the supply chain from that

Nat gas is cheap at the pipeline. Expensive when it has to be turned into LNG and brought here on American ships (Jones act). You would have read that in the article, if had read the article.

[removed]

I'm actually looking into Geothermal.

Look into Public Banking and Community Choice Aggregate (CCA)

Instead of selling public debt to fund centralized power plants we should be making that same public investment to install solar on every detached single family home on the state.

Otherwise we are fighting against both big capital and economies of scale, while our foes leverage both. And they still can’t beat the cost per watt of solar.

Don’t worry, our leaders have a plan to do nothing until we build another pipeline.

Why would you build something with a 50 year design life that will take 10 years to build if you can only realistically use it for “a decade or so”.

It would be 50 more years of near total reliance on LNG.

Politicians excel at providing false choices

If I remember correctly the Inflation Reduction Act set aside large subsidies for solar panel installation. I haven't had a chance to look into it much since it passed though.

We will be burning NatGas for 50 years. Baseload, backup and industrial demand it. I love renewables but it’s not a panacea

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.

Yep. 30% retroactive for anything installed in 2021.

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.

Make them public, again. Some french company owns everything now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No one thinks it’s a panacea but talking points like the one you just repeated are a justification for never even trying. We can SIGNIFICANTLY reduce base load and SIGNIFICANTLY reduce peak loads with renewables but we are in a 50 year struggle with big capital who can’t make as much money off of decentralized and green alternatives.

Still only available to those who own a home and have capital. Not the same as what I’m talking about, but it’s a halfass start.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

They've built several new NG pipelines from Canada into the northeast over the last couple decades.

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.

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.

Yeah 7% loss is usually what I see. Even at 10 his statement makes no sense. And that’s without getting into environmental factors.

It’s literally half your bill, I hope you’re not an actual attorney.

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.

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.

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.

I was referring to solar, not on site nat gas.

Scroll ALL THE WAY UP for context