Are New England Politicians Nuts or What?

[Cape Cod Todd]

In my area there is a moratorium on natural gas so even if you wanted to hook up to the line that runs in front of your house you cannot because the pipes are not big enough to add anymore customers. Over the next 4-5 years the pipes are supposed to be replaced so more gas will be provided and people can hook up to it.


Cape wind was a good idea but in a bad spot and windmills are not the total answer. I drive by some on occasion and they are never turning. Solar is a good energy source but that too is not enough.

Nuclear is in the long run cheap and clean but when a plant like Pilgrim in Plymouth gets to be 40 years old it is going to have potentially dangerous problems.

What is the answer for the power hungry North East? Blocking sources is not the answer.

[windowtreatments]

What is the answer for the power hungry North East? Blocking sources is not the answer.

Don't be selfish...Don't you know we're all causing climate change. The answer is freeze to death.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by wolfgang239

While I agree with your sentiment, as well as believe (in spite of my employer's philosophy and continuing willingness to pay me) there are much better ways of dealing with this issue, I think you are wrong.


Locally owned power (by which I assume you mean municipal utilities) has many pluses, in no small part due to a legislated competitive advantage. Massachusetts does not allow investor-owned utilities (IOU) to buy power for long-term contracts as municipal utilities can. This means the IOUs are subject to electricity price fluctuations which Munis can potentially be insulated from. This is why their rates are typically lower.

A town or city that owns, operates and maintains its own electrical distribution network only has to focus on its own equipment. They only have to answer to their constituents (not the board). Take for example the Town of Concord MA. They are acutely aware of the deficiencies in their equipment, as they only deal with the problems within their system. They know about the 40 year old pole at 294 Main St., and can't escape the scrutiny over it at town meeting. They have more lineworkers per customer than an IOU.

In order to form a municipal electric coop, the town needs to purchase all of the infrastructure (try convincing those curmudgeons at town meeting to spend $100mm). They need to either establish a control room to operate this equipment 24/7 or pay Nstar to continue to monitor it ($$$). They need to build a new building, procure trucks, heavy equipment and supplies. They need to pay for a fleet of lineman and substation operators ($70k to $120+++k/yr), administration, I think you get the picture. None of this comes for free, your electric bill might go down $10/month but your property taxes will surely go up quite a bit more.

To your other point, focusing on constructing or relying too heavily on "renewables" is incorrect. A more sensible approach would be focusing on reduced consumption and technology like demand response (I'll let you read up on that yourself) or the similar incentives some utilities offer to residential customers through smart metering. As someone who spends their days operating a region of this state's electrical grid, shutting down fossil fuel plants and replacing them with too many renewables would cause significantly reduced system reliability.

YES, YES, a thousand times yes.

I would also add that locally owned power has been restricted because since the late 1920's there has not been any new ones created..it's banned in fact.

The initial costs of setting one up are high. But the reliability is good, cost is cheaper in the long run and often times they recycle profits into other services. BELD out of braintree provides competition with television, phone and internet. That creates competition which lowers prices.

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by johngolf

Attorney General Maura Healey, who by law represents consumers in utility cases........

The AG gets involved when the ratepayer is getting screwed. The rates are going up due to inadequate infrastructure. The AG's office comes out with a study that says we don't need more infrastructure, we need to scale back our usage? That's advocating for the ratepayer?

There aren't enough Teamsters and corrupt Dems for her to go after?

[HereIsMyUserName]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Look Yankee had a pretty bad reputation and it was old...damn old for a nuclear plant. I personally know people that have worked within it and it just wasn't well maintained.

I don't know who you talked to, but that's just not true. For several years priors to its shut down, Vermont Yankee was one of the most reliable nuclear plants in the US. In fact, after its last refueling outage it ran for 600+ days without any interruption in power. That was VY's longest run (the normal operating cycle was 18 months).

A plant that is not well maintained simply can not do that.

[Wells5]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

In my area there is a moratorium on natural gas so even if you wanted to hook up to the line that runs in front of your house you cannot because the pipes are not big enough to add anymore customers. Over the next 4-5 years the pipes are supposed to be replaced so more gas will be provided and people can hook up to it.

Are you positive that the moratorium is due to constraints in the distribution system and not in pipeline capacity?

Berkshire Gas Company has a moratorium in place in most of their service area due to interstate pipeline capacity. See link.

http://www.berkshiregas.com/wps/wcm/...61cdc28da3d886

This is a pie chart of natural gas customers in New England as of 2013.



MA has the highest natural gas home heating footprint at over 50%; Maine, the lowest at only about 5% of households. There are a huge number of households especially in northern New England that would jump at the chance to hook up to natural gas; ditto for commercial establishments, schools, hospitals and factories. If only it were available.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Wells5

MA has the highest natural gas home heating footprint at over 50%; Maine, the lowest at only about 5% of households. There are a huge number of households especially in northern New England that would jump at the chance to hook up to natural gas; ditto for commercial establishments, schools, hospitals and factories. If only it were available.

Burlington, Vermont has always had a pipeline from Quebec. They've been trying to run it south to Rutland and eventually Bennington. The NIMBY and global warming bigots are teamed up with the heating oil and propane suppliers to halt it. Natural gas is the cheapest, cleanest energy source for home heating. Using Quebec Hydro electricity for resistive heat using electric baseboards would quickly bankrupt you and Vermont is far too cold to use a conventional heat pump. Everybody burns wood and that has the worst-possible environmental footprint.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by HereIsMyUserName

I don't know who you talked to, but that's just not true. For several years priors to its shut down, Vermont Yankee was one of the most reliable nuclear plants in the US. In fact, after its last refueling outage it ran for 600+ days without any interruption in power. That was VY's longest run (the normal operating cycle was 18 months).

A plant that is not well maintained simply can not do that.

Well when the cooling tower collapsed in '07
Vermont Yankee nuclear plant winds down operations



Ran out of space for interior fuel rods and tritium leaks etc.

To be honest if they made a more modern plant right next to it there'd be no issues. the job losses are going to hit the region really hard.

I'm not against nuclear power but I think eventually a plant is old to the point where you need a whole new one to replace what exists. Even in transit there's supposed to be legal limits for how long a bus and rail car is to perform. The MBTA is an example for trying to go further (25 years for subway 10 years for bus)

[HereIsMyUserName]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Well when the cooling tower collapsed in '07

Ran out of space for interior fuel rods and tritium leaks etc.

To be honest if they made a more modern plant right next to it there'd be no issues. the job losses are going to hit the region really hard.

I'm not against nuclear power but I think eventually a plant is old to the point where you need a whole new one to replace what exists. Even in transit there's supposed to be legal limits for how long a bus and rail car is to perform. The MBTA is an example for trying to go further (25 years for subway 10 years for bus)

I think of it like a car. The crucial aspects are routinely inspected or replaced: oil, brakes, headlights, etc. Other things just aren't as important to safe operation, like a window switch or knob on the radio. Those can usually be left alone until they stop working or show signs of degradation. Plants are constantly doing routine maintenance on equipment with an emphasis on the higher priority systems. That routine maintenance also includes replacing large components, so there is a good amount of new equipment in there too.

The things you mentioned are lower priority in terms of safe operation of the plant. I'm not saying it was OK to let them get to that state. A more robust inspection program should have been in place and caught and fixed those issues before they occurred, but ultimately they did not impact the ability of the plant to safely operate or shut down in an emergency.

My point is, you need to be rational about it. Components will break from time to time, but what matters is the significance of it. If the window switch in your car fails, does that mean you're completely negligent in car maintenance? You could replace all the window switches every two years to be sure they don't fail. But we both know that would be a waste of time and money with little benefit.


And running out of space for fuel is not an operational issue. That's something all plants are dealing with. Until the federal government actually does something and sets up either a central repository or allows for reprocessing, all nuclear plants will be storing fuel in dry casks.

[mdovell]

I understand what you are saying but the plant was under Federal and state regulation. The central repository was supposed to be the Yucca project. I think it's on pause.

From what I heard is that there were other things in that plant that were being stored. A certain defoliant used in Vietnam. Was it secure? Sure but you don't have a free for all of putting all forms of toxins in a nuclear plant. Otherwise if something does happen it makes it much worse.

I just think there is only so long you can go without having to build a new one. From what I understand we don't operate wind cooled plants, the shift to water cooled was in the 1950's. It wouldn't surprise me if something else might be used as coolant down the line.