National Grid Electricity Rates About to Jump Way Up (Holyoke: houses, neighborhood)

[bostongymjunkie]

La Nina may save us if we're lucky. But this is no way to be living.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/envir...t-can-be-done/


https://www.ttnews.com/articles/new-...hortage-winter

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by yesmaybe

Except they won't build the infrastructure to pipe it in so they have to use LNG. Which is much more expensive. That's probably because they want to ban FF entirely... which is going to be awesome because I don't think people appreciate how much energy is needed for heat and for cars (which are basically portable heating machines).

So as I stated on another thread, I was for that pipeline. I get it, if you're going to rely on natural gas, you need natural gas. Another thing that's not always appreciated is, that there was jut as much opposition in New Hampshire as Massachusetts and a lot of the opposition came from landowners whose land the pipeline would run over, and their supporters, i.e. NIMBYs.

As Geoff has noted repeatedly, we also got screwed because there was a planned project to bring clean hydropower down from Canada, through Maine. Hydro Quebec would love to sell us that power, and we'd love to buy it. Central Maine Power was on board as the middleman and would profit themselves. But citizen opposition in Maine doomed the project through a 2020 voting referendum - NIMBYs win again. Earlier this year, the Maine Supreme court actually ruled that it was unconstitutional to kill the project with the referendum if the companies had already undertaken significant work in good faith. But the final decision will rest with a lower court as to whether that is the case, and a first ruling in October wasn't promising.

[WestieWhitie]

Gotta pay the green new troll toll!

[L00k4ward]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

La Nina may save us if we're lucky. But this is no way to be living.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/envir...t-can-be-done/


https://www.ttnews.com/articles/new-...hortage-winter

From your first link:
“ Many New England states have strong renewable goals in place, which could reduce electricity costs by thirteen percent over the next three decades and reduce the volatility associated with oil and gas dependence.[19]”

I find it funny that in 3 decades we “could” reduce “volatility” and “dependence” of FF by 13%.

Btw, didn’t they say that Russian oil/gas was less than 10% in the US overall supply?
Is the war in Ukraine just a scapegoat to raise profits?

[WestieWhitie]

Originally Posted by L00k4ward

From your first link:
“ Many New England states have strong renewable goals in place, which could reduce electricity costs by thirteen percent over the next three decades and reduce the volatility associated with oil and gas dependence.[19]”

I find it funny that in 3 decades we “could” reduce “volatility” and “dependence” of FF prices by 13%.

Btw, didn’t they say that Russian oil/gas was less than 10% in the US overall supply?
Is the war in Ukraine just a scapegoat to raise profits?

“First we’ll raise the prices by 500% but I promise, we’ll give you a 10% discount off the new price!”

[robr2]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

So as I stated on another thread, I was for that pipeline. I get it, if you're going to rely on natural gas, you need natural gas. Another thing that's not always appreciated is, that there was jut as much opposition in New Hampshire as Massachusetts and a lot of the opposition came from landowners whose land the pipeline would run over, and their supporters, i.e. NIMBYs.

As Geoff has noted repeatedly, we also got screwed because there was a planned project to bring clean hydropower down from Canada, through Maine. Hydro Quebec would love to sell us that power, and we'd love to buy it. Central Maine Power was on board as the middleman and would profit themselves. But citizen opposition in Maine doomed the project through a 2020 voting referendum - NIMBYs win again. Earlier this year, the Maine Supreme court actually ruled that it was unconstitutional to kill the project with the referendum if the companies had already undertaken significant work in good faith. But the final decision will rest with a lower court as to whether that is the case, and a first ruling in October wasn't promising.

This opposition to a pipeline running through NH was mostly due to the fact that NH wasn’t going to benefit from the pipeline. Same with the hydropower proposals in both NH and ME - neither state was going to get a benefit from it and neither wanted a giant clear cut slash through their states.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by robr2

This opposition to a pipeline running through NH was mostly due to the fact that NH wasn’t going to benefit from the pipeline. Same with the hydropower proposals in both NH and ME - neither state was going to get a benefit from it and neither wanted a giant clear cut slash through their states.

Right. So why would they want it? Unless you're paying so much $$ they can't say no, in which case the cost of the project would become so expensive that there wouldn't be much if any savings from it anyway.

That's of course if its treated as a for profit endeavor instead of a public infrastructure endeavor.

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by robr2

This opposition to a pipeline running through NH was mostly due to the fact that NH wasn’t going to benefit from the pipeline. Same with the hydropower proposals in both NH and ME - neither state was going to get a benefit from it and neither wanted a giant clear cut slash through their states.

I understand that - but at least in the past, gas and electricity have been able to move, roads have been built, etc., and I guarantee that not everyone was happy about it. If none of that is possible anymore because people just say "what's in it for me?" and are able to use that level of opposition to block projects that can help millions, we are ALL in big trouble. No way we could ever build the present interstate highway system today.

[msRB311]

I can kind of understand why NH and ME wouldn't want something when it would only benefit MA

[wolfgang239]

Originally Posted by robr2

This opposition to a pipeline running through NH was mostly due to the fact that NH wasn’t going to benefit from the pipeline. Same with the hydropower proposals in both NH and ME - neither state was going to get a benefit from it and neither wanted a giant clear cut slash through their states.

This is a common misunderstanding I heard from residents of those states. They actually would benefit as wholesale energy is priced across the region with ISO-NE at the helm. MA would be the primary beneficiary in terms of actually being able to use the product delivered across the interconnector and claiming it for climate goals. But it would assist the entire region with price stability on the wholesale market and operational security as a non fuel dependent, reliable source of energy.

There is already one of these interconnectors from Hydro Quebec to Massachusetts. It's importance had been magnified significantly in light of the pipeline constraints of the past few years. Even more so today.