Posted on 07/02/2014 4:36:24 AM PDT by thackney
New England states are united in proposing that a tariff be imposed on electricity rates throughout the region to fund more natural gas pipelines and increased transmission infrastructure — to reverse electricity costs that are among the highest in the nation.
The proposal is a necessary step because the region has limited gas pipeline capacity despite a demand that has grown from 6 percent in 2000 to 46 percent in 2013, energy experts said at a forum sponsored by The New England Council at St. Anselm's College in Manchester Monday.
At the same time, more and more coal-fired, oil and even nuclear power plants are retiring, which have acted as a more reasonably priced back up during cold New England days when natural gas supplies have been curtailed.
And many of these reasonably priced alternatives emit greenhouse gases and therefore come at an environmental cost, said experts, as New England states seek to reduce carbon emissions.
The end result is a "precarious" situation that has in the last four winters placed New England "on the brink of reliability," said Gordon van Welie, president and CEO of ISO-New England, which oversees the operation of New England's bulk electric power system.
For instance this past winter, electricity prices soared as gas pipelines were operating at capacity but demand was much higher. Van Welie said the wholesale energy market in New England for the months of December, 2013 and January and February, 2014, was about $5 billion — the same value of the entire 12 months of 2012.
It is a situation that energy experts for the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island called untenable — particularly economically.
"New England is losing out" on a natural gas "boom" that is going on elsewhere in the country, said Patrick Woodcock, the director of the Maine Governor's Energy Office.
"We've had companies looking at Maine, and when they sharpened their pencils and looked at the energy costs, they say, 'No thank you. We're going where there's lower energy costs,'" he said.
The six states, at the direction of their governors, have formed the New England Committee on Electricity to come up with solutions. On June 20, the committee proposed that a tariff be imposed to add natural gas pipelines and transmission lines with the goal of increasing power reliability throughout the region.
While they stress this is a preliminary proposal and states are working on a solution, the energy panelists said something has to give in New England.
"We would prefer the magic market-based solution," said Nicholas Ucci of the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources, "but that solution has not come forward."
[ Nonsense. The magic market-based forces are always at work. If there is not enough capacity, it is because there is not enough profit to overcome the regulatory hurdles. ]
Speaking of regulatory hurdles, we would already be having Safe Thorium Salt reactors built if the Government hadn’t interfered inthe development of them in the late 60’s because G.E. and the Defense Contractors raised a hissy fit...
Instead China will be making them and probably selling them back to us at some point....
Don’t forget that did not want those ugly windmills in Nantucket Sound because they would ruin their view from their multi million dollar houses on the shore.
I’ve got a gasoline generator, but the next time I need to buy one for backup power, it will be a tri-fuel. (gasoline, propane, natural gas)
Could you power it off of wood gas?
While technically possible, I would not do so unless there is a total economic collapse. Wood Gas is toxic, leaks could kill those around it. Much of it is Carbon-Monoxide.
If it is only our government holding up this energy source, why is it not already in use in places like Russia, China, France, etc?
I’m saving that picture.
No. But a state that the Coop I work for has a green energy mandate - something like 25% of the energy mix must be renewable by 2025. A lot of wind farms have been built to meet that mandate. Wind is expensive and requires 100% backup, that is why it drove up the price of electricity.
The fuel pellets will drive up the cost of electricity the exact same way. Raising the price of energy that way will and is killing the economy.
“If there is not enough capacity, it is because there is not enough profit to overcome the regulatory hurdles.”
Those profits come out of the pockets of consumers. That is why the price is electricity is “necessarily skyrocketing”. When energy costs more it stalls the economic engine - it’s more cost with decreased output. It’s like spraying gasoline into the air outside an engine and wondering why the engine is not making as much power as it used to make.
This is something the current Washington crowd hasn’t a clue about.
But why add expense for C02 removal when it won’t make a difference in atmospheric CO2?
By the same token - why spray urea in a boiler at $100-$500 per hour to remove NOx that won’t improve “regional haze” (commonly called fog) by any measurable amount?
Of course no one there will blame Obama’s EPA for shutting down coal plants.
soetoro very happy....
I do not know the specifics of the science behind it. I just know that there are companies spending millions of dollars to build these plants to produce the torrefied pellets. So, someone is placing a huge bet on their future need.
Yes that is a great example of crony capitalism - politicians create laws mandating less NOx and CO2 then crony capitalists rise to fill the need that the laws created ripping off a ton of money in the process.
Did you know that Buffet plugged billions in to BNSF within days of Obama stopping the Keystone pipeline? Crony Capitalism. And it’s killing our wonderful economic engine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.