# New Englands back on burning Oil for power



## peakbagger (Dec 29, 2017)

Taking a look at Iso New England, the gas supply limitations into the area are quite obvious today 

https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/charts

Normally oil is a percent or two and gas is much higher. When you see this shift to oil it means the demand for natural gas for heating is eating up much of the capacity. Gas for heating (and other uses) is usually what is called "firm gas". Firm gas suppliers have paid to "own" a certain volume of a pipeline and be guaranteed space in the pipeline when the demand gets high. They pay for the space even if they don't need it all the time and its costly. When there is less firm demand the owners of this space rent it out to other users on an "interruptible" basis with the understanding that the firm gas supplier can shut them off if the demand goes up, the gas is cheap as the buyers arent stuck paying for the volume year round. Pipeline companies dont want to build pipelines unless someone is willing to sign firm gas contracts and power plants arent interested in signing those contracts as it makes them non competitive when there isnt a shortage. 

The solution during cold weather is crank up older oil fired generation (which is far less efficient) like the 800 MW Wyman Station in southern Maine. It only makes sense to run it in very cold weather but it does have big tank of oil ready just in case. There are also a few coal fired plants that can be cranked up in the region but they are rapidly being shut down. The final backup is to run gas turbine peakers on #1 fuel oil (similar to kerosene), they are located all over new england as backup power plants in case of grid interuptions but also can be run in if the power rates are high enough. They also run on #1 from on site tanks. This works unless there is stormy weather along the coast as the #1 comes in by barge. Things can get dicey on an extended long cold snap. 

In the background ISO has contingency plans to reduce demand, economics also factor in, a factory buying power can elect to stop buying power at the very high rates. One firm I know of has on site generation and when the power rates get high ehough they shut down production and sell the power for a higher profit.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Dec 31, 2017)

Yeah,...but not like a few years back when New England ISO (running the grid) was a single event away from instituting rotating blackouts in the middle of the coldest days/nights of the season. Sucks in the Summer, but deadly in the frigid Winter.

What's the status on the pending pipelines? Last I heard there were 3 proposed lines to bring in cheap "fracked" natural gas. Is New England still taking the "burn the life boats, and stay the course" path, or is there middle ground?


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 31, 2017)

I am not aware of any major new pipeline capacity on the books currently. There were a couple of big ones that got canceled in 2017. There are several proposals to import power from Canada including one in VT that has all the permits. Northern Pass in NH has a federal permit but is awaiting a state permit and the inevitable litigation that will arise once the decision is made.

ISO can pretty well make powerlines happen and has to ensure system reliability, and has tried to get permission to encourage gas line development with no success. There is no similar public entity that controls gas supply reliability to a region.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Dec 31, 2017)

I hope that one has better luck than the 1000Mw DC cable that is/was under construction from Canada via Champlain/Hudson ending in Astoria NYC. The only pull from the mud that will get is if Indian Point NPS is really taken offline.

But back to the NG pipelines, I wasn't aware they were officially cancelled. I really had high hopes for New England getting off the Home Heating Oil addiction.


----------



## Brian26 (Dec 31, 2017)

I posted in another thread that the oil fired plant in New Haven has been running full bore. Looking at the ISO New England graph for the past few days there was a few times that power hit $300+ a MWH (1000KWH). So that means they are selling power on a wholesale level at .30KWh? Not sure on the capacity on the New Haven plant but they would be making a fortune on selling at that price. I drive by the plant on a daily basis and its sits idle like 90 percent of the time.


----------



## spirilis (Dec 31, 2017)

So we're sitting awfully pretty down here in MD with my net cost of 10.5 cents/kwh even during the winter...

Dang, never knew how fragile the northeast grid situation was.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 31, 2017)

spirilis said:


> So we're sitting awfully pretty down here in MD with my net cost of 10.5 cents/kwh even during the winter...
> 
> Dang, never knew how fragile the northeast grid situation was.


$.25137/KW ON NASTY GRID, BUT THAT IS THE DELIVERED PRICE! happy new year


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jan 1, 2018)

My electricity is around a quarter per delivered kWh also.  

Driving around, all the rooftop solar arrays are covered still.  No help from that direction!


----------



## vtwoodheater (Jan 4, 2018)

VT closed a nuclear power plant.  Now burning oil to make power?! Awesome.  How green is that?

Great. Gas and HHO  is $2.50 and diesel $3/gallon. Makes sense. Save the planet at all cost.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 4, 2018)

vtwoodheater said:


> VT closed a nuclear power plant.  Now burning oil to make power?! Awesome.  How green is that?
> 
> Great. Gas and HHO  is $2.50 and diesel $3/gallon. Makes sense. Save the planet at all cost.



42 years is 2 longer than the design originally called for.  Nothing lasts forever.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 5, 2018)

What most folks dont realize is Vermont utilities didnt own much of Vt Yankees capacity. It was located a very short distance from the Mass state line on the Connecticut river (which it used for cooling). Most of the power went into Mass but avoided the NIMBY in  western Mass. Most of the power in VT has been coming from Hydro Quebec for several years. Nukes were difficult to site in Mass due to lack of substantial rivers fro condensing. I think the rest of the Mass nukes used ocean water cooling. I t will get more interesting in future winters during cold snaps as the Pilgrim nuclear power plant is scheduled to close next year.  Hydro Quebec has offered to supply as much power to New England as it wants to buy, the problem is the dams are hundreds of miles away and large overhead transmission lines are quite vulnerable to weather and human caused outages. The existing DC line that runs along the NH VT border got knocked out by a couple of folks target shooting a few years ago, the resulting outage caused ratepayers to pay millions in additional costs to replace the power. In 1998 a large part of the southern Quebec grid got wiped out and took a couple of years to get fully restored. There are also proposals to build new power plants in Nova Scotia and run the power across the Gulf of Maine. 

There was proposal to locate a large natural gas plant at the old Vt Yankee site, but that went away when the new gas line proposed to run through the area was canceled.


----------



## vtwoodheater (Jan 5, 2018)

I know the power made by VY was never really used in VT.  I guess the point was: why are we burning oil to generate power?  What does that do to your carbon footprint?  I don't believe in the manmade market of carbon credit trading.  It resembles bitcoin to me.
Ever done one of those online carbon footprint calculators?  What a joke.


----------



## LocustPocust (Jan 6, 2018)

peakbagger said:


> Most of the power went into Mass but avoided the NIMBY in western Mass.



They also demanded the Mount Tom coal power plant closed. Now they pay ridiculously high electricity prices for the privilege of having to import another state's coal generated electricity.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 6, 2018)

vtwoodheater said:


> I know the power made by VY was never really used in VT.  I guess the point was: why are we burning oil to generate power?  What does that do to your carbon footprint?  I don't believe in the manmade market of carbon credit trading.  It resembles bitcoin to me.
> Ever done one of those online carbon footprint calculators?  What a joke.



I got this one.  Until the surge of gas production a couple years ago, they would have ramped up coal plants during weather like this.  Now that the coal plants are shut down, they ramp up the gas as far as they can, and then call the oil man.

The carbon emissions per kWh are likely higher than they were last month, but still lower than they were 10 years ago.  And in a few weeks, the oil burners will go back to sleep.

Two (or three) steps forward, one back, is how progress works.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 6, 2018)

vtwoodheater said:


> I know the power made by VY was never really used in VT.  I guess the point was: why are we burning oil to generate power?  What does that do to your carbon footprint?  I don't believe in the manmade market of carbon credit trading.  It resembles bitcoin to me.
> Ever done one of those online carbon footprint calculators?  What a joke.



Its a choice, use cheap relatively clean interruptible natural gas 330 days a year and burn oil on the cold days or pay a premium to buy firm gas year round to cover the cold days, or roll the dice and let the canadian's trash their backyard generating power from arguable dirty hydro. There have been plenty of attempts to build new gas lines into the region but no one is willing to sign a contract for firm gas to guarantee it gets built . Vermont looked at building a few local biomass power plants to supply local power in Springfield and southern VT but the locals fought them down. Act 250 is a strong tool of NIMBYism.  The major pipeline developers have basically now taken a wait and see approach, they figure one or two winters of this and New England is going to be screaming for gas and be willing to sign on the bottom line. Of course the current administration is opening up New England for off shore drilling so maybe they will just run a pipe in from offshore.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 6, 2018)

Subscribed, I'll have to come back and read, looks interesting.  I wonder how much  higher the demand will be after the closure of Indian Point.


----------



## jackatc1 (Jan 7, 2018)

Massachusetts goes for broke highest gas prices in the world.

http://naturalgasnow.org/anti-pipeline-massachusetts-goes-broke-highest-gas-prices-world/


----------



## Marshy (Jan 7, 2018)

CaptSpiff said:


> I hope that one has better luck than the 1000Mw DC cable that is/was under construction from Canada via Champlain/Hudson ending in Astoria NYC. The only pull from the mud that will get is if Indian Point NPS is really taken offline.
> 
> But back to the NG pipelines, I wasn't aware they were officially cancelled. I really had high hopes for New England getting off the Home Heating Oil addiction.


I think it's more of a case that they never got authorized to build more so than they were canceled.  



woodgeek said:


> 42 years is 2 longer than the design originally called for.  Nothing lasts forever.


That's not why VY closed. Politics and the public's perception can make or break a nuclear plant. Same reason Indian Point will be closed. Primarily political on that front but they have had more than a couple plant issues which does not paint them in a good light publicly. They are scheduled to close as they have not been able to get their renewed licence (again, for political reasons). Once they shut down NY will be in the same life boat as VT, burning oil and gas or buying power from Canada. Not a if but when. The proposed pipelines to supliment the lost generation from Indian Point would require it passing through NYC or just north of it.  It would take an act of God at this point to get the necessary permissions to build it. I think what will happen is PA build more gas plants and sell NY power.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 8, 2018)

Marshy said:


> ....
> That's not why VY closed. Politics and the public's perception can make or break a nuclear plant......



That's not what the owner said:

 "On August 28, 2013, Entergy announced that due to economic factors, notably the lower cost of electricity provided by competing natural gas-fired power plants, it would cease operations and schedule the plant's decommissioning in the fourth quarter of 2014.["

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 8, 2018)

Entergy has been looking to dump the liability of old nuclear plants for a couple of years. They tried to sell their plants to a dummy corporation to shed liability but it wouldnt fly. The amount of money they set aside is inadequate to decommission VT and their "plan" is to let it sit for as long as 50 years while the money set aside and grows. The latest gambit is get a special purpose company with limited assets to buy the plant and decommission it using their experience in managing other projects. They claim to be able to do it cheaper and they will make a profit on the money already set aside. Sounds great except that if they run over, there are no assets to attach to finish the work. 

The major natural gas line that the region was banking on was going to run through western mass and then run just south of the Mass/NH border. They did a poor job with PR and didnt tell the locals they were sending out surveyors to lay out the line until the surveyors were knocking on doors. The project came out in the press and the locals went wild. They then tried to run it through southern NH and that stirred similar sentiments. Some firm gas customers came up with reasons why they weren't going to sign a contract so the developer elected to cancel the project. PNGTS has a potential upgrade on their line from Quebec to Portland maine that has been looking for contracts for firm gas for a couple of years with no takers. The new england governors association had talked about signing contracts that would backstop the developers so they didnt loose money if the demand wasnt there but when push cam to shove no state wants to sign it as it ties them into a potentially messy fight over right of way and exposes the states to millions of dollars of costs if the demand isnt there during the rest of the year. 

Given whats going on I wouldn't be surprised if LNG doesnt come back in the picture as away of getting gas in the market.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 8, 2018)

peakbagger said:


> ..... Given whats going on I wouldn't be surprised if LNG doesnt come back in the picture as away of getting gas in the market.



It is very scary watching a big tanker enter Boston harbor. I didn't know if any have come in for a while,but the Everett terminal is still active, and has been upgraded. Not sure if I ever saw it, but I think they have to go under the Mystic bridge to enter the terminal

I'm not the only one who thinks this way

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2010/06/28/safe-harbor/

'Why is Boston the only major city with an LNG terminal? Because nobody else wants one. '


But, it's still being used.... "Built in 1971, the Everett LNG terminal in Boston, USA, joins the Group in 2000. As the largest LNG terminal in the country, it provides 20% of regional market demand for natural gas."

"The terminal now receives LNG from a number of different countries, and in 2010 received its 1,000th LNG carrier to set a new US record." I remember when Libya was the source ( back when Quadaffi was still around)

https://www.engie.com/en/news/50-years-of-lng-everett-terminal/


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 8, 2018)

The worldwide demand for LNG rarely makes it competitive in New England except for times when there is a gas shortage.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 8, 2018)

My history teacher at BC HIgh would opine that those tanks in Dorchester (the ones with Ho Chi Minh painted on them) would flatten the city if they ever went up.

And then he would go on about the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.  What a way for 21 souls to go.

I always hated History Class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood


----------



## Marshy (Jan 9, 2018)

"The trouble for New Yorkers - and for everyone in New England by extension - is that, as I reported back in April, Gov. Cuomo has spent his entire term in office demonizing natural gas.  Not only did his administration take the extraordinary, completely unwarranted action of outlawing hydraulic fracturing operations in the state, the Governor himself has made a point of personally working to obstruct the building of much-needed new pipeline capacity to bring natural gas from the Marcellus Shale into the state from Pennsylvania and West Virginia, whose residents and state governments are profiting immensely from oil and gas operations."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidb...obstruction-is-costing-new-englanders-dearly/


----------



## Marshy (Jan 9, 2018)

woodgeek said:


> My history teacher at BC HIgh would opine that those tanks in Dorchester (the ones with Ho Chi Minh painted on them) would flatten the city if they ever went up.
> 
> And then he would go on about the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.  What a way for 21 souls to go.
> 
> ...


I read about this disaster during my engineering studies. Lots of changes were made because of it.


----------



## vtwoodheater (Jan 11, 2018)

What are we progressing to?  We invented a carbon footprint.  Burn whatever you want, you can't make energy from nothing.  
Coal is dirty, shut them down. 
Fight natural gas pipelines for whatever reason.
Burn natural gas or oil for a couple of months, it's better than what we were doing.
Wind power is ugly and just a supplement.
Solar is a freaking joke. doesn't matter which way you spin it.
Nuclear power makes steam and hot water in a river.

Whatever you choose, has a consequence/reaction.  The way I look at it: If you don't like the noise from airplanes. don't buy a house next to the airport.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 11, 2018)

vtwoodheater said:


> What are we progressing to?  We invented a carbon footprint.  Burn whatever you want, you can't make energy from nothing.
> Coal is dirty, shut them down.
> Fight natural gas pipelines for whatever reason.
> Burn natural gas or oil for a couple of months, it's better than what we were doing.
> ...




Ummm

Solar is not ajoke... it powers my car, heats my house, and provides a nice little income

Wind I hear sometimes powers all of texas

And to compare the side effect wind and solar to the thousand year waste products of nuclear or the acid rain of the midwest coal plants is to lack perspective in the serious consequences of some power choices


----------



## vtwoodheater (Jan 12, 2018)

Solar works on an individual basis. I was thinking more along the lines of the country with 350 million inhabitants. You have solar panels, so I understand your soft spot for them.  
How much did they cost? Do you own/drive the one electric vehicle as your sole mode of transportation? Sounds like you are lucky enough to live in a state where you can sell back power, that's good.  GMP in VT does not work like that. 

 My father in law blew $20K on a solar array that only gives him a $85 credit a month on his power bill all year.  I could have lowered his power bill more than that by using $20K to install energy efficient upgrades and insulation to his house.  I was able to convince him to install a variable speed pool pump.

I don't mind wind power. I think the turbines are kind of cool looking.

I wasn't trying to argue or debate any form of power over the other, I was just pointing out it made no sense to burn oil to generate power.  Seems no better than coal or nuclear.

BTW, why is everyone so dead against small hydro projects?


----------



## Marshy (Jan 12, 2018)

Results are in at the EIA. Record breaking demand for NG.

"During the recent cold weather event that affected much of the eastern United States, more natural gas was withdrawn from storage fields around the country than at any other point in history. Net withdrawals from natural gas storage totaled 359 billion cubic feet (Bcf) for the week ending January 5, 2018, exceeding the previous record of 288 Bcf set four years ago."

"Consumption of natural gas in the residential and commercial sectors reached 452 Bcf during the week ending January 5, compared with 348 Bcf during the previous week, according to estimates from PointLogic Energy. PointLogic Energy estimated that total weekly natural gas consumption in the Lower 48 states increased by 150 Bcf, reaching 961 Bcf for the week ending January 5. Another 29 Bcf and 21 Bcf were exported by pipeline to Mexico and as liquefied natural gas (LNG), respectively."

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34512


----------



## Marshy (Jan 12, 2018)

georgepds said:


> Ummm
> 
> Solar is not ajoke... it powers my car, heats my house, and provides a nice little income
> 
> ...


What state do you reside?


----------



## georgepds (Jan 12, 2018)

Marshy said:


> What state do you reside?



Massachusetts

So far there is ~$10k in the srec account and another $2k credit from the electric company. I have not paid an electric bill since the first panels went in ~4 years ago

I added the electric car and the heat pump to absorb some of that $2k production credit.,.... The $10k is mine to spend as I like


Its not much... but its better than mumbling about the electric bill


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 12, 2018)

Hard to beat the former Mass program, those who got in on it hit the jackpot. Lots of developers made a bundle putting in solar field where ever they could. The standard recommendation in Mass is you are far better doing solar as otherwise you are paying for your neighbor to put it in


----------



## vtwoodheater (Jan 12, 2018)

I looked over my FIL power bill a month or two back. He actually generated more KWH's than he used.
 BUT: GMP only pays him half of what they charge per KWH, and then only half of your total bill can be offset.  It is a scam.

Who pays for the KWH's produced by the arrays in Mass?  The power companies, or the state?


----------



## georgepds (Jan 12, 2018)

vtwoodheater said:


> I looked over my FIL power bill a month or two back. He actually generated more KWH's than he used.
> BUT: GMP only pays him half of what they charge per KWH, and then only half of your total bill can be offset.  It is a scam.
> 
> Who pays for the KWH's produced by the arrays in Mass?  The power companies, or the state?




That used to be the way it was in Massachusetts (not exactly, but in the screw the solar customer sense). About 4 years ago the town started promoting solar, which had incredible deals for new panels ( net metering, srec), so I took down the old, and put new ones up

I believe the electric company makes both the kwh payments and the srec payments, not the state


The payback has changed.. The original panels 4 years ago were SREC 1, I mounted a few more over the shed under SREC 2 (no payments yet) , now the rules have changed again. Act quick.. my understanding is if you can connect before March 18,, you fall under thesrec 2 rules


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 13, 2018)

Mass SRECs are ultimately paid for by whoever buys power in Mass. The state sets a required percentage of every mWhr sold in the state that has to be produced "renewably".  Inside this percentage are "carve outs". I have not  looked up the latest numbers but lets use a 20% of the power sold has to be "renewable" (I think its around 23% and is going up slowly). The accounting for this is kept cleaner by creating RECs (Renewable Energy Creidts)which are the renewable attributes associated with 1 MWh of power produced renewably. So if the utility sells 100 regular mWh to consumers they need to prove that they either produced 20 MWh with renewables or they need to buy RECs. The state has decided they want to encourage Solar inside the state so inside that 20% figure they do carve outs and decide that a certain percentage of the RECs have to be produced by solar produced in Mass. So of that 20% REC requirement there is requirement that some percentage is produced with by solar. Lets keep it simple and use 1% (I think Mass is higher.). So when the utility trues up the numbers at the end of the year they either have had to produce 1 mWh of solar or buy equivalent SRECs from others. There is  a shortage of renewable power production capacity in the region (because its expensive to build) and also a shortage of solar produced in Mass. This would put the utility in a bind as no matter how much they paid for SRECs, they couldn't fulfill the SREC percentage. The state has set an Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) which is an effectively a penalty payment that the utility can pay to make up the difference. The ACP is set quite high and that effective sets the maximum amount the SRECs can get up to. Mass has set these quite high, the first round was $448 (per MWH)and the second round was $350 , they are both filled out and there is new program in place. 

The state changes the rules every couple of years and future SRECs may go down or other "carrots" can be put in place. The big carrots coming soon is giving a bonus for grid support. They may set a high ACP for putting battery or other storage on line and may pay a bonus if the system can do grid support which is providing low voltage ride through or frequency. Currently gird tied inverters are designed to shut down when the grid voltage or frequency gets out a tight range. In areas with high renewable production that can cause a lot of problems. If there is a temporary imbalance in the system, usually a transmission line tripping or possibly a power producer tripping, there is mismatch between the amount of generation with the amount of demand on the system. In this case the voltage and frequency can start to dip and that can cause large PV arrays to shut down making things worse. A new style PV inverter (1741 sa) is now coming out that can be designed to continue producing power during low voltage events and can actually change the power factor of the power produced to boost the frequency. The state may give special incentives for this capability. They state also wants to encourage large batteries as they can ask power consumers to go on their batteries during short periods of high demand. 

Note that in all of this the utilities are just the middleman, they are guaranteed a profit by the state so all these payments dont come out of their pockets, they just add a surcharge to the power they sell  Effectively the state is just putting a tax on people who still buy power from the grid and handing it over to producers.

By the way, in theory once a home owner sells their SRECs, they are no longer can claim they are green. Despite that they have solar panels on their roof, they have sold the right to claim they are green. Somewhere there is fossil power plant putting out CO2 and other pollution that can run because the homeowner sold his SRECs to them. Most people can not or do not want to understand this and obviously marketers conveniently forget to mention this. In other states like NH, the solar carve out is set low and the ACP is also set low. Many folks elect not to sell SRECs as the revenue barely covers the costs to sell them but in Mass the SRECs are so darn lucrative that most folks get over the fact that they sold their solar bragging rights and enjoy the checks.


----------



## OhioBurner© (Jan 13, 2018)

My company got into solar a year or so ago, but even on the utility scale with ~10MW solar farm it isn't very profitable and takes up a huge area as compared to fossil power. It's more of a proof of concept and perhaps gains them some green credits and helps in PR. It also provides little to no ancillary services to the grid, frequency support, regulation, reserves, etc. And like someone else mentioned they have a habit of tripping out often,  they are on the more local distribution grid which have more line operations and transients, as apposed to the more robust transmission grid. But perhaps a small step in the right direction.

I don't follow New England, but even around here last week the nat gas prices in the PJM system were crazy high, some of our gas plants offer curves were 10x (or more) more expensive than typical and were getting picked up in the day ahead market! There were a couple days there where most of our generation units were base loaded around the clock, coal plants never came down from full load even in the early AM load valley. No oil burners in our fleet though (and all of our coal burners are emission controlled now, the older non controlled units have all been shut down).


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 13, 2018)

OhioBurner© said:


> My company got into solar a year or so ago, but even on the utility scale with ~10MW solar farm it isn't very profitable and takes up a huge area as compared to fossil power. It's more of a proof of concept and perhaps gains them some green credits and helps in PR. It also provides little to no ancillary services to the grid, frequency support, regulation, reserves, etc. And like someone else mentioned they have a habit of tripping out often,  they are on the more local distribution grid which have more line operations and transients, as apposed to the more robust transmission grid. But perhaps a small step in the right direction.
> 
> I don't follow New England, but even around here last week the nat gas prices in the PJM system were crazy high, some of our gas plants offer curves were 10x (or more) more expensive than typical and were getting picked up in the day ahead market! There were a couple days there where most of our generation units were base loaded around the clock, coal plants never came down from full load even in the early AM load valley. No oil burners in our fleet though (and all of our coal burners are emission controlled now, the older non controlled units have all been shut down).



Definitely keep an eye on the new 1742 SA standard. Its not the PV going down as much as little ripples in power grid that a person rarely notices. When we work with customers to install local CHP generation we remind them numerous times that the grid is not as good as they think. The protective relaying on the switchgear will detect minor grid issues and will island the plant even when no one noticed the ripple.


----------



## jackatc1 (Jan 13, 2018)

Akin to delivering coal to Newcastle and ice to the Eskimos.

http://naturalgasnow.org/corruptocrat-bay-state-bozos-bring-russian-lng-us/


----------



## begreen (Jan 13, 2018)

jackatc1 said:


> Akin to delivering coal to Newcastle and ice to the Eskimos.
> 
> http://naturalgasnow.org/corruptocrat-bay-state-bozos-bring-russian-lng-us/


From one blog to another Shepstone is a questionable source.
_Natural Gas Now is “owned and managed by Shepstone Management Company” run by Tom Shepstone, a former Energy In Depth employee. EID is a shale gas industry front group created in 2009 by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA).


From its first days online, Natural Gas Now has devoted vast bandwidth to “Gasland.” In 2011 — back when Shepstone worked as a campaign manager for EID-Marcellus — Natural Gas Now had a section of its website linking to numerous websites claiming to debunk the Academy Award-nominated film. _
https://www.desmogblog.com/2015/09/18/naturalgasnoworg-energy-in-depth-tom-shepstone-gasland-study


----------



## georgepds (Jan 14, 2018)

peakbagger said:


> ...
> By the way, in theory once a home owner sells their SRECs, they are no longer can claim they are green. Despite that they have solar panels on their roof, they have sold the right to claim they are green. ....



Solar sophistry

Just who issues "the right to claim they are green"? The Massachusetts general court , the epa, the dpw, the registry of deeds, the good lord himself... I'd like to know.

If I make such a claim, do I violate criminal or civil law.. Can you cite the governing statue? Will I incur a fine?Is there possibility of jail time? Is this covered by contact law?

Just to be clear, in case the jackbooted green right police are monitoring, I never claimed to be green, turquoise maybe, with a hint of chartreuse, but never green.

Otherwise a very informative post.
...


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 14, 2018)

georgepds said:


> Solar sophistry
> 
> Just who issues "the right to claim they are green"? The Massachusetts general court , the epa, the dpw, the registry of deeds, the good lord himself... I'd like to know.
> 
> ...



The concept is when you sell a SREC to a non green fossil plant be it gas or coal you are allowing it to produce a MWH of dirty energy that they could not have produced had they not bought the SREC. VT got in trouble and almost lost certification of their SRECs as they were selling SRECS and also claiming they were running the state on renewable power. In some ways its where you draw the control boundary. If you draw it at your property boundary you are green but if you draw it around Massachusetts you are not green anymore as you sold the rights to claiming green to some other power plants.

That is the hassle with climate accounting, Its the tragedy of the common, unless you somehow monetize the cost of dumping in the common private self interests will degrade the common. Europe is known to turn up their noses at the US with respect to climate but there carbon trading market is propped up primarily by sketch carbon credits they buy in the third world.

I think most folks agree with your opinion.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 14, 2018)

Lets do the count.. no srec,  1 mwh of dirty power, or 100% dirty power

With srec, 1 mwh of dirty power and 1 mwh of clean power, so, on average 50 %clean power

Let's call it greenish


----------



## Marshy (Jan 22, 2018)

Back in the news again! The ISO calling for more pipeline capacity in the future and warnings of rolling blackouts.  

http://holbrook.wickedlocal.com/new...on-as-grid-operator-warns-of-future-blackouts


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 22, 2018)

All I know is that when I lived somewhere with rolling blackouts, and two sides pointing fingers....it was a third party manipulating the ISO rules to create a shortage and make a bunch of moola.

This was LA in 2000, and the third party was Enron.

Sounded EXACTLY like this chit....claims of govt incompetence, blockage by NIMBYs and eco groups, etc.  And it was Enron the whole time.  If the bros hadn't been caught on tape laughing their azzes off about the grandmas in the valley sweating without their AC, they might have gotten away with it.

NIMBYs are a real thing....but everywhere else in the US manages to build out their gas and power grids....follow the money.

Who makes money on the shortage?  And who makes money on the new pipeline?


----------



## georgepds (Jan 23, 2018)

woodgeek said:


> All I know is that when I lived somewhere with rolling blackouts, and two sides pointing fingers....it was a third party manipulating the ISO rules to create a shortage and make a bunch of moola.
> 
> This was LA in 2000, and the third party was Enron.
> 
> ...



You are not the only one who thinks enron redux..


https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ev...trained-gas-pipeline-capacity-for-yea/507018/

A new academic analysis argues gas utility subsidiaries of Avangrid and Eversource have artificially constrained gas pipeline capacity in New England for years, driving up natural gas and electricity prices and potentially violating federal laws...



At the same time that Avangrid and Eversource were engaging in capacity withholding, “these same companies with other affiliates were in front of our commission asking us to approve billions of dollars of additional pipeline capacity,” the former Maine regulator said.....

David Littell
Former Commissioner, Maine PUC


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 23, 2018)

Indeed.  We have discussed in another thread recently.  My sis works at Eversource....and has heard nothing of this, of course.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 23, 2018)

Compartmentalization is the word, if someone was playing the market the company would have a very small group that would be doing it and someway to have plausible deniability if they get caught.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 29, 2018)

Here is the eia summary

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/

"he bomb cyclone weather event in early January 2018 resulted in record levels of U.S. natural gas demand and elevated wholesale natural gas and power prices around the country as reported in a special EIA analysis. A constrained natural gas pipeline network led to a significant increase in oil-fired and dual-fuel generation in New England and New York, and, to a lesser extent, in the Mid-Atlantic."


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 29, 2018)

In  theory Mass just upset the apple cart in New England by deciding to bet the farm on Canadian Hydro generation via Northern Pass in NH. Very soon after the Northern Pass announcement, one of the competing projects that didnt get picked, another 1000 MW  transmission line from Canada through western maine announced they were going to do their project anyhow. This project is backed by Iderola a large spanish company through their ownership of CMP and NGrid (a large English corporation) is making noises that they will build a third line. All of sudden 3000 MW of power lines into New England will change the power market dynamics considerably (until some terrorist figures out a pickup truck and a couple of hunting rifles can shut that part of the  grid down pretty darn quick).


----------



## georgepds (Jan 29, 2018)

peakbagger said:


> I.....All of sudden 3000 MW of power lines into New England will change the power market dynamics considerably (until some terrorist figures out a pickup truck and a couple of hunting rifles can shut that part of the  grid down pretty darn quick).




I think you can say that of any transmission line. The difference here is that the proposed line will carry a significant fraction of the energy into Massachusetts.  I don't know how resilient ISO NE is to the failure of any one line. Somewhere they must think about this problem


----------



## spirilis (Jan 29, 2018)

Is there really that huge a discrepancy between the power generation of PJM vs NE and NY?  PJM's nuclear could carry either one of those alone by that graph...


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 29, 2018)

PJM serves a very large geographical area that reaches most of the way to Chicago.

New England is 'small'.  Heh.


----------



## spirilis (Jan 29, 2018)

Ah makes sense.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 29, 2018)

Woo hoo... someone reads axes... kudos ( not joking, always nice to spot a fellow traveller)


----------



## Brian26 (Feb 2, 2018)

ISO New England has a cool article on the cold snap in December. The below statistic is staggering. 

A cold snap that began December 26 pushed up demand for both natural gas and electricity, raising prices and resulting in a total energy market value of $856 million for the month. The bulk of that energy market value came in the last week of the month, during the cold snap, when the energy market value was $395.6 million for just one week.

http://isonewswire.com/updates/2018...ectricity-prices-and-demand-in-new-engla.html


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 29, 2018)

Two recent articles which seem relevant to this discussion. I realize these come from rt. wing organizations, so if someone wishes to post the lefts side feel free. Anyone living to the Northeast knows how the weather was real tough back in Jan. to my way of thinking, the move and rush to close coal and oil plants was not a well thought out plan. Guess it comes down to the fact  that," I'd rather be lucky than good  any day" https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03...-have-blacked-out-during-recent-bomb-cyclone/
this one ties in ?? The Russian tie in seems timely!

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...Bj9UP6wW-sH47y4wCGzWimXk3vKGcnsqa3d8cmGcgI4dA


----------



## Marshy (Mar 29, 2018)

Looks like the NE could be in bigger trouble than they realize. Exelon announced the closure of Mystic Generating station today.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...ration-Files-Retire-Mystic-Generating-Station

EVERETT, Ma.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Exelon Generation today announced it has filed with the ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) to retire Mystic Generating Station’s Units 7, 8, 9, and the Jet unit on June 1, 2022. Absent any regulatory reforms to properly value reliability and regional fuel security, these units will not participate in the Forward Capacity Auction scheduled for February 2019.

Mystic Generating Station is a 2,000-megawatt natural gas- and oil-fueled power plant. Mystic Units 7, 8 and 9 are the operating units at the plant; Units 1-6 are decommissioned. Mystic employs 110 full-time workers, more than 200 local union craftsmen for seasonal readiness outages, and pays $15 million per year in local taxes that support municipal government, schools, libraries, parks and other services. Exelon is committed to holding informational meetings with employees over the next several months to ensure transparency throughout the process.


----------



## peakbagger (Mar 30, 2018)

In the good old days, utilities were monopolies and were paid a guaranteed rate of return to generate power no matter what the costs. The result was high power costs as the incentive was to drive the capital, maintenance and operating costs as high as they could as they were getting a guaranteed return. Consumers and more importantly consumers complained about high costs so the power generation side was deregulated. The introduction of wind and solar which is effectively legislated as must buy, means that the market demand for power swings heavily and on occasion the power prices flip negative when demand is low and solar and PV are cranking. This really nails the old legacy power plants designed for baseload as nukes typically are run flat out 24/7 and conventional boiler based plants take close to day to ramp up production. The faster they ramp up and down the more maintenance costs they incur. Unfortunately power demand varies over the course of day with the only big demands 5 days a week ramping up from the AM to the PM and then dropping rapidly overnight. This doesn't match well with these old baseload plants.

The solution is natural gas fired combined cycle plants, they can go from dead flat to producing 2/3rd of their power in less than an hour with the final 1/3 output in 8 hours. The plants are modular so they can switch the internal configuration to match the expected daily demand curve and do it with air emissions far less than a coal plant or even a boiler based natural gas unit (due to higher overall efficiency). Combined cycle plants can also be oil fired but New England's strict air emission limits (partially so strict as upwind plants in the Midwest contribute a high ambient emissions load to the region to begin with) means nuke or natural gas plants are the only way to go.  Nuke plants cant ramp so they end up selling power at a loss or even having to pay to get rid of it for many hours a week. The only way they stay running is with subsidies and the plant owners have figured that with tight power generation market that they can blackmail the regional grids into giving them subsides like New York has done with a couple of nukes. They do it under the guise as they are zero carbon emitting sources. Legacy coal plants on the other hand are not clean out the stack or near the plant, low efficiency and big CO2 emitter's. The same blackmail is being attempted. With respect to the articles in the prior post anytime I see Murray Energy quoted I consider the article not worth wasting my time.

The lack of natural gas pipelines into New England has some smoke and mirrors covering the real issues. The main reasons why pipelines are not getting built is that no buyer wants to buy so called "firm gas" which is the bread and butter of the pipeline business. Kinder Morgan is such a great investment as they effectively end up being a guaranteed high rate of return investment as they only build the pipelines with fixed firm contracted buyers that pay a monthly fee for the privilege of being able to rent a portion of the pipeline, if the buyer doesn't  need the gas they still pay for the portion. The problem is natural gas is not easy to store unless there are underground geological structures well suited for storage and unfortunately New England is mostly rock. ISO New England has been screaming that there is peak gas shortage coming and this past winter was an example. They have some self interest in this as they have been pushing to be allowed to get involved with the natural gas market in the region and regulate it like the power market. Merchant gas generators were built and permitted quickly and assumed someone else would make sure they have gas. They could have been built for oil backup but that requires a lot more upfront cost. They are not going to buy firm gas unless subsidized.

So there is big pot of cheap natural gas sitting in PA and not enough pipelines to service peak demand in New England. Pipeline companies will gladly build pipelines if someone is willing to guarantee a profit. The states can legislate around local NIMBYism. The New England states were considering doing this, they would commit to firm supply contracts and if the demand wasn't there they would somehow dump it back on the consumer either through taxes or fees and that's what drove a couple of big pipeline proposals but they individual states started dropping their commitments figuring "someone else will" shoulder the burden. That's the real reason the  big pipeline proposals got dropped. Meanwhile the PNGTS pipeline from Quebec to Portland Maine  reportedly has 30% more capacity if they install booster stations as when it was built the developers wanted it in quick and avoid air permitting so they boost it at the border and then live with the friction loss all the way to Portland. PNGTS has offered to install booster stations as long as someone else is interested in paying for it via firm gas contracts.

The net result are there are many parties who will gladly make a buck if some entity guarantees them a profit. The question is do you subsidize old dirty relatively inefficient base load plants not well suited to match the regional power demands directly or do you indirectly subsidize new combined cycle gas plants indirectly by having the states buy firm gas capacity?. Further confusing the issue is Hydro Quebec has stated that if the demand is there they can supply as much power as New England needs, if they need more capacity they already have future sites picked out. They also have the ability to build out the sites they have already developed. HQ is a state entity and really don't need to deal with Nimbyism as the majority of the land is Crown land. They will gladly supply New England 3000 MW and since they use ponded storage and don't worry about environmental consequences they can just drain the ponds quicker to meet peak demand. Figuring out what is best requires long term political thinking and unfortunately the current political system deals with the short term and big players spread the bucks around to make sure they get the long term profits. On the other hand let New England have a few big brown out events and blackout or two and then something may get done.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 30, 2018)

peak finished with,"Figuring out what is best requires long term political thinking and unfortunately the current political system deals with the short term and big players spread the bucks around to make sure they get the long term profits. On the other hand let New England have a few big brown out events and blackout or two and then something may get done."

no brown outs yet, so we will have to stick with luck and continue to pay through our nose. just another non competitive deal for New Eng. consumers and businesses.


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 30, 2018)

IOW, heads they win and tails you (the retail consumer) lose.


----------



## peakbagger (Mar 30, 2018)

Unfortunately if you go off grid, the normal cost including routine battery replacements is around  65 cents per KW.


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 30, 2018)

That said, my grid power on the other side of the Hudson is 2/3rds the price and 100% renewable.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 31, 2018)

while not a major pipeline needed, this  has become more and more common .
Judicial activism, forget the law or what judges should be doing?


----------

