New England Utilities artificially constrained gas pipeline capacity

[peakbagger]

A former employer, Northern Power, sold several "wind/diesel" systems for remote Alaskan villages. It saved a bundle for the villages and cut way back on the amount of fuel they had to haul in.

 

[CaptSpiff]

The only thing that could change the status quo is Hydro Quebec. That kills the economics for natural gas plants and as the nukes shut down New England gets dependent on HQ. Of course HQ isnt just hydro, they too have natural gas plants fed from big pipelines. Once HQ has driven out competition they build the generation and New England pays a premium.

Yup, diversity in supply is the only long term solution. Which in my book means keeping the Nukes around and paying them a vig for being "carbon free".

 

[peakbagger]

Not much hope for Pilgrim. Seabrook will probably keep chugging for awhile. I don't see the new "mini nukes" gaining traction in New England unless the Canadians build them and greenwash then as hydro.

 

[spirilis]

The "mini nukes" need a honeymoon period to be seriously considered. 2026 in UAMPS... NuScale. I bet some tides will turn after that gets a (hopefully) successful implementation.

The kicker of all that is the fact that our IPCC targets keep talking about 2030, and the mini-nukes will only just begin ramping up then (knock on wood). What to do in the interim... in addition to saving every darned nuke we currently have?

 

[peakbagger]

Put in meaningful time of use billing to flatten out the peaks will make big difference

 

[billb3]

Just wanted to zone in on "Wood's" look at the Block Island "Deepwater Wind Project" offshore RI. I didn't know the numbers (0.24/Kwh + 3.5%/yr) on that project, and I assume those numbers are wholesale cost. Compare that to other present wholesale electric cost of 0.06 to 0.10 (NG & Nuc) in $/Kwh and you'd be right to be concerned. Luckily this was just a tiny project of 5 large windmills, so the net effect it will have on the total customer bills will be small.

It is worth looking at the effect to the customers of Block Island itself. This small summer-time tourist destination was totally separated from the mainland power grid. They got their power from large local diesel generators, and a tiny windmill, running 24/7. Deep-water commercial fuel barges would make the weekly trips to top off the local tank farm, and a local resident friend of mine claimed his electric rate was about $0.54/Kwh.
The installation of the 5 windmills also included a new local substation and a 35Kv submarine cable to the mainland connected to the National Grid RI system. Meaning that even if the windmills stopped producing energy, the residents of Block Island would be able to purchase their power over that 35Kv cable, and permanently put their diesels on standby. My friend has since moved off the Island, but was expecting his bill rate to drop to about $0.35/Kwh. Plus there was talk of allowing rooftop solar for the first time, it was not considered compatible with the Diesel only operation previously.

Progress.

They are billing through distribution costs to offset the contracted $0.24 /kWh cost. it's a sham.

 

[CaptSpiff]

They are billing through distribution costs to offset the contracted $0.24 /kWh cost. it's a sham.

I disagree about the sham part. If my Block Island friend was paying $0.54/kwh retail all-in (generation+distribution) on his bill, and his "future bill" was projected to be $0.35/kwh retail all-in (generation+distribution and now transmission), how is that a sham?

The local residents have to look at 5 giant ocean wind turbines, but their electricity costs dropped by 35% and they are now mainland grid tied for the first time ever (instead of running on industrial diesels 24/7).

It's the mainland Rhode Island ratepayers who are paying the premium. They get to absorb the "early adopter hi-cost ocean wind energy" deal DeepWater Wind made with National Grid Power Co at the urging of the RI State Govt to meet their clean energy goals. Luckily the $0.24/kwh wholesale energy produced by the wind turbines is a tiny fraction of the total avg $0.09/kwh energy produced by the rest of the energy sources, so the ratepayer won't even notice the up-charge (less than 1%).

The same thing will be happening to me here on Long Island, NY. The local power co (LIPA) made a deal with that same outfit (DeepWater Wind) to build 15+ giant wind turbines off the coast of Martha's Vineyard, MA. That's where DeepWater has Federal leases, and they will run an Ultra High Voltage submarine electric cable from there to East Hampton, NY. The uber rich in the Hamptons love the green power, and not having to look at the giant wind turbines makes it Priceless.

Not so priceless for the rest of the LIPA ratepayers though, as the negotiated wholesale price for the delivered energy will be about $0.17/kwh. (Notice how much cheaper this second project is vs the first) This will be "must purchase energy" and will offset the current $0.10/kwh wholesale energy LIPA normally buys for me. Not yet sure what the retail impact will be. Going green ain't cheap!

 

[Doug MacIVER]

Just got my electric bill rant. Lowest KW usage I can remember. In Apr. we used 437/KW, and we were presented with a bill $.03 short of $112.00! $.2556/kw! May will shift to a summer rate of $.108/kw from $.1294/kw. I do not believe supply costs will change, still I'm not 100% sure of that. With all the coal and many nuke options gone, next winter's rate will be interesting. Our rate in June 1917 was $.0943.kw.

Long gone are the days of a $65-85.00 bill. The difference are a couple of real nice dinners out or a few ballgames on an annual basis. I guess I just can't forget the old days of $.11- .13/kw total cost. Sure it may be more years ago than I like to remember,but the more you cut usage, you can't save.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Long gone are the days of a $65-85.00 bill. The difference are a couple of real nice dinners out or a few ballgames on an annual basis. I guess I just can't forget the old days of $.11- .13/kw total cost. Sure it may be more years ago than I like to remember,but the more you cut usage, you can't save.

Im still paying 12c all in. So $108 for 884Kwh. Thats because we still have choices ,all options on the table,so far. If you lower your usage too much they will jack up the "customer charge" and other you get nothing fees. My local gas company is epic for that .They somehow manage to take the lowest cost of BTUs fuel and make it the most expensive. While siphoning off the difference themselves. The fact they they are PUC regulated as a monopoly means nothing. If they actually had some competition the price they charge would be far less.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

Im still paying 12c all in. So $108 for 884Kwh. Thats because we still have choices ,all options on the table,so far. If you lower your usage too much they will jack up the "customer charge" and other you get nothing fees. My local gas company is epic for that .They somehow manage to take the lowest cost of BTUs fuel and make it the most expensive. While siphoning off the difference themselves. The fact they they are PUC regulated as a monopoly means nothing. If they actually had some competition the price they charge would be far less.

Nat. Grid surcharges at 600kw, we bust that every year w/ 1 14k AC unit. I'd love to have the rate you pay but our rear view mirror cannot reflect that far.

 

[blades]

and the classic line "we have raise our rates to pay our investors" from a electric utility CEO making 6 mill plus/year
Now we have the real possibilty, in the not to distant future, of rebuilding the grid to support all those new/old fangled electric vehicles....... you already know whose pocket that will come from. Just saying.