At some point everyone’s going to realize these pipeline protests — especially in West Roxbury — are a BFD. They’re working — galvanizing opposition, creating public awareness, and turning the entire issue from an business-as-usual fait accompli into an issue of very public controversy. It’s now out of the State House and into the streets — and indeed the backyards of leafy suburbs that went heavily for Charlie Baker in 2014.
This echoes the Keystone XL movement, which showed that infrastructure is the pressure point at which protests can have great leverage, with a combination of hell-no climate activism and justifiable NIMBY interests. (Gas leaks; it explodes; kills trees; creates ground level ozone; etc.)
A few weeks ago a number of heroic local clergy were arrested. Last week the relentless anti-Spectra pipeline protests got some celebrity-profile assistance when Karenna Gore (Al’s daughter) got arrested in a pipeline ditch. The word is out, and now the protests are attracting demonstrators from all over the state:
Many residents from Western Mass. came out to support the effort all week.“We’ve been doing organization around these issues of pipelines, mostly on Energy Direct which has been stopped,” said Irvine Solbelman from North Hampton, Mass. “But we have a saying that there’s really only one pipeline, and it’s all one big pipeline and it’s got tentacles all over the country. So we’re here because it’s all still part of the same plan and project.”
This Spectra pipeline is now a major fork in the road for MA and New England: Do we continue on the path of climate suicide, or do we reject fossil fuel growth at every level, at every point? Since the alternatives to fossil fuels are more viable than ever, it’s a very live question.
Combined with Gov. Baker’s pipeline tax oh excuse me, fee, to fund more construction, this is turning into a real political circus. More and more legislators are turning against the tax; at this point I really don’t see a way around a major rebuke of Gov. Baker.
So much gratitude to the organizers and protestors, and those courageous souls who have been willing to be arrested.
I’m participating in the People Over Pipelines march, happening July 14-18 along the proposed pipeline route through communities southwest of Boston, into West Roxbury and straight to the State House. I’m doing some planning volunteer work with 350Mass.
As the legislature goes to conference for the energy bill, they’re feeling the pressure. Again, to quote Commonwealth’s Bruce Mohl — a skeptical observer of statewide energy policy:
What is clear is that natural gas is in retreat on Beacon Hill. Not even the Baker administration is talking up pipelines anymore.
Pull the plug, Governor.
Christopher says
…among those with the authority to grant permission, invoke eminent domain, etc.? With the exception of the Governor I’ve only heard of people in power being against it and certainly local communities are against it. I assume the Governor cannot play dictator in this situation and it also runs against his “start with the premise people are already taxed enough” mentality.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
These street protests are sure raising visibility to real climate problems, but they are coming short in one big respect: There is no realization that the technology for renewable energy is still not there. Wind and solar would take decades to build. Decades from now, you still need something like natural gas to fire the generators when the wind sits still and the sun is out.
But don’t look for logic, it is fun to take to the street and protest…
stomv says
Not where? Electricity sales in New England are declining. There’s over 1,000 MW of PV in Massachusetts. New England has over 1,000 MW of wind. Both of those are up from almost 0 ten years ago. New England’s got wires connecting us to Quebec, New Brunswick, and New York. There is no credible risk of a reliability problem within the next half decade or more.
Wind and solar PV projects are typically measured in the scale of quarters for PV or years for wind. PV projects are often completed in under a year, conception to completion. A few years for wind, conception to completion. What takes longer? Natural gas generating stations, for one.
The question is not: “how long will it take to build enough PV and wind to replace all fossil and nuclear plants in the Northeast.” The question is: “do we need the gas plant for reliability, now or in the future?” The answer to that question is decidedly no. So let’s talk turkey — which costs more? Well, it’s actually unclear when we look at a long term levelized cost, because the price of natural gas in 15 years is a big wildcard, but wind and the sun’s rays will continue to be free.
One, that’s unclear: we don’t know where conventional storage (pumped hydro), demand response and presponse, or chemical batteries will be 20 or 30 years from now; two, we don’t need more gas now to balance the PV and wind on our system now or in the near term, and; three, if the system will eventually need more gas generation capacity than we have now, let’s build it then, not now.
Besides — the gas pipeline is about year-long gas use, not peaking. If it was just about peaking, it’d be far cheaper to build compressed gas storage (like this) than to build pipeline capacity.
andreiradulescubanu: I encourage you to look for the logic. Energy planning is complex, and it’s clear that you’re only seeing a small number of the moving parts.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
At best, solar will help at the margin, in the mix, a few percentage points. The technology does not scale, it’s that simple.
Wind scales better, but still requires natural gas backup. Onshore wind is seeing opposition on environmental grounds. Offshore wind was a nice idea, but proved too difficult in practice. Thus, if at all done, wind’s best chance is farther offshore, beyond the horizon. That will take many years to build.
Short summary of all this: Solar + Wind, nice ideas, but insufficient for bringing carbon emissions under control.
Especially with the loss of the Pilgrim Nuclear plant around the corner.
stomv says
Please clarify. We don’t have the raw materials to build enough? We don’t have the factories to manufacture enough? We don’t have the installer base to install enough? We don’t have enough roofs/ground to site enough? What exactly doesn’t scale? Because, from my perspective, solar PV is the most scalable electric generation there is. We can build generation sites ranging from 0.3 kW to 500,000 kW, and can do it in any state of the union. Can’t do that with any other resource so far as I can tell.
Let’s unpack. Scaling has nothing to do with operating the grid — it has to do with the ability to manufacture, ship, and install larger and larger quantities. Wind scales quite nicely (though not as nicely as PV). Now let’s discuss “backup.” We in New England are burning natural gas in every single one of the 8,760 hours in a year. That’s going to continue for some time, no matter how much wind and PV we install. Still, the question is: given that coal fired generation is almost nil in New England, would we like to burn more natural gas or less in natural gas next year? Then the year after? The more wind and PV we install, the less gas we burn. It’s a direct and, for at least the next half-decade, linear relationship.
Hi! I’m Block Island! Can we be friends!?
On this, you’re right. We can’t just use wind and PV to bring CO2 emissions under control. However, there’s no known way to bring CO2 emissions under control without substantially increasing our installations of wind and PV. We need wind and PV and EE and DR and EVs and T&D and air source heat pumps and eventually more storage. But lets be clear: wind and PV are a necessary part of the solution, are cost effective today, and can be easily integrated into the grid today without any tangible impact on reliability. And, because they scale, we need to continue to ramp up installations of both if we are to meet our carbon emissions targets.
Trickle up says
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
> We don’t have the raw materials to build enough?
> We don’t have the factories to manufacture enough?
> We don’t have the installer base to install enough?
> We don’t have enough roofs/ground to site enough? What exactly doesn’t scale?
> Because, from my perspective, solar PV is the most scalable electric generation there is.
> We can build generation sites ranging from 0.3 kW to 500,000 kW, and can do it in any state of the union. Can’t do that with any other resource so far as I can tell.
Stromv, answer one question: how much did solar get in MA & federal subsidies (including tax credits, and rate payer increases) in the past let’s say five or ten years? We don’t know, the numbers are never published. What we do know, however, is that the state use of solar hovers in the low one or two percents.
Nobody is willing to do a simple economic calculation, because the cost turns out to be prohibitive.
Now I’ll answer your questions, in the hope you’ll answer my single question. The raw materials should be available, the factories also (most likely located abroad). There’s a big cost difference between roof and ground installs, with ground installs much cheaper than roof tops. Still, the cost is prohibitive, and the infrastructure for natural gas is needed to cover 100% of the solar needs when solar turns off. In other words, you must pay for both solar & natural gas infrastructure.
> Can’t do that with any other resource so far as I can tell.
That is not correct.
stomv says
The cost of PV (and wind) has nothing to do with whether or not it is scaleable. That’s a different question entirely. So first, let’s do cost:
Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison (source: Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis – Version 9.0, Nov. 2015, page 2 (pdf) [all values $/MWh levelized, 2015 dollars]:
SOLAR PV
Rooftop Residential PV: $184 – $300
Rooftop Comm/Ind PV: $109 – $193
Community PV (ground): $78 – $136
Utility Crystalline PV: $58-$70
Utility Thin Film PV: $50 – $60
WIND
Wind: $32 – $77
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
EE: $0 – $50
GAS
Peaking (CT): $165 – $218
Combined Cycle (CC): $52 – $78
NUCLEAR
Nuclear: $97 – $136
So those are the numbers. Unsubsidized (except the nuclear number doesn’t include decommissioning or insurance subsidies provided by the Feds). Those are the actual unsubsidized costs, as of November 2015. Notice that wind and utility scale solar PV are cost competitive with gas.
But these are national numbers. What about New England numbers? Well sure, the wind isn’t as good, and we don’t get as much sun, so the levelized costs are higher for wind and PV. But it’s also true that our gas basis is higher, and these costs don’t include the cost of building a gas pipeline to supply the gas plant; that’s an added cost on top. Further, this doesn’t include SIPE (or, for behind-the-meter PV, DRIPE). The supply induced price effect saves ratepayers bunches, because the wind and PV bid into the wholesale market at $0, thereby shifting the bid stack so the price-clearing unit fails to clear, and the unit just lower cost than that sets the clearing price.
To make a long story short: new wind and PV are cost competitive with natural gas generation, today. Your claim that “nobody is willing to do a simple economic calculation” is preposterous. We do that very thing at my firm every single day. And, although I know you haven’t read the studies, but here’s the exec summary: a future that invests heavily in EE, PV, and wind is cheaper than a future with coal, gas, and nuclear, and that’s not even including the social cost of carbon, the social cost of medical care, etc.
Now, for the other matter
> In other words, you must pay for both solar & natural gas infrastructure.
But we’ve already paid for the gas infrastructure. It’s already here. We already have the capacity to meet peak load, and peak load isn’t growing. Wind and solar, though not dispatchable, do provide some capacity, and that slight incremental capacity is enough to keep up with any growth in peak. The bottom line: we can build wind, PV, and EE and we’ll have enough fossil generation to balance the grid for many years to come. We don’t need to build new fossil generation from a reliability perspective. We have enough now. It’s true, there are impending retirements — Pilgrim nuclear and a few coal units. It’s also true we’re talking about adding 1 GW+ of new transmission capacity from Canada — that’s roughly the size of Pilgrim and a gas plant combined.
I mean look, I appreciate that you’re interested. But this stuff takes years to get one’s arms around, and that’s if you work at it all day. Until you’ve read the CELT report you’re not really qualified to opine on reliability in New England. Until you’ve read Lazard and reports like it, you’re not really qualified to opine on unsubsidized cost of energy. So, read up, and let’s keep chatting!
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
> … you’re not really qualified to opine on reliability in New England
Uh oh, the good old argument – recourse to authority.
And I am still not seeing a transparent breakdown of the subsidies, tax credits, rate surcharges. We do not seem to have that information.
Then, how can we make a judgement about the cost/benefit of solar, to scale it up from one or two percent of generation, where it is now… after years of incentives, subsidies, etc?
stomv says
As the saying goes. Look, I’ve cited sources; you haven’t. I’ve spent years working in this industry, trying to solve these very problems. You clearly haven’t. You’re haven’t done your homework in this field — and bulk power system reliability in New England is a matter of science and engineering, not feelings.
You don’t. Lazard does, and they did the math for you. Don’t trust them?… tell us why the electric system integrated resource planning community (IOUs, gov’t agencies, and intervenors) trust Lazard but you don’t.
The reality is that you are being stubborn and lazy and ignorant. Working backwards, you’re clearly far from expert in this area. You’re lazily refusing to read up, even when given information. And you’re stubbornly sticking to asking meaningless questions with complex answers because the clear, simple answers are contrary to your stuck-in-the-mud worldview.
The topic here is not exactly what policies, taxation schemes, and requirements we should have for all forms of energy, economy-wide, between now and 2050. The topic is the West Rox pipeline lateral, and similar gas infrastructure projects in Massachusetts over the next few years. On that much smaller topic, it’s quite clear: the AG report shows we don’t need the gas infrastructure, the CELT report shows we don’t need capacity for reliability, and the Lazard report shows that wind and solar and EE are cheaper than gas anyway.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
> Opinions are like assholes
Ha ha ha! Now you’re calling my opinion an asshole? Good one, stromv. Have a nice day, it was good talking to you.
stomv says
The full quote is “Opinions are like assholes. Everyone’s got one, and most of them stink.”
I wrote that your opinion is like an asshole. Because, well, it stinks. It’s also not informed by facts or evidence, but I digress.
SomervilleTom says
Your arguments remind me of climate change deniers attempting to prove that atmospheric CO2 can’t possibly be a climate forcing factor.
You claim that “Nobody is willing to do a simple economic calculation, because the cost turns out to be prohibitive”. That claim is utterly demolished by the cite that stomv offered. He is far more gentle with you than your commentary deserves.
Offering a cite is not “arguing from authority”. Arguing from authority is “Foobar is true because Dr. Marvelous says so”. What stomv did is cite a readily available industry reference meticulously compiled, frequently curated, and used throughout that community. You might as well complain about somebody using a CRC Handbook.
Where on EARTH do you get the idea that anything that involves as much money as energy planning is done without MOUNTAINS of evidence, cost analysis, and engineering?
When you attempt to defend the indefensible, the results are not going to be comfortable. A better strategy might be a strategic retreat — “I didn’t realize that the numbers looked this way, I retract my criticism”.
Christopher says
…both wind and solar energy are storable for use when said weather phenomena are not active. Nobody is suggesting quitting cold turkey tomorrow, but I don’t see why almost every new building can’t be set up for solar. We should write that into building codes and get to the point where installing solar panels is just as routine as hooking up to the power lines.
stomv says
All electricity is storable, but there’s no reason to do so. It’s far more cost effective for the utility system to put surplus electricity on the grid right now, and generate a little less electricity from a regional fossil fuel plant. And, as it turns out, that’s exactly what we do.
Many can, especially in suburban areas. Downtown is trickier due to shadows and a lack of usable roof space. Obviously trees are another concern, as are pitched roofs that face away from the sun.
But yes, many new building roofs could easily have solar, and the cheapest time to install PV is on a brand new roof.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
They’re not storable… There are reasons why panels can’t be used on all new buildings – one, angle of the sun & surrounding shade, two, capacity of the grid…
Complicated things to solve, even if the political will is there.
The biggest misconception, I think, is in regards to what’s holding back adoption of solar and wind. Because it’s not political will… Certainly with the utilities being so completely regulated by the state to the point they’re practically state enterprises. And certainly with the public opinion & the full strength of the state legislature backing up the effort to rid our energy sources of carbon emissions…
Really, what’s the holdup, then, than immature technology, and inability to scale it up?
If a carbon free economy could have been created by sheer strength of political will, it would have been created half a decade ago.
johntmay says
Looks like I won’t lose my pool, wooded yard, and vegetable garden. (Pipeline route has been proposed through my property)
Christopher says
…or at very least considered a “taking” and thus entitling you to compensation per the Constitution.
stomv says
And he’d be able to reinstall the vegetable garden. The wooded yard would be eviscerated, and the pool is a definite maybe depending on what kind of pool we’re talking about.
johntmay says
For a wooded area that provides me with privacy and beauty that would take 25+ years to replace. The pool is in-ground. If the pipe line were to be installed, the easement would not allow the pool (or the woods for that matter). I’d be living with nothing but an easement for a backyard; an easement that could not have any trees or structures.
My house is probably worth $475K. I told the pipeline company, after the easement, it would be virtually worthless, but I offered it to them “as is” for $1.5 million.
stomv says
Just build a massive vegetable garden 🙂
I have no idea how easements are valued by an arbiter or by the market. They seem like a very personal thing. That said, it shouldn’t be too hard to find comps of your house without the eased property at all… that would give a sense I suppose.