*Each well has 80,000 pounds of chemical pumped into it, and 70% of this fluid stays underground, poisoning well water. The rest goes into the rivers cities drink from, and the grasses our beef cattle eat.
You can help take away the unfair, unsafe loophole in the 2005 Energy law that makes natural gas so cheap by supporting the FRAC Act, HR 2766 and SB 1215.
You can also see the HBO documentary “Gasland” on Comcast’s OnDemand, if you are an HBO subscriber, and look under the Premium Channels menu.
Or, watch this clip from Gasland.
Please share widely!
In general, it’s superior than oil. Less CO_2 per energy unit, lower rate of environmental catastrophes, and we have much more domestically. But, it ain’t peaches and cream. It too is ugly stuff — just less ugly.
<
p>In the next 10-20 years, I expect that we’ll use more natural gas per year, and that could be a good thing — if we continue to build out projects like Cape Wind and if we significantly cut our coal consumption.
<
p>As compared to 2008, America used 2.5% less energy in 2009; we used 10% less coal though. That’s a beautiful thing. If we can manage to use less energy in 2010 (efficiency improvements) and cut coal a second year in a row, we’ll be on a good stretch.
<
p>
<
p>I’m not arguing against regulations on natural gas extraction and transportation — I’m all for ’em. I’m simply pointing out that, at this point, if we substantially cut our natural gas consumption, we’ll see a corresponding surge in diesel fuel, heating oil, and coal consumption
maybe one of your friends even tried that grad school trick of putting surfactant on a finger tip, then touching food so the flavor chemicals go right through skin into the blood of your finger and travel into your mouth and nose so you “taste” it with your fingers.
<
p>Fracking fluid contains surfactants.
And hundreds of unsafe chemicals.
<
p>The gas companies want to drill around the lakes that supply water for NYC and Philly. 15 million people are going to have their water contaminated. And the surfactants will help all that really nasty oil-based stuff blend into the water.
<
p>I understand what you’re saying about oil & coal being dirtier than gas, but every time people like Baker & Cahill talk about the cost of wind power, and get Venocchi to talk about the cost of wind power, we have to get the word in there about the true costs of dirty gas, oil, and coal.
And as I wrote, I’m not arguing that gas is a good thing(tm) or that extraction should be unregulated. I am simply observing that we as a society are not prepared to stop using coal — which is worse than gas on many levels. If we’re not prepared to stop using the worse of the fossil fuels, we’re certainly not prepared to stop using the one which is less awful.
<
p>It’ll be a long long time before we phase out natural gas derived from fracking. In the mean time, the best thing we can do is (a) regulate the heck out of fossil fuel extraction and shipping, and (b) push efficiency measures to lower total energy consumption, and (c) crank out the renewable production. Doing all three in earnest is our best path to sustainability and safety and economic security. Thing is, natural gas isn’t the worst, so it ought not be phased out first.
We just have to bite the bullet and do something b/c it is the right thing to do. It can’t ALWAYS be about the almighty buck.
<
p>BTW, Bill Keating is the ONLY candidate running in the Tenth Congressional District who has gone on record that Cape Wind needs to happen. It is about protecting our children’s futures.
but “we” (tUSA society) aren’t even willing to take national steps to cut consumption of coal, which causes worse problems than gas. Coal and gas combine for 2/3s of our electrical generation; it ain’t going to be turned off, and it ain’t going to change overnight.
but “we” (tUSA society) aren’t even willing to take national steps to cut consumption of coal, which causes worse problems than gas. Coal and gas combine for 2/3s of our electrical generation; it ain’t going to be turned off, and it ain’t going to change overnight.
why the cost of electricity from Cape Wind will be so high?
It seems to me, they determined that $1.25 extra per month from the pockets of working class people sounded lovely(since that’s the only answer we get when we ask about cost), and then were perhaps quite pleased when they realized how much profit that would be? (That’s what happens when there is no transparency and no data or documentation, people speculate.) I should have known that corporate America and our government would take a beautiful, clean, commonsense solution and turn it into an ugly scheme filled with question marks. Did the idea of lowering utility costs and returning some of that money back to the consumer so they can use it to expand the economy EVER cross their mind?
<
p>Since this seems to have turned into such an ugly corporate greed machine, I am no longer supporting or promoting this project. I won’t change my mind until we actually get some documentation as to what the profit margin of this project is.
The total pricing (which has to be approved by Mass DOER) doesn’t just include the electricity itself. It includes
* the electricity
* the renewable credits, needed to comply with the RPS law
* price stability over a long time frame
<
p>The first bullet is worth approximately a dime. The next bullet is worth 3-4 cents today, and the markets suggest that it’s rising because of NE+NY’s RPS laws. The third bullet is also worth money. There’s tremendous uncertainty with fossil fuels, both because the price naturally fluxuates significantly, and because a carbon tax/cap’n’trade system might come down the political chute anytime in the next long time frame. Therefore, paying a premium to Cape Wind to lock in a steady price is a financially appropriate decision.
<
p>My bet: in a few years the other utilities will look back at NGrid’s contract and be mightily jealous. It’s a good long term deal; unfortunately for the optics it’s a pretty flat pricing scheme, which makes it appear pricey at first. My mortgage looks huge; my parents, not so much. Theirs did look huge when they first got it though.
I just got an email from someone at CapeWind —
<
p>
<
p>It’s a long pdf, but Mass DOER and AG Coakley pressured the parties to lower the price. Specifically:
<
p> * Reduced to $0.187/kWh in 2013 dollars (keeping 3.5% escalator). If only 110 turbines are allowed to be built, it will be $0.193.
* If financing costs fall below 7.5%, 75% of the savings are returned to ratepayers.
* Loosely speaking, if the price to build is lower than plans, 60% of those savings are returned to ratepayers. I write loosely because the formula is quite complex.
* At year 15, NGrid has the option to extend for another 10 years at current terms — this is a big deal because it may help to keep prices lower in 15 years for NGrid customers. Of course, if other electricity is cheaper, NGrid can choose to not exercise the option.
* If Cape Wind sells the other 50% of it’s wind cheaper, NGrid gets a matching price.
<
p>
<
p>Is it significantly cheaper? Not up front. A little bit. If, however, the project financing or construction comes in cheaper than there’ll be savings for everyone. If Cape Wind sells it cheaper to somebody else, NGrid gets it cheaper too. If renewable electricity gets cheaper in the long run (relatively speaking), then NGrid can kill the contract after 15 years but if renewable gets more expensive, NGrid gets the benefit for 25 years.
<
p>
<
p>I presume it’s a public document. It’s got the letterhead of
KEEGAN WERLIN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
265 FRANKLIN STREET
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110-3113
<
p>and is officially from
<
p>David S. Rosenzweig
E-mail: drosen@keeganwerlin.com
We need off-shore wind as part of the mix, and badly. And we need to ween ourselves off unsustainable and planet-f*cking fossil fuels… natural gas included, and quickly. But at what cost? And with what strategy? And with what investments?
<
p>I make the case over at Green Mass Group that we cannot backroom-deal our way to a secure green future. Progressives are being played by the energy industry, just like we’ve been played by the military-industrial complex, the health insurance industry, the housing industry, the finance industry, etc. I’ve supported Cape Wind all along, but this is getting ridiculous. And the problem is that we can’t afford to f*ck this up anymore. We need to take our clean energy future into our own hands and get it right. We can’t leave it up to the utility companies that are profiting off dirty energy. We can’t leave it up to big investors — quite often oil tycoons like T. Boone Pickens — who will put their money where the biggest profits can be sucked out of the ground or out of the air.
<
p>The rhetoric and the slick posturing is sickening. Deval Patrick, climate champion, will give environmentalists Cape Wind as a grand symbolic token on our way to… what… 10% reductions in GHGs by 2020? Or will that be 25%? The planet needs much more than that… but will just have to wait till we get those casinos in the ground in order to fix our budget so that government can once again take on the big challenges that lie ahead, like climate change.
<
p>Jill Stein, Green-Rainbow Party candidate and the only one not powering her campaign by corporate money, has pointed out some enormous flaws in this process. And I think she makes the case against the idea that Bob put forward that Cape Wind could cost 10X what its currently slated to cost, and still be worthwhile. At about the 4 minute mark in the video below, taken at her solo appearance at Boston Greenfest (shows you the other 3 candidates’ commitment to getting this right), she makes the case that we need renewable energy to be 100% of the mix, not 3%, and so we desperately need to keep costs in the same stratosphere:
<
p>
<
p>And at the 7 minute mark here, she says that community-based municipal wind has delivered energy at 7 cents per kWh, so there’s something fishy going on here.
<
p>Lastly, the estimated costs for Cape Wind of $2.5 billion should give pause to anyone who’s concerned that the Big Dig culture is alive and well on Beacon Hill. Bob’s 10X multiplier just might come into play, and as ratepayers, we’ll be on the hook for those costs.
It’s not the perfect deal, but on balance, Cape Wind is a good project, and the sooner we get started on this, the better our environment and health will be.
Wind has been delivered at $0.07/kWh, but to suggest that you could generate 3% of MA’s electricity with wind anywhere that cheap is flat out wrong, or lying.
<
p>What back room deal? There’s been no back room deal? Everything’s been up front. This has been a far more public process than any other power plant built in MA. You’re simply spewing FUD here. The 10x multiplier with ratepayers on the hook is also FUD, and plain wrong. Mass DOER regulates contracts, and if a contract is viewed to unnecessarily increase long term rates for ratepayers, it can’t get approved. As rates go higher, new developers are attracted, providing cheaper supply and bringing the price down. Mass DOER by law can’t allow NGrid or others to sign up for an overly expensive contract.
<
p>
<
p>All of this is public, not back room. You’ve got to read a bunch, and you’ve got to talk to people who know what they’re talking about, not just hyperventilate up cynical nonsense.
<
p>
<
p>Cutting GHGs is going to be expensive. That’s the reality. The sticker price of energy will go up. Right now, we pay for fossil fuels directly, and then we pay on the back end for everything from added cases of asthma and lung disease to superfund cleanups. As we more to renewables, the sticker price will be higher but we’ll save on the back end. To think we’ll get something for nothing is naive or selfish or both.
Exactly. I’m scared, uncertain, and skeptical, as you should be too.
<
p>Now this from the Herald:
<
p>
<
p>If by “public” you mean that our Attorney General sat in on the negotiations, then by all means, this was transparent. Oh WAIT. Even she got rebuffed, and then withdrew her request for cost and pricing info because Cape Wind and National Grid said it’s proprietary. Even though Coakley had earlier said neither had an interest in delivering the best possible rate to consumers.
Since this is a negotiated, approved contract, you’re right that ratepayers aren’t on the hook for cost overruns as far as the contract goes. But who do you think will foot the bill for the cost overruns? And what games will be played to get the government to ante up? The 10X figure is obviously not grounded in fact (other than the factor of 8 multiplier for the Big Dig). And better to raise the alarm bells now, rather than after the fact. Let’s follow this and make sure the process doesn’t stink… so far I don’t agree with you that it’s been above-board and rosy.
Yes, cutting GHGs will cost something, but to assume it will be expensive and to pony up big-time for the sexiest projects out there isn’t going to help contain costs. What we need to do is come together and a) admit
that the waters around you have grownthat we have a crisis on hand (and go see Bill McKibben speak in Lexington on Sunday if you don’t believe that, b) rally everyone to the cause of addressing said crisis, c) prioritize the projects that provide the biggest, quickest bangs for the buck, and d) move mountains to make them happen.<
p>Kneeling to the Cape Wind gods and crossing our fingers for the best is a substitute for all of that. That’s not to say that Cape Wind doesn’t fit in to a) through d), or that we have to wait until c) in order to start work on it… as I said before we need offshore wind power (and we need it yesterday).
between spreading FUD and being skeptical. One is passing on half-information and raising a ruckus, the other is an honest set of questions, complete with research not from a source with an axe to grind (grist to Herald, the gammut) but from primary sources like the actual law, the actual proposed contract, the actual numbers.
<
p>Regarding the Herald quote: NGrid (and others) will pay that regardless of Cape Wind — they’ve got to be in compliance with the RPS. They pay that for all renewable energy, and they have to by law, and that has nothing to do with Cape Wind per se. It’s designed to help ensure that we get the renewable energy development we need to pull ourselves off of fossil fuels.
<
p>By “public” I mean that the contract itself is public, and it has to be approved by a public agency. Standard fare. You’re simply spreading FUD on the matter — there’s a regulatory agency as well as the AG. Both have been involved and will continue to be involved. There’s also strict laws about the pricing, and those will be followed. That you don’t seem to know or understand this… and aren’t interested in it suggests that you’re beyond the pale. You’re simply hating on the project and folks have stopped believing the nonsense about bird kill and burying ground.
<
p>
<
p>Newsflash: no for profit entity has an interest in delivering the best possible price to consumers. They have an interest in making as much profit as possible. Cape Wind is no different. So what? The difference is that unlike a bottle of Coke or a Chevy, the state government has final approval on the contract — if the state says “no”, the contract price is void.
<
p>
<
p>a) Yip.
b) All for it, and doing work myself in that domain.
c) Agreed, and yet
d) Here you are, erecting mountains.
<
p>The fact is that Cape Wind is cheap. It’s also huge — to get 3% of our power grid from other projects would require many many projects, many many citing hearings and studies, many many engineering studies, and we’d be waiting for many years.
<
p>Cape Wind is the cheapest way to get 3% renewable electricity on the grid within the next five years. Don’t believe me? Find me a counterexample which scales to that size — and price it out. You’ll find that biomass and wind are the cheapest by far, that biomass can’t scale (not enough sustainable forestry) and that the best wind for your buck is offshore.
<
p>
<
p>What you’re completely ignoring is the RPS. If NGrid doesn’t buy Cape Wind, they have to buy something else — and that something else will (a) be out of state, and (b) be of comparable or higher price, and (c) they won’t be able to lock in the long term deal.
<
p>
<
p>I really don’t get your opposition. You agree we need renewable energy. You agree that we should do it based on merit — most bang for the buck. However, you seem to think that folks who believe Cape Wind meets those criteria are “bowing to the … gods”. What is your beef? You think the price is too high? Do you have any idea what the renewable market looks like? How many contracts have you seen? Do you understand how the regulatory agencies work in this domain? My hunch is that the answer to those questions is no. Why? Because you’ve presented absolutely zero evidence that the contracted rate is inappropriate.
PS – stomv – notice how they’ve given up on birds, planes, lights, boats, fish, and all the other stop gaps they’ve used over the last TEN DAMN YEARS? If they are that worried about the cash, please explain why they helped ramp up contrsuction/rate costs by the cynical false delays and lawsuits (funded by taxpayers, btw).
…but the Commonwealth didn’t start Cape Wind. It began as, and remains, a private sector project. that’s actually one of my favorite things about it.
<
p>A piece of good news of the wind front from Cape Cod – The Old King’s Hiway Regional Historic Commission in Dennis voted this evening to allow a turbine at Chapin Beach to provide power for ARC. Aquaculture Research Corp. in Dennis is the state’s only commercial shellfish hatchery and produces clam spat for virtually all of Massachusetts’ producers, and this turbine will make them more independent and economically viable.
<
p>And this is of note, as earlier this summer the BARNSTABLE OKH committee voted to deny such a turbine to Cape Cod Community College citing historic grounds.
<
p>The Old King’s Highway Regional District Commission is the largest historic district in Massachusetts and the only multi-town one in the nation. Basically, it hold authority over all land (with some small exampted areas) on Cape north of Route 6 from Sandwich to Orleans. You may ahve noticed that the north and south sides of the Cape look radically different – the OKH is why. Each town has its own 5 member elected board to enforce rules for that town. Barnstable voted to deny, but Dennis voted to OK. It is to be hoped that renewable energy advocates run for these boards in order to find ways to allow renewables to be sited in a way that will harmonize with the historic district instead of jsut vetoing because the Pilgrims didn’t have solar panels.
I think the thing that irks me most over all of this is the lack of any sort of generational responsibility (sorry for taking the governor’s phrase), and the sheer inability of our current generation(s) to sacrifice anything at all.
<
p>I realize that a slightly higher electric bill isn’t something people need right now. Times are tough. But times were also tough for the families who have sent members into the military. Times were tough for those labor activists who were beaten and in some cases killed when they acted against poverty wages, long work hours, and child labor. Times were tough for the folks who have been asked to ration during wartimes. And times were tough for those people who paid their taxes to give us the infrastructure that we mostly take for granted today.
<
p>And we can’t even be expected to pay a little more for electricity in order to get us on track to a safer planet for our children and grandchildren.
Not willing to pay more if it only serves to line the pockets of fat cats. I’m really tired of this redistribution of wealth from the working class to the chosen few. Energy is a basic need. We have to buy it in order to function in today’s world. The profit margin should be wayed against the negative impact to the overall economy, since this product is a constant line item in our household budgets. It’s a shame that 3-5 million in profits in today’s world is considered peanuts. Profits must be in the billions these days to be applauded. It’s just really ridiculous.
when it charges for essentials like electricity and drinking water. And it’s good when we have public servants like Coakley who push back against their greed (see stomv’s comment above).
<
p>But the status quo is burning coal and gas, and that has hidden but expensive costs that wind does not have. Check out that link to USA Today’s story on fracking.
Those profits being “siphoned off” belong to the private sector, it is the public sector which “siphons off” profits. From where would public sector financing arise without the profits in the private sector?
The MA DOER reviews all PPA (power purchase agreements), wind powered, coal powered, or hamster powered. Furthermore, because it’s a public monopoly, the contracts are required to be the cheapest power possible, pollution be damned.
<
p>It’s actually illegal for NStar to elect to buy more expensive renewable electricity instead of dirty coal and sell it at “basic service”, except that they must do just enough to comply with the Renewable Portfolio Standards requirement. This is exactly what NGrid is doing with Cape Wind. Their purchase, making up 3% of their mix, will put them in compliance with the RPS requirements for the next few years — and then they’ll have to find another contract for more renewable.
<
p>
<
p>Power plant operators and power companies are not in cahoots, and especially because renewables have different investor bases than fossil fuel plants, the power plant developers are competing. If there was an unnaturally large profit margin somewhere, you’d see others racing to build too. It just hasn’t happened, precisely because there isn’t a particularly large profit margin. Will Cape Wind make money? Dunno. I hope so. Building it has involved an awful lot of risks (regulatory, financial, legal, and of course technological), and requires an awful lot of time and capital.
<
p>
<
p>But back to the main point: the contract between Cape Wind and NGrid is reviewed by the state to ensure that NGrid doesn’t have a better deal elsewhere… and here’s the news: they don’t. Cape Wind is the cheapest way for NGrid to both (a) acquire electricity, and (b) comply with RPS over the long horizon of 10-25 years.
This is what “Big Dig culture” looks like
you’re suggesting cronyism, but you’ve got no evidence. Frankly, you omitted the most important part of the article, because you’re axe grinding
<
p>
on Beacon Hill. And it was interesting that Patrick suggested public financing of elections only when Stein called him out on tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from vested interests involved in the Cape Wind. And that he claimed he was satisfied with his own separation of how he approaches issues and the vested interests that shower him with campaign cash.
<
p>It’s also interesting that Stein — an out-and-out environmentalist (whereas Patrick made his money from Coca Cola, Texaco, Ameriquest, et al) — is raising these questions as the only candidate who isn’t taking corporate contributions. There isn’t a stronger, clearer voice in Massachusetts on the crisis we face and the solutions that abound… if only broke free of the stranglehold money’s got on our political system.
<
p>Compare Patrick’s trumpeting of the ethics reforms he helped pass, and Stein’s testimony included in my post here. Compare Patrick’s support for global warming-inducing destination casinos (not to mention all the other reasons it’s a shortsighted non-solution) with Stein’s fierce opposition. And hundreds of millions of dollars for corporate entitlement programs, for office parks and shopping centers, etc. Yes, he has stood up for public transportation improvements, and some important steps forward on clean energy, but he’s thrown his support behind a lot of questionable stuff, including dirty energy.
<
p>He said he was trying to change the Big Dig culture, but he hasn’t demonstrated any interest in doing so and finds himself right in the middle of it all, swimming in tainted dollars. You want me to prove that he’s made specific decisions because of those tainted dollars, but this is the problem with legalized corruption… the burden of proof should be the other way around, but it never is. The game is rigged and only one candidate is trying to make the game responsive to the people, not to big-money donors.
<
p>And yes, this year’s $106 million rate hike is still under review (which unearthed some dodgy stuff that National Grid was trying to pass on to ratepayers), but last year’s $44 million rate hike was approved (which likely included all that dodgy stuff!).
She uncovered the dodgy stuff:
<
p>
<
p>But she also withdrew her request to see the Cape Wind / National Grid numbers for THAT recommendation. I guess she figured if she could talk them down 10% then there would be no need to look at the details. I’m sure no monopoly would ever inflate rates more than 10%!