Guest “too fracking funny” by David Middleton
Brookline passes bylaw banning future use of oil, gas in new buildings
Nov 21, 2019
BROOKLINE, Mass. — A Massachusetts town overwhelmingly voted Wednesday night to ban the future installation of oil and gas pipes in future construction projects as well as in renovations of existing buildings.
The bylaw, which passed the Brookline town meeting with 210 votes in favor and just three opposing, would be the first such prohibition in the state of Massachusetts.
[…]
“This warrant article is not the whole answer, but it represents a start” in reaching Brookline’s stated 2050 carbon neutral goal, said Town Meeting member Cornelia van der Ziel.
“When you’re in a hole, the first thing is to stop digging,” State Rep. Tommy Vitolo said; this warrant article takes away the shovel, he added.
[…]
WCVB5
This bit of enviro-nitwittery “would require homeowners and developers to use electricity to power all future heat, hot water and other appliances.” Exceptions would be made for “backup generators, restaurant kitchens and medical offices, among other uses”… Expect a run on backup generators at the local Home Depot.
80% of Massachusetts homes rely on fossil fuels for heating… only 15% rely on electricity.
84% of Massachusetts electricity is generated by natural gas-fired power plants.
Amazingly, a state so dependent on natural gas is one of the most hostile to natural gas and natural gas pipelines. Massachusetts imports 12% of its natural gas from Vladimir Putin et al…
Massachusetts has three liquefied natural gas import terminals. In 2017, foreign imports into Massachusetts equaled about 12% of the natural gas that entered the state and 7% of New England’s total demand for natural gas.
US EIA
Despite the fact that these tenuously United States are awash in cheap, domestic natural gas, with a growing number of LNG export terminals and their proximity to booming natural gas production from the Marcellus play … Massachusetts still operates three LNG import terminals. Massachusetts is the only State in the nation with three LNG import terminals and no export terminals (FERC).
Massachusetts Limits Gas Pipelines, Imports LNG from Russia Instead
BY IERAPRIL 16, 2018
Environmentalists are winning in Massachusetts by getting natural gas infrastructure projects shelved. Natural gas consumers in the state, however, are losing out because those pipelines would supply natural gas to consumers at a lower cost than imported liquefied natural gas (LNG)—receiving some of that LNG from Russia through the Everett LNG terminal—the only LNG import terminal still operating in the lower 48.
Environmentalists seem to be obsessed with stopping the construction of domestic pipelines in this country, regardless of what they carry, what fuels they displace, and how global greenhouse gas emissions may be affected. Liquefied natural gas results in greater emissions than pipeline gas because cooling the gas to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit and then shipping and regasifying it requires more energy than pumping natural gas through domestic pipelines. Generally, LNG produces 5 to 10 percent more emissions over its entire life cycle than piped gas.
Russian LNG Shipments to Massachusetts
Three years ago Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker proposed an energy policy consisting of 1,200 megawatts of renewable energy, 1,600 megawattsof offshore wind, and an expansion of natural gas pipeline capacity. Environmentalists fought the natural gas pipeline expansion and won, shelving several pipeline proposals. (For instance, officials in Massachusetts and New Hampshire blocked the $3 billion Access Northeast Pipeline.) Environmentalists want to rely solely on solar and wind power—intermittent sources of electricity that need back-up power. As Massachusetts has been shuttering its coal-fired power plants, that back-up power has mostly been supplied by natural gas, raising the price of electricity as cold weather forces different sectors to compete for natural gas.
The shortage of natural gas was clear earlier this year when a cold snap caused prices for natural gas to spike and the purchase of Russian LNG to supply the Everest LNG import terminal a few miles north of Boston. The Russian LNG comes from a new $27 billion terminal on the Yamal Peninsula in the Arctic Circleoperated by Yamal LNG—a joint venture among Russia’s gas company Novatek, France’s Total, and China’s CNPC. Novate is on the Treasury Department’s financial sanctions list. However, the LNG shipment does not violate the prohibitions that the Obama Administration imposed four years ago because it is owned by a French energy trader arriving on a French-owned vessel (Gaselys) and consisting of Russian gas as well as gas from other European sources.
[…]
IER
And the cherry on top of the sundae…
Average Residential Price of Electricity by State, August 2019 and 2018 (Cents per Kilowatthour)
| State | Aug-19 | % US Avg | Aug-18 | % US Avg | |
| 1 | Hawaii | 31.16 | 234% | 32.39 | 244% |
| 2 | Alaska | 23.56 | 177% | 22.51 | 170% |
| 3 | Rhode Island | 21.76 | 164% | 18.70 | 141% |
| 4 | Massachusetts | 21.54 | 162% | 20.80 | 157% |
| 5 | Connecticut | 21.29 | 160% | 21.27 | 160% |
| 6 | California | 19.86 | 149% | 19.85 | 150% |
| 7 | New Hampshire | 19.47 | 146% | 19.32 | 146% |
| 8 | New York | 18.39 | 138% | 19.02 | 143% |
| 9 | Maine | 17.90 | 135% | 16.91 | 128% |
| 10 | Vermont | 16.68 | 125% | 17.96 | 135% |
| 11 | Michigan | 16.53 | 124% | 15.40 | 116% |
| 12 | New Jersey | 15.79 | 119% | 15.25 | 115% |
| 13 | Wisconsin | 14.80 | 111% | 13.99 | 106% |
| 14 | Iowa | 14.73 | 111% | 14.18 | 107% |
| 15 | Minnesota | 13.91 | 105% | 13.78 | 104% |
| 16 | Pennsylvania | 13.83 | 104% | 13.95 | 105% |
| 17 | New Mexico | 13.00 | 98% | 13.48 | 102% |
| 18 | Kansas | 12.96 | 97% | 13.95 | 105% |
| 19 | Alabama | 12.83 | 96% | 12.32 | 93% |
| 20 | South Dakota | 12.72 | 96% | 12.62 | 95% |
| 21 | Missouri | 12.71 | 96% | 12.92 | 97% |
| 22 | Colorado | 12.70 | 95% | 12.43 | 94% |
| 23 | South Carolina | 12.56 | 94% | 10.36 | 78% |
| 24 | Arizona | 12.52 | 94% | 12.83 | 97% |
| 25 | Illinois | 12.51 | 94% | 12.52 | 94% |
| 26 | Maryland | 12.46 | 94% | 13.05 | 98% |
| 27 | Ohio | 12.45 | 94% | 12.90 | 97% |
| 28 | District of Columbia | 12.39 | 93% | 12.56 | 95% |
| 29 | Georgia | 12.38 | 93% | 12.60 | 95% |
| 30 | Virginia | 12.36 | 93% | 12.27 | 93% |
| 31 | Indiana | 12.25 | 92% | 12.53 | 94% |
| 32 | Delaware | 12.24 | 92% | 12.21 | 92% |
| 33 | North Dakota | 12.06 | 91% | 11.80 | 89% |
| 34 | Wyoming | 11.97 | 90% | 11.75 | 89% |
| 35 | Montana | 11.91 | 90% | 11.29 | 85% |
| 36 | Florida | 11.90 | 89% | 11.33 | 85% |
| 37 | Nebraska | 11.83 | 89% | 11.98 | 90% |
| 38 | Texas | 11.80 | 89% | 11.27 | 85% |
| 39 | Nevada | 11.79 | 89% | 11.40 | 86% |
| 40 | North Carolina | 11.71 | 88% | 11.29 | 85% |
| 41 | West Virginia | 11.56 | 87% | 11.40 | 86% |
| 42 | Mississippi | 11.22 | 84% | 10.84 | 82% |
| 43 | Oregon | 11.18 | 84% | 11.12 | 84% |
| 44 | Utah | 11.17 | 84% | 10.85 | 82% |
| 45 | Tennessee | 10.80 | 81% | 10.85 | 82% |
| 46 | Kentucky | 10.62 | 80% | 10.60 | 80% |
| 47 | Oklahoma | 10.61 | 80% | 10.87 | 82% |
| 48 | Idaho | 10.18 | 77% | 10.48 | 79% |
| 49 | Arkansas | 10.08 | 76% | 10.01 | 75% |
| 50 | Washington | 10.06 | 76% | 9.93 | 75% |
| 51 | Louisiana | 9.57 | 72% | 9.92 | 75% |
| U.S. Total | 13.30 | 13.26 |
Brookline, in a State which already has the second most expensive residential electricity prices in the Lower 48, wants to force its residents to switch from heating with natural gas to heating with electricity generated from Russian natural gas…
This is quite awesome. Does Massachusetts have interstate net import?
It’s all imported, with 12% of the natural gas coming from places like Russia.
The old adage “turkeys never vote for an early Christmas” will have to be reconsidered, after this piece of political suicide. The only question, is how long it will take for the winter deaths from freezing homes to be placed at the door of climate alarmist policies?
There may be a need to introduce a constitutional right, giving American citizens the freedom to decide which energy option they personally want in their homes, in their businesses and in their mode of transport.
The very narrow unrepresentative politically active alarmists, must not be allowed to unconstitutionally block or curtail the legal business of the nation.
This is now UK policy, seriously.
And thus the usual result of dictatorial politics of the Left – massive transfer of wealth from their own citizens to those evil capitalists that can build efficient power plants and export energy at premium prices. The old adage of life is energy; cheap energy is prosperity still reigns.
Don’t it always seem to go.
Don’t know what you got til it’s gone.
Take paradise, put up a wind turbine.
The Brookline vote was influenced in part by the gas explosions in a nearby Massachusetts town last year that destroyed numerous homes and killed one person. The underground lines had deteriorated and the gas company raised the line pressure accidentally. That kind of news scares people and they run to a presumed alternative. In southern New England we have massive power outages from storms at least once a year. Generator sales look to be an investment opportunity.
Those taking feel-good actions in favor of displacing natural gas with electricity for stoves, water heaters and dryers will end up increasing burning of fossil fuels. Until there’s enough non-fossil-fuel electricity to supply our current demand, additional electricity demand will be met by fossil fuel electricity mostly from natural gas, with combined efficiency of generation, transmission and distribution around 40%.
I live in the North Quabbin area of north central Massachusetts. I work as a consulting forester in my own business helping landowners protect and manage thousands of acres across the state. The mechanized logging crews I use produce sawlogs for regional sawmills, hardwood cordwood for local firewood dealers and a wood pellet manufacturer in NH, and chipwood for a few biomass power plants. So we help produce many different forest products that are in demand while supporting many real green jobs right up the wood supply chain and provide revenue for landowners as well. We do all that while increasing the health, productivity, and species composition of the forest. While our work should be celebrated instead we are condemned by the climatistas for causing “climate change”. The anti-forestry extremists want to shut down all forestry in the state starting with the 650,000 acres of state forests. Then they will come after us in the private sector. They want all forests to be left alone for CO2 sequestration which means we’ll just import more wood to satisfy demand like we are importing LNG. Wendell State Forest was the test case. Fortunately they lost. See my forestry photo album:
https://www.facebook.com/pg/MikeLeonardConsultingForester/photos/?tab=album&album_id=2608568955889928&__tn__=-UCH-R&ref=page_internal
It’s not easy putting with these people and constantly having to defend the forestry work we do. The extremists want to completely eliminate the last vestiges of forest industry in MA. Recently they stopped construction of a wood pellet manufacturing plant. So it’s OK to buy wood pellets here and burn them in your wood pellet stove but we can’t manufacture them here!
The crazy people know just enough to make them believe they are all knowing and wiser than others.
What is funny, is that during the process of paying my electric bill online, I noticed that there are some rebates provided by the power company for the purchase and operation of residential gas appliances. Specifically natural gas ranges, gas dryers, and gas water heaters. Those rebates are given out as part of an “energy efficiency” program to entice persons to use more efficient appliances. This in addition to the usual smart thermostats, LED lights, solar panel installation, and “cool” roof technology. I wonder if I were to look at the electric utility provider for Brookline, would I find that they also offer similar “natural gas” appliance rebates?
I struggle to understand how you can be more energy efficient and bad for the environment at the same time. At least in total if not on an individual basis.
I wonder how many of the people who voted for this ban have voluntarily replaced their own gas heaters and gas stoves with electric versions?
Brookline MA currently has contracted through January 2020 to procure electricity from Dynegy. Dynegy gets 35% of its generated capacity from burning Natural gas. 30% of the mix being nuclear. Here is a breakdown as of 2018 of Dynegy’s fuel mix/sources. Dynegy purchases the renewable electricity from Mass Energy.
Another provider appears to be Eversource. Not much information provided by Brookline to identify this provider, other than in the materials I link to below which show them marginally more expensive than the Brookline (via Dynegy) offerings.
Looking at the materials provided by Brookline on their website, it looks like a resident can choose one of three options. Each option increases in cost along with an increase in “green/renewable credits”. The “Basic” variety is $0.10398 / kWh, the “Green” variety is $0.11098 / kWh, and the “All Green” variety is $0.13198 / kWh.
So, by my cursory perusal, it is cheaper for the Brookline resident to choose the “Brookline Basic” which is 0% additional renewable credits (apart from what Dynegy already includes in their mix). However, that means that 35% of your electrical load is supplied by natural gas.
Interestingly, my utility provider advertises the following information to entice you to use their natural gas services. They also provide rebates to consumers and businesses who do.
Natural Gas Rebates:
Gas clothes dryer – $100 rebate
Gas water heater, tank or tankless – $50 rebate
Gas cooktop or stove – $50 rebate
Rewards you for converting your electric appliances to natural gas, with rebates that cover the cost of appliance, labor, permit fees and materials:
Gas water heater, up to $1,100 with $400 for each additional gas water heater
Gas dryer, up to $195
Gas cooktop/stove, up to $125
Here is some advertising provided by my Energy Provider (note: It is to be considered marketing, but provides some useful information that is in conflict with the thinking that backed the decision made by Brookline. It provides some “food for thought” at the least.) with respect to natural gas.
The advantages of a gas water heater over an electric water heater:
Gas produces more hot water per dollar
Gas boosts service life and lowers maintenance costs
Why choose a gas clothes dryer over an electric?
Gas dries three times as much laundry for the same cost
Gas is more gentle on fabrics
Gas releases fewer emissions
Why choose a gas cooktop or stove?
Gas provides consistent heat output, precise temperature control, and easy cleaning
Gas costs less to operate than electric units
One reason it is cheaper is because 100% of the heat released by burning the gas happens where you want it to be.
Burning it in a remote generating station has losses at every step of the process of getting that energy into your home and appliances.
The net effect is, it takes MORE gas to use electricity that is generated by burning natural gas, no matter what you are using it for.
So not only is it more expensive, leads to people having no source of heat, hot water, or cooking in the event of a power failure, it does not result in less FF burning and less net emissions, IT DOES EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE!
More fuel burned, and more CO2 produced!
Haha!
Given that nearly 100% of Brookline’s electric power comes from natural gas why didn’t this bunch of virtue signaling SJW hypocrites prohibit new houses from hooking up to the grid too?
Electric heat is one of the most inefficient ways to heat a home, although it is relatively cheap to install.
But consider a home with a heat load (on a cold day) of 100,000 Btu/hr, which is equivalent to 29.3 kW. If Massachusetts residents pay 21.54 cents per kWh, it would cost $6.31 per hour to provide 100,000 Btu/hr to the home using electric heat.
Natural gas currently sells for about $5.00 per million Btu of heating value. Typical gas furnaces used in homes are at least 80% efficient, meaning that the furnace would consume 125,000 Btu per hour of heating value, costing $0.625 per hour–about 10 times less than electric heat.
It is clearly counterproductive for any town to force its residents to use electricity generated from Russian natural gas over natural gas piped in from Pennsylvania, considering the costs required for piping the Russian gas to an LNG export terminal on the European or Mediterranean coast, shipping the LNG across the ocean, and then re-evaporating the LNG in an import terminal along the coast of Massachusetts, then converting 60% of the heating value of the natural gas to electricity, which is then dissipated in heating coils in someone’s house.
From the point of view of CO2 emissions, the CO2 emissions from burning Russian natural gas are about equal to those from burning natural gas from Pennsylvania. But using the Russian natural gas in Massachusetts results in increased CO2 emissions to drive the compressors at the LNG export terminal, emissions from the LNG transport ship across the ocean, emissions at the LNG import terminal, and additional emissions since the electric generating plant is only 60% efficient, while a home furnace is 80% efficient.
Not very “green”, when someone does the analysis!
The article decries the fact that Massachusetts has three LNG import terminals but no export terminals. It should be pointed out that liquefying natural gas (for export) requires much more compression energy (for refrigeration) than re-evaporating LNG at an import terminal. However, Brookline residents are paying for the cost of compression and refrigeration at the LNG terminal in Europe from which the Russian gas was exported.
On the one hand you can call this another lab rat experiment but on the other hand bailouts and stimulus spending are the backdrop for serious mistakes like this that get covered up later. Call it climate pothole ready stimulus.
Salute!
I am proposing a Kool Aid “gofundme” effort to drive a few truckloads up to Brookline and surrounding areas.
More on news at 11.
Gums sends….
This decision by Brookline Massachusetts is straight out of the Climate Emergency handbook for municipals/councils etc, which says that gas “should be banned for all new buildings”. The handbook is printed in Europe (where else) with the English version from the UK.
I wonder if Brookline will adopt the other orders in the handbook, like enacting legislation to force all town vehicles to electric, and force all private businesses in the town to become carbon neutral?
I wonder in the Brookline town meeting members, representing the town citizens, told them they were adopting the actions dictated by the Europe-based Climate Emergency group?
The 2010 census counted 58,732 people in Brookline. Brookline is an expensive, older, established community and I doubt there is much room for new construction. I counted less than 6 locations with construction permits valued at over $300K. If you subscribe to the CAGW religion, this is an easy vote for the 58,000 who already live there who won’t be affected, and the small handful of people who are contemplating new construction don’t get a vote. If you live in Brookline and feel it is already too crowded, another reason to discourage new construction. The only people this vote is a negative for are construction people, most of whom don’t live in an expensive area such as Brookline. So no there won’t be a backlash and in fact Brookline residents can pat each other on the back and feel smug about their burnished liberal credentials.
Salute!
As with what is already happening in New York, those confortable folks in Brookline will be surprised when 1) their utility bills go up, and 2) their gas supply is on and off due to upstream supply problems and so forth.
Worse, how are they gonna charge their Teslas and Leafs and Volts and…..
Getting my semi rig ready for the Kool Aid run as soon as our “gofundme” effort brings in a few thou. Hell, I’ll even load up a few hundred pounds of fresh gulf shrimp that were caught using fossil-fueled boats while the sailors sipped their energy drinks using plastic straws. Can boil up those suckers in my large Cajun cooker pot using gas we got from wells just off the Louisiana/Mississippi/Alabama coast.
GUms sends…
I am curious to hear what people think about this:
https://features.weather.com/collateral/vermont-ramps-wood-burning-cut-fossil-fuel-use-climate-health/
Dave,
The EIA updated their data yesterday https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
It seems that MASS is encouraging EV adaption a bit more this year than last. The price for transportation kwh went down about 10% to under a nickel for a kwh.
Transportation doesn’t refer to EV’s. It refers to trains, trolleys, subways, etc.
EV charging is at whatever rate the outlet is, usually residential.
Thanks David. I should of read the definitional details in the report vs assuming EIA somehow was able to track Items like how SMUD’s EV program works.
“Residential Electric Vehicles. SMUD has incentives and information for your electric vehicle needs. Choose from one of the following when you purchase or lease a new plug-in electric vehicle (pre-owned vehicles are not eligible):. $599 incentive to charge free for two years (approximately covers the average cost to charge your plug-in electric vehicle for two years), or…”
https://www.smud.org/en/Going-Green/Electric-Vehicles/Residential
The EIA categories are consumer segments. Rebates and special deals offered by the State and/or electricity providers are different. It’s like when an electricity provider offers 100% solar or wind… It doesn’t alter the electricity you receive, it’s just an accounting gimmick.
Build a house with enough insulation & it can be heated & illuminated with candles.
Add a wood burning kitchen range & you’ll be cooking with gas, as we say in the UK.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wood+burning+kitchen+appliances&atb=v165-1&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
Add a couple of Rumford open fireplaces & be extra cosy. They were first designed in Massachusetts. http://www.rumford.com/
I’m quite sure that burning candles and wood are not more environment-friendly than just burning natural gas.
This has been a fascinating discussion. So many people sharing so much misinformation (with some good information as well). The point of the entire argument is that burning Russian natural gas (shipped from Russia in very large ships that burn fossil fuels) to generate electricity is absolutely NOT better for the environment than just burning US natural gas to heat homes. Any engineer would agree. They must not have any engineers on their town board. Yes, I am an engineer. Their plan will fail miserably, and they will be forced to reverse course. Unless their plan is to prevent new building projects. In that case their plan will work just fine, for at least a week or two.