Natural Gas Saves New England From the Weather… Again

Guest “Wind & Solar No Shows… Again” by David Middleton

JUNE 21, 2024

Electricity demand surged in New England amid heat wave

ISO New England hourly demand

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Wholesale Electricity Market Portal
Note: Data on demand by region lags total demand. ISO-NE=Independent System Operator of New England


Electricity demand in New England surged this week as high temperatures persisted through much of the United States.

Demand in the electric grid territory of New England’s Independent System Operator (ISO-NE) peaked at 23,324 megawatts (MW) during the evening of June 20, approaching last year’s peak hourly demand in this region. The June 20 peak around 7:00 p.m. eastern time was 521 MW above the June 19 peak demand of 22,803 MW, around 6:00 p.m. ISO-NE expects less demand over the weekend and into early next week as temperatures cool.

Peak electricity demand on both June 19 and 20 were a bit less than the 24,553 MW of peak hourly demand forecast in ISO-NE’s summer assessment issued on June 3, 2024. Hourly demand for electricity in ISO-NE for 2023 peaked at 24,043 MW. To meet the demand, utilities in New England burned more natural gas. Natural gas burned in the power sector in ISO-NE reached nearly 2.0 billion cubic feet (Bcf) on both June 19 and 20, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights, compared to about 1.20 Bcf per day consumed on the Wednesday and Thursday of the previous week.

Other regions are also experiencing increased electricity demand. Electricity demand in the PJM Interconnection, which covers a large region from New Jersey to Illinois, peaked at 145,892 MW on June 20, about the same amount as demand on June 19. In its Summer 2024 Reliability Assessment, PJM forecasted peak hourly demand for the season reaching 151,000 MW.

We track hourly electricity market data in our Wholesale Electricity Market Portal, where users can examine and access electricity markets data for the seven Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and ISOs. The portal also includes information on power generation type, regional temperatures, and wholesale pricing. Our New England Dashboard also includes information on the region’s natural gas and petroleum markets.

Principal contributors: Mark Morey, Chris Peterson

Tags: consumption/demandelectricityweatherNew England

US Energy Information Administration

Surely, Renewables Must Have Saved New Englanders From Broiling

“No. And don’t call me Shirley!”

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 13 votes
Article Rating
90 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
June 26, 2024 6:28 am

As Texas did not really learn in 2021, weather dependent sources are just that.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 26, 2024 11:03 am

They should have figured that out before. The value in Texas renewables is in increasing the reserve life of their finite fossil fuel reserves. That means girding up their natural gas to electricity infrastructure to deal with extreme weather conditions.

Texas oil and gas production may still be slowly increasing, but proved, on, reserves will start to drop next year if they have not already. Not a 46 or Predecessor thing, just geology, engineering, and economics. For civilians, all that balls to the wall production must be replaced, and the smart money won’t be spending it on enough drilling, completion, and production CapEx to do so. Those $ are going into like for like M&A. Good for improved facilities utilization and head count reduction. Not for overall proved, developed, producing (the only kind that really counts) reserves replacement.

Drake
Reply to  bigoilbob
June 26, 2024 2:05 pm

Yep, oil/gas runs out until they find more of better ways to get more, or some other advancement. Oil for automotive and other uses, natural gas for household heating and cooking and peaking generation.

Wind just lasts for a while and then must be replaced once it wears out. Which will continue to happen every 15 to 20 years forever. And unreliable output, stuuuupidddd.

Nuclear can go one hundred of more years with one reactor. So 7 highly subsidized wind “systems” for one nuke? Consistent dispatchable output.

Coal for baseline loads, and dispatchable.

BTW, BOOB who is going to retire all the wind when it wears out??

MarkW
Reply to  Drake
June 26, 2024 2:13 pm

Bob’s been pushing the peak oil nonsense for years, despite the fact that every prediction he’s made has failed.

Reply to  MarkW
June 26, 2024 2:25 pm

I have made my reserve prediction for a few months. Actually, not a prediction, but an ongoing commentary on actual events.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 26, 2024 11:08 pm

“Proved”. All encompassing, including the dreamed up “proved, developed, not producing, proved, undeveloped” I.e., not the “proved, developed, producing”, that actually matters to decision makers.

And you seem to be spacing on current (i.e., mostly post 2022) trends. Trends with no sign of detrending:

1.Skyrocketing service rates.
2.Lower EUR/ drilled foot.
3.Reduced overall candidate quality.
4.Unsolvable frac hit recovery reduction.
5.Flat lining of the terrific petroleum engineering tech/well construction improvements that caused the hot house flower “shale revolution”.
6.Seven $ figure per well pad asset retirement costs, for non hydraulically isolated, 10000+’, flat, multilaterals. Many thousands of them.
7.The economic evaluations of the best oil patch decision makers that 1-6 results in the “capital discipline” that sends $ to accretive M&A and not to real reserve add campaigns.

You should stick with what you know. Continuing with the pimping of corporate welfare, borrow and spend, CO2 sequestration, in WUWT. Even after your own outfit has bailed on it…

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 28, 2024 2:52 am

You should stick with what you know.”

Look in the mirror, ignorant twit !

You have been proven you are nothing but a mindless shill against oil.

Some sort of deviant hatred due to getting fired for incompetence ??

Reply to  Drake
June 26, 2024 2:22 pm

Yep, oil/gas runs out until they find more of better ways to get more, or some other advancement.

Sorry to bubble bust, D, but that ship’s sailing. Those Big Foot “ways” aren’t working anymore, for about a half dozen boring, non POTUS, geological, petroleum engineering/economic reasons. What will happen is that FF’s will cost more, and renewables will compete even better.

BTW, BOOB who is going to retire all the wind when it wears out??

On what planet does wind “wear out”?

Yes, the generating capacity does, and it will be replaced by better equipment. Constantly. But the sites are, by definition, the best available, and will be sought out pretty much into perpetuity. Much to the benefit of the current site owners. OTOH, all fossil fuel sites are either depleted or depleting, and we are on track for a 12$ figure shirk, just in the US, for properly plugging wells, restoring surface.

Nuclear can go one hundred of more years with one reactor.”

Not now, but one day, we hope. I’m all for intrinsically safe SMT’s and real storage solutions.

Bottom line, FF’s are going away. Sooner if we don’t extend their lives with renewables. Later – but not much later – otherwise…

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 26, 2024 3:53 pm

if we don’t extend their lives with renewables.”

You idiot.

It takes at least as much fossil fuels to create and install wind and solar than they would save in usage.

Bottom line.. wind and solar don’t extend anything.. they are actually a parasite and a WASTE of resources… and totally unsustainable.

Reply to  bnice2000
June 26, 2024 10:44 pm

It takes at least as much fossil fuels to create and install wind and solar than they would save in usage.

AGAIN, with the non backed up, fact free wishful thinking. Yes, wind and solar require initial energy inputs. Life long, that is returned over and over and over…

https://spectrum.ieee.org/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil

“Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year.”

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 28, 2024 2:53 am

Life long, that is returned over and over and over…”

Total BS. The capital CO2 cost is enormous.

The CO2 saved is minimal.

Reply to  bnice2000
June 27, 2024 4:50 am

Here is some sobering news, at least 20 years old

Wind and solar have energy return/energy invested of less than 4
Modern society needs at least 7 to break even, greater than 7 to expand

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 26, 2024 9:26 pm

Ther are no “real” storage” systems.. except coal, oil and gas.

Batteries will need a magnitude better performance and a magnitude better safety regime.

They also require HUGE amounts of minerals and mining, which probably use more fossil fuels than they would ever save.

Reply to  bnice2000
June 26, 2024 11:14 pm

Please point out where I mentioned storage. Anyone? Anyone?…

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 27, 2024 6:08 am

Non-reliables are useless without STORAGE. PERIOD. The largest Pumped Storge facility in the US only STORES enough water to provide peak electrical load for the nearby metropolitan city for LESS THAN ONE DAY.
You seem intelligent enough to do the calculations to determine the number of acre-feet of water to supply all cities in the US with a population of greater than 500,000 with power for one day. To go Net Zero EACH ELECTRIC UTILITY SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH STORAGE TO MAINTAIN PEAK POWER FOR TWO WEEKS. SWAG Estimate calculates a total area about the size of Texas – which the Envirowhacos would never permit.

[An Acer-foot is commonly used to measure water volume. It is the amount of water needed to cover one acre (43,560 square feet) with one foot of water. One acre-foot is equal to 325,851 gallons of water, enough to cover a football field with a foot of water.]

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 28, 2024 2:54 am

Without massive storage, wind and solar are just PARASITES on the grid.

We understand your relation to them. !

Reply to  Drake
June 27, 2024 4:45 am

The world will become a hazardous waste landfill

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
June 26, 2024 2:12 pm

The problem is that wind and solar don’t end up saving any fossil fuels. The reason for this should be obvious, and it’s that the fossil fuel plants have to run at warm to hot standby, ready to kick in when wind and solar kick out. The savings end up being miniscule and in a few cases they can result in an actual increase in fossil fuel usage.

Reply to  MarkW
June 26, 2024 2:30 pm

Nope. Wishful thinking/urban mythology.

We’re not talking about vestigial base load plants here. Most of the natural gas/electric infrastructure is, or could be provided, by plants that use next to nothing on “stand by”. Do the arithmetic on what wind has provided for years in Texas, and it will be obvious to you.

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 26, 2024 3:54 pm

They only have to be on standby because of the unreliable an erratic nature of wind and solar.

It is wind and solar that are driving the utter and complete WASTE in the electricity supply system.

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 26, 2024 9:28 pm

Actually, a study was done in Denmark, with a wind system backed by coal.

The coal powered station actually ended up burning MORE coal than it would have burnt to produce the same amount of total power.

That is what happens when you stupidly force something to run at minimum efficiency for any length of time..

Reply to  bnice2000
June 26, 2024 10:47 pm

One, isolated “wind system”? Really? Please provide a link to this study. I’m patient…

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 27, 2024 6:12 am

Please use YOUR Brains.

Reply to  usurbrain
June 27, 2024 6:26 am

So, the dog ate yet another of your studies. Uh, ok.

But the good news is that I’ve located ANOTHER old middle school friend! I can tell from your “HEY, **** YOU, MAN!!” retorts.

Like I told the others, sorry about the lunch money….

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 28, 2024 2:59 am

What a stupidly moronic post.

… all to hide your abject ignorance about how coal and gas fired power stations work.

PATHETIC.

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 28, 2024 2:59 am

What a stupidly moronic post.

… all to hide your abject ignorance about how coal and gas fired power stations work.

PATHETIC.

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 28, 2024 2:57 am

Still totally ignorant of the fact that Coal and Gas have to be kept running even if they are not allowed to produce electricty.

You really are TOTALLY IGNORANT about anything to do with electricity production, aren’t you.

Reply to  bnice2000
June 27, 2024 4:53 am

Because the coal plant had to operate at reduced, variable output, which is inefficient, to counteract wind output.

Those type studies have been around for 30 years

Reply to  wilpost
June 27, 2024 5:01 am

I can see that. Even though you can’t link to even one of these “30 year old studies”. Thankfully, the interplay doesn’t work that way in the real world…

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 27, 2024 6:18 am

In the real world of Ireland, the CCGT PLANTS, INSTEAD OF OPERATING at 50%, operated at 42%, because there was 17% wind on Ireland’s island grid.

After many studies more than a decade ago, the government finally admitted, gas imports had not decreased, with more wind, as promised to the gullible people.

After Brussels was informed of the problem, Ireland was given funds to build one large capacity line to the much larger UK grid, and another line to the much larger French grid

That way the major wind variations within Ireland were smoothed out by the large UK/French grids.
Political problem solved.

This no longer works for Germany, because it is an 800-lb gorilla in the EU pond. It can no longer interconnect its way out of problems. It has hit the wall
The Germans are soooo screwed

Reply to  wilpost
June 27, 2024 6:22 am

Please link us to even one of these “studies”.

Folks, lots more mentions of “studies” that the dog ate, here…

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 27, 2024 9:57 am

Big-oil-bob,

If you had read this article, which I have posted at least 5 times on this site:

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption

you would have seen this article in the Appendix:

IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED  
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed

The article, written about 5 years ago, had input from Irish and Dutch energy system specialists.

BTW, I live in NEW England
Since about 2000, I have written at least a dozen articles about ISO-NE-leading folks eager to please wind and solar owners for job security reasons.

To demonstrate their wokeness to politicians in MA, CT, etc., ISO-NE folks have been finding various ways to provide additional subsidies for which wind and solar did not qualify, but by bending the rules, surprise, they do qualify.
ISO-NE folks call that “leading/innovating”

Of course, New England, as a region, has the highest electric rates in the US.

New England folks are not yet as screwed as super-screwed Germans.

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 28, 2024 9:57 am

Any mechanical or electrical engineer knows before he graduates that gas, oil, coal, nuclear, hydro, diesel, etc. etc. power plants are designed for Peak Efficiency at Peak power. lower power production means lower efficiency. Even applies to automobiles. Why do you think you get better MPG at the average national speed limit than at 50 % higher or 50% lower speed than the national maximum permissible speed. I learned that before I graduated from High school.

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 28, 2024 3:00 am

Continued ignorance.. what more can we expect from a failed and sacked grunt.

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 27, 2024 4:26 am

Increased, dysfunctional, weather-dependent, variable, grid-disturbing, highly subsidized, wind and solar are wheelchair-bound cripples. They will never, ever, be able to stand on their own:

1) as proven by dismal financial and operating experience in many countries, and as

2) as predicted by numerous studies by independent energy systems professionals, which were deliberately ignored for more than 25 years.

The woky-doky Democrats are loving wind and solar, because it gives them a

1) bigger government and

2) huge command and control by that government over the a to z supply chain of the US economy, even if it means

3) rushed, extremely unwise, wasteful spending, and running up a pump-priming, fake-economy-boosting, federal deficit of $1.9 TRILLION IN FISCAL 2024

Democrats did not anticipate BIden degenerating into senility so quickly, which has rapidly become a national and worldwide embarrassment.

Unless, the 2020 Election cheating is greatly increased, it looks like a landslide for Trump in 2024.

Reply to  wilpost
June 27, 2024 4:58 am

Uh, ok….

Who did you actually mean to send this to?

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 27, 2024 6:25 am

For whom the bells toll

Reply to  wilpost
June 27, 2024 6:30 am

Rishi Sunak? This is New England….

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 28, 2024 3:09 am

Yes, nit-wit and wilpost was taking about the USA.

Sunak is in England, you are the only one who mentioned him.. you are moronic fool !

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 28, 2024 3:03 am

To ANY country stupid enough to go with more than a pittance of wind and solar on the grid.

So yes , it applies equally to UK, USA, Germany.

Gees you are an ignorant twit, greasyblob !

Kasmir
June 26, 2024 6:28 am

Greens embody a weird alliance of Cassandra and Pollyanna: Cassandra doom says the impacts of CO2 on climate while Pollyanna dismisses the economic impacts of their proposed fixes and hypes their purported benefits.

The “precautionary principle” rules wrt to the environment at the same time that worries about damage to the global economy are dismissed.

Sean2828
June 26, 2024 7:03 am

Wow, they had several days where petroleum was producing gigawatts of power. Nobody does that due to the cost of oil vs. natural gas. Then again, New England loves gas pipeline restrictions.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 28, 2024 6:14 am

Dave,
Prior, you posted a table with ER on EI, of various energy systems, but I cannot find it.

Please post it again

DCE
Reply to  Sean2828
June 26, 2024 8:41 am

Yeah, the NIMBYs managed to kill the Kinder Morgan pipeline, something we desperately needed to ensure a sufficient supply of natural gas, particularly in the winter months. The existing pipeline doesn’t have the capacity to meet demand which leaves New England dependent on LNG from overseas sources at market rates. These folks are of the same kind that have killed not one, not two, but three powerline projects to bring green, renewable, and cheap hydropower from Quebec into New England. Of course these same folks complain bitterly about the size of their electrical utility bills, not being able to make the connection between their anti-energy related animosity and the cost of of electricity, natural gas, and various petroleum-derived fuels like gasoline, diesel, and heating oil.

Reply to  DCE
June 26, 2024 9:12 am

Unfortunately, it’s a small number of fanatics who make so much noise it seems as if everybody is against ff.

DCE
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 27, 2024 9:52 am

I attended one of the hearings on the Kimber Morgan pipeline and one of the most ignorant things I head at that hearing was one woman who condemned the project because “the owners want to make money, the only reason they want to build it.”

Well…yeah! They sure as heck don’t want to lose money on the deal. Nor was this project a non-profit endeavor. Some folks just don’t/won’t/can’t get it.

Reply to  DCE
June 27, 2024 11:01 am

That’s what the forestry haters say about forestry people- we just wanna destroy the forests to get rich. Most forestry people are in the lower economic levels, except of course the “burros”. Decades ago, much forestry in Wokeachusetts was poorly done. It’s slowly gotten better and now most of it is rather well done- especially since the state micro manages every thing we do. But, by now, if they vanish, most would continue to do well- and make their blue collar income- providing wood for folks who want homes, furniture and paper products. When people complain about rising wood prices- they fail to see that hindering forestry is a cause, along with drastically rising energy costs.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  DCE
June 26, 2024 9:47 am

Enbridge, a Canadian company, wants to upgrade and expand an existing NG pipeline in the Northeast….

https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/09/22/enbridge-weymouth-compressor-natural-gas-fossil-fuel-climate-change-pipeline-expansion

Of course, eco-NGO’s such as Climate Defiance are already geared up to oppose it. The claims being made by the protesters in this video are ludicrous…

Climate Defiance Comes to Lunch (youtube.com)

SteveZ56
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 26, 2024 10:39 am

There’s also lots of natural gas produced in Pennsylvania by fracking, which the producers would gladly sell to New England, if they could get permission from NY State to run a pipeline across its territory.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  SteveZ56
June 26, 2024 3:10 pm

Yes, and the Marcellus NG formation extends into upstate NY if the state would allow it to be tapped into. But they won’t.

DCE
Reply to  SteveZ56
June 27, 2024 9:38 am

They don’t need permission to bring a pipeline across NY, something former Governor Cuomo tried to ban…until the Feds reminded him about interstate commerce being their purview and that they would have no problem withholding all federal highway funds if he tried to block such interstate commerce. Of course no one heard anything about that little kerfuffle.

Reply to  DCE
June 27, 2024 11:04 am

The feds wouldn’t say that now. Andrew Cuomo- I often heard him on the Albany PBS. He loved to hear himself talk- for hours. His dad, Mario, had a much better personality.

Reply to  SteveZ56
June 27, 2024 11:02 am

And, much of NY state is underlain by the same kind of shale. A vast amount of it.

MarkW
Reply to  DCE
June 26, 2024 2:15 pm

In their “minds”, they have saved so much money on pipelines and power lines, that electricity rates should have gone way down.

Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2024 11:05 am

should be free by now 🙂

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Sean2828
June 26, 2024 10:54 am

Think you need to look again.
Petroleum was not gigawatts.
A few hundred mega watts perhaps.
Scale is Mega Watt hours. Divide the reading by 3600 to get power.

Probably fired up a few diesel generators to help with the surge. Maybe.

Doug S
June 26, 2024 7:45 am

We’re supposed to believe wind and solar can fill the role of Nat Gas? I don’t believe it.

Reply to  Doug S
June 26, 2024 10:17 am

As was said in the old days, when I lived in Texas, during the gasoline crisis, “Let those damnYankees freeze to death in the dark.” (Yes, it is one word.)

DCE
June 26, 2024 8:27 am

If memory serves, there wasn’t a lot of wind in New Hampshire during the three almost 100 deg F days. One of the wind farms in NH near where I reside had zero turbines generating power during those days. I am going to assume solar did just fine here in NH, but I have to ask what the conversion efficiencies were considering the ambient temperatures were in the upper 90’s.

Reply to  DCE
June 26, 2024 9:13 am

And it was hot well into the night- when the solar ain’t working- but many still run their AC, like me.

Reply to  DCE
June 27, 2024 6:22 am

Most extreme heat waves are right in the middle of what meteorologists call a “Heat Dome” which is an area of high temperature with no wind. Just like the one that Ohio to Maine was in last week.

vboring
June 26, 2024 9:13 am

Their solar did fine during this event. Solar plus a few hours of storage does fine serving summer loads.

The economic problem is that you still have to pay for an entire gas system and fleet of gas plants to serve the winter load.

Investing in solar plus storage in this system reduces gas plant fuel costs and provides no other economic benefits. Unfortunately for solar, gas is cheap.

Every unit of solar added to this system increases the total cost of electricity for everyone.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 26, 2024 1:36 pm

Solar is like snow on Mount Everest, just a thin layer of BS costing oodles of money per kWh

Reply to  vboring
June 26, 2024 12:21 pm

Their solar did fine during this event. Solar plus a few hours of storage does fine serving summer loads.”

Just what storage did solar have in place then?

MarkW
Reply to  Gunga Din
June 26, 2024 2:19 pm

It’s the mythical “grid storage”, that could have, if only we wished hard enough.

MarkW
Reply to  vboring
June 26, 2024 2:18 pm

A few hours of battery? Closer to 20 hours. All of which need to be completely filled during the 4 hours when there is a usable amount of sunlight.

Billyjack
June 26, 2024 9:23 am

I appreciate Middleton using “Frac” instead of “Frack”. That reference to hydraulic fracturing was created by glue heads that have gone organic to imply another verb that begins with “F” and ends with “k”.

Scissor
Reply to  Billyjack
June 26, 2024 10:02 am

Let’s go Brandon!

John Hultquist
Reply to  David Middleton
June 27, 2024 8:40 am

In the top 5 for the week’s best comment. Informative and funny.

David Wojick
June 26, 2024 9:47 am

Heat waves are often low wind because they are high pressure systems with very little internal pressure gradient to create wind. Oh and there is no solar on hot nights but don’t tell the green crazies that as they will not believe you (sarc).

SwedeTex
Reply to  David Wojick
June 26, 2024 10:13 am

I am sure the solution they will come up with is a new lunar panel that converts moonshine (both kinds) into electricity. /s

David Wojick
Reply to  SwedeTex
June 26, 2024 11:17 am

The liquid form is high octane. I love it.

My uncle Mort is sawed off and short, only goes about 5 feet 2.
but he thinks he’s a gint when you give him a pint, of that good old Mountain Dew. (old song)

Reply to  David Wojick
June 26, 2024 12:26 pm

Maybe he should switch from Mountain Dew to Kickapoo Joy Juice?

Reply to  David Wojick
June 26, 2024 11:37 am

Yes, I live just East of the Green Mountain spine, which greatly affects our weather.
Here is a plot from our weather station for the month of June:

comment image

Reply to  David Wojick
June 26, 2024 12:23 pm

David,

not sure you need a “sarc” tag for a true statement.

June 26, 2024 10:12 am

Are there hydro plants in the ISO New England area, or is the hydro shown imported?

Reply to  David Middleton
June 26, 2024 11:59 am

Oh yeah, I remember that place. Back in the 60’s we were on a canoe trip down the Housatonic in early spring, the rooster tails in the rapids were over our heads. Had to portage around the hydro damn, somewhere south of Cornwall.

There still quite a few small hydro stations either on the Connecticut River or on some of the tributaries. Near Wilmington VT on Rt 9, there is quite an impressive several mile 6 ft diameter wooden aqueduct-pipe which feeds a small hydro station on the Deerfield River.from the Searsburg Reservoir. It only runs intermittently as far as I know.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 26, 2024 12:31 pm

How much is from Niagara Falls power station?

DCE
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 27, 2024 9:46 am

There are a number of hydro dams along the Connecticut River, mostly north of Lebanon, NH/White River Junction, VT and one south of there at Bellows Falls, VT, if memory serves. There are a some smaller hydro dams along the Merrimack, Pemigewassett, and Winnipesaukee Rivers in NH,

I don’t know if there is any Quebec Hydro power coming into New England. I do know there’s none coming by way of Maine, New Hampshire, or Vermont.

Bob
June 26, 2024 3:11 pm

Very nice. No power generator should be allowed on the grid that can’t produce more or less power on demand. It is just stupid to rely on energy sources that can’t power up or power down.

John Hultquist
June 27, 2024 8:52 am

Note the ochre, Iron ochre, or ocher colored rectangle along the bottom of the chart for energy source.
Maybe that deserves a thumbs up! 👍