Home | About | Donate

Fabulous Win for Anti-Fracking Movement as Another Major Pipeline Bites the Dust


#1

Fabulous Win for Anti-Fracking Movement as Another Major Pipeline Bites the Dust

Jon Queally, staff writer

For the second time in less than a week, climate activists and fracking opponents in the northeast find themselves celebrating.

The latest applause comes after a state regulatory agency on Friday—which happened to be Earth Day—announced it was denying a permit for a major fracked-gas pipeline in the state. Just days earlier, another similar project was halted in New England.


#2

So happy the Constitution was vetoed!


#3

Woo Hoo!

Now, there's still the doubling of capacity of a southern New England pipeline to Boston. They actually expect the usage of fracked "natural" methane gas to double over the next 30 years or more, and apparently without damaging the planet. If usage doesn't double, the costs will still double for any remaining ratepayers. The gas companies think that they can run any inane business assumption by state regulators. Who do they think they are, Curt Schilling?

Next, in Providence, RI they want to build a natural gas liquefaction plant. The associated LNG tank is nasty. I could see a two kiloton nuclear-sized explosion, which is why putting an LNG tank in an urban area is as dumb as permanently storing a working A-bomb under the Department of Energy headquarters. Hmm, maybe even dumber, but we really shouldn't get into that.


#4

I don't know if you are referring to Spectra Energy's Algonquin pipeline which is being expanded and would pass near the Indian Point nuclear power plants on the Hudson in New York. If it can't be stopped it will certainly increase the amount of fracked gas that can be transported from Pennsylvania to New England.


#6

Yes, they're connected.


#7

Isn't it about time to redirect the funds, slated for the pipeline to renewable energy projects? The energy firms behind the proposed pipeline project could find themselves near the forefront of something new, more exciting and much longer lasting then investments in the sunset of fossil fuels.


#8

People had better be very careful about who they select as our next president, as well as, who we replace our current representatives with when their seats are up for election.

More fracking, more drilling, Keystone Pipeline and the ability for the fossil fuel industry to make the laws of the land, are very real threats right now, all very much in sight, once the damage is done there is no bringing anything back, many of our current candidates are indebted to the industry and will make good on their returns, regardless of the consequences that will ensue, all of which are toxic. I believe there is only one candidate that hasn't sold his soul, this planet or any of us to the highest bidders. Peace.

BernieorBust


#9

What this will mean is that a majority of new England will continue to use oil, instead of gas for heating - and coal instead of gas for electric power generation. So this is a victory for climate how?


#10

With the expansion of the pipeline from a diameter of 26 inches to 42 inches it should be able to transport nearly three times as much gas as the present pipeline. That would be quite an increase. The activists haven't given up however so there is still a possibility this project will be stopped.


#11

Well, oil and gas are about on par as far as climatological effect goes. We know that now that people have looked at leakage. It's still better than coal, though.


#12

I hope we can rise up like that here in California. They do set a great example for defeating the fricking frackers!


#14

""We are in the process of analyzing the stated rationale for the denial.
Once that review is complete we will assess our options, which may
include an appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.""

I take that to mean they are waiting for whichever, TPP or TTIP, to kick in and allow them to claim lost profits for ending their pipe(line) dreams. The corporation gets all the gain and none of the pain. What's not to like? For the corporations, that is.

Of course, if we, the people, were to decide that by paying money, twhich is itself fictious, we could keep the biosphere intact, we might consider if those ISD resolution mechanisms couldn't be made to work in our favor.
Nah.


#15

The big energy oligarchs will never ease up their highly funded political shaping machine that is very successful at turning defeat into more dirty energy a short while later.
Don't doze off for a few winks - the machiavellians never sleep.


#16

Exactly what I was thinking. They are desperate to get the TPP and TIPP passed. The nail in the coffin for people vs. corporations. Remember when you vote that HC called the TPP the "gold standard" when she was SoS.


#17

Don't you love how they name these environmental weapons of mass destruction: the Constitution Pipeline. Yep, fracking is as American as apple pie.


#18

Nope. They are not . Burning gas (CH4) produces mostly water vapor and just a fraction of oil (C8-XX?H(2*8-XX)+2). The are also methane leaks - but those are mostly the result of poor practices, not inherently a part of natural gas production. The poor practices can be corrected. A low pressure service pipeline near my house has been leaking for years and I even notified gas company, met with the gas company worker, located the leak, but two years later it is still not fixed.


#19

Wind and solar certainly have a contribution to make, but due to intermittancy and simply no feasible energy storage method available yet, they are only good for a maximum of about 30% of total electric demand for the foreseeable future. I like nuclear, including utilizing the full fuel cycle which produces enormous amounts of energy from minuscule amounts or uranium, and eliminates the long-tern high level waste issue (although even it is mostly political) too.


#20

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#21

BS! The last thing we need is more nuclear. Of course you like nuclear, with its massive cost overruns and guaranteed profits on the backs of taxpayers, nevermind the fact that the taxpayers will end up having to foot the huge cleanup bill, and that's if nothing terrible happens. Is that you HRC?
And on your assertion that solar is only good for a maximum of 30% I refuted that 2 days ago, NREL has stated that Maine, one of those southern sunny states /s, has the solar potential to provide 60% of it's own electrical needs, just on residential solar and doesn't include onshore wind which is capable of 100% of the energy needs of 35 states. And this says nothing to the energy of offshore wind. http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/11/sharply-higher-rooftop-solar-potential-increases-potential-energy-self-reliance/

From Germany, granted they aren't renowned for their engineering prowess.
"The company responsible for more than one-third of Germany’s electricity grid says there is no issue absorbing high levels of variable renewable energy such as wind and solar, and grids could absorb up to 70 per cent penetration without the need for storage."

Let's not forget; Not a single EPR reactor has been finished. Hinckley C has been delayed by the reactor contractors themselves. Engineers at the French utility EDF have called for Hinckley's delay, saying that the project is very complicated and unproven. Olkiluoto in Finland is still not finished after construction on the reactor began in 2005 and it is not expected to be connected to the grid before 2018, nearly a decade later than scheduled and reactor 3 is only 3 BILLION over budget. And should we mention the weak spots in Flamanville's reactor? Only years behind schedule and also billions over budget, and very much the reason for Hinckley's delay. If the weak spots cannot be fixed, EDF would have to break the vessel out of the nearly finished reactor building.

Nuclear is dead, coal is dead, NG is next and it's right around the corner.


#22

What would the people of Maine do at night? And since the renewables and no-nuclear commitment, Germany has been importing a lot of coal, and buying nuclear electricity from France.