They're talking about the northern pass, a proposed 200 mile pipeline from Canada, through the White mountain national forest in to New England.
I know the region has energy and cost issues, but there has to be a better way than to put protected national land at risk.
We also recently had a "catastrophic failure", that caused a dozen explosions in homes, killed one, and caused 40 house fires.
It didn't rally a lot of support for natural gas expansion.
Please explain where the high risk is ... explosions in the middle of nowhere aren't going to hurt much, and if their are leaks, the gas will simply vent into the atmosphere rather than cause the kind of damage that oil spills do.
Seems like firing up coal plants in heavily populated regions (the current alternative) is worse. In terms of heat and power generation in cloudy regions, natural gas is vastly superior to everything except nuclear for cleanliness and co2/gigawatt-hour... and if cost is considered, it beats out nuclear too.
A gas transmission pipeline is hundreds of times higher pressure, they will shut down a pipeline as soon as a leak is detected.
Actually, it is.
I used to live very near a major natural gas pipeline in New England and each year the operators would send us a leaflet in the mail reminding us not to be alarmed by the helicopters that would fly up and down the route because they were just looking for dead or yellowing trees, which were the first signs of a pipeline leak.
"Everything is correlated." The land next to HV lines is cheaper, poorer people have higher mutational load, therefore a higher cancer rate. You get a real, authentic correlation between power lines and cancer, without power lines actually directly causing cancer.
They built the port miles offshore because MA was banning harbor-side offloading of LNG due to concerns of accidents or attacks on LNG tankers. But by the time they completed it, hydraulic fracking had become so successful that LNG prices collapsed and no one wanted to import it anymore.
This statement says nothing of what proportion of the tanker capacities was consumed in that day. Anyone know?
It says nothing more than they fulfilled a single day of gas-fired generators needs, which by itself doesn't sound worthwhile.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported Tuesday that demand for natural gas in New England registered at 4.34 billion cubic feet per day and that the regional pipeline was operating at 77.1 percent capacity. The agency said that during a brief cold snap in January, "increased heating demand strained the natural gas system as natural gas consumption in the region, on January 21, 2019, reached their highest level this winter."
Multiply by 35 to get cubic feet, and we get about 5m cubic feet per ship, or 1% of a day’s demand if my math is correct.
So 600% by your calculation; 6 days?
edit: darn singlow beat me to it :)
(Summary: Its by developing technology for storing and exporting liquefied natural gas)
It would not make economic sense for an LNG carrier to be US flagged year round to serve a market that exists for two months (New England in January and February), so no LNG tanker is US flagged. Therefore no LNG can be carried between Louisiana and Boston, and they have to come from Russia or Trinidad.
: It is slightly more complicated then that. There are further regulations to prevent the obvious work-arounds you are presently thinking of, person who never heard of this law before but thinks he can outsmart it.
I take issue with your first paragraph. While it's true that many American flagged carriers run a mainland to island business (PR, Hawaii) I wouldn't call them specialized. Matson and APL are both very large US flagged carriers that have significant trans-pacific volume (i.e. the most significant, mainstream global tradelane). In fact, Matson (US flagged) has a reputation for being a premium transpac carrier because they operate their own dedicated terminals and can turn around cargo much faster than others.
None of this is to say that the Jones Act isn't a protectionist piece of garbage, but the situation isn't as dire as you lay out.
Your analogy isn't accurate. The accurate analogy would be "We don't allow trucks manufactured outside the United States, owned and operated by non-US companies, and driven by non-citizens to carry cargo between American cities.
While I'm certain you are infinitely more knowledgeable on this than I am, this doesn't seem to be a fair comparison. Doesn't the scale difference (Hawaii vs the continental US) have an important impact on efficiencies and costs?
If they could stop at Hawaii before and then after mainland, then they could drop off containers when passing each way, lowering Hawaii's costs.
The post Brexit arrangements for this remain unclear, which is why people are starting to stockpile.
A Canadian truck based in Windsor (driven by a driver with valid work visa) is allowed to pick up goods in Detroit before going to Buffalo, because this leg of the trip is considered incidental to an internatonal route. However if the truck were to make multiple return trips between Detroit and Buffalo it would not be legal
Ships that transport goods or passengers between US ports must be US-registered, owned by US citizens, built in the US, and operated by US residents. It's a bit of exceptionally protectionist legislation passed a hundred years ago that continues to hang on mostly because nobody uses boats to move things between US ports anyway.
It's a mess for the cruise industry thought. Cruise ships are never built in the US, so they have to drop off passengers at the same port they picked them up at, or it's a $778 fine per passenger, even in a medical emergency. The cruise company will make the passenger pay the fine, of course.
> The Jones Act requires goods shipped between U.S. ports to be transported on ships that are built, owned and operated by United States citizens or permanent residents.
The one thing I never understood was why everyone gets bent out of shape over shipping rules but don’t consider or care about airline cabotage.
Ships are subject to their country's rule and regulations; if a down-on-their-luck country wants to look the other way on environmental hazards or lax operating procedures on a ship, that ship can be run for cheaper than an American ship.
If we didn't have the Jones Act, we'd be hard-pressed to justify having any sort of merchant marine shipping at all -- foreign-flagged ships could undercut even moving stuff up and down the coasts or waterways.
Still, it does come up often, especially during emergencies. For example, when Puerto Rico had trouble getting goods shipped in after Hurricane Maria because there weren't enough US cargo vessels on hand to move cargo from Florida to Puerto Rico. The president at the time was criticized for not rapidly suspending the Jones Act to allow foreign ships to move critical goods.
It does mean places like Puerto Rico can buy things more cheaply internationally than nationally.
Similar to how Amazon (used to) enable sales tax savings by making it easy to buy from out-of-state instead of in-state.
“Can’t” isn’t true.
It’s like saying “Walmart can’t ship goods between its US warehouses and US stores because foreign truckers aren’t allowed to ship interstate”.
If the US had an open registry, there would be US-built LNG ships; there's no shortage of competitive American shipbuilders that make vessels small enough to be exempt. But the Jones Act pissed that away, as protectionist laws invariably do.
Sure excessive heat is an issue, but if my heat goes off when it's 2°F I would likely die within a day or two. Not in practice of course (thanks society!) just in theory. I can withstand 102° heat just fine if water is available and I'm a little careful.
In your own home you should be able to survive those conditions same as 102 — unhappy but safe. I slept outdoors last week end at about 5 F — with more extreme gear but then again no house.
I do believe you shouldn’t have to but If you run out of heating oil (most common in NE) a Combination of blankets, jackets, hat plus soup or other warm food should at least keep you alive.
Not so relevant today. But an interesting thought.
Moved to Hawaii after a blizzard and then to CA. The weather is wonderful here and we can drive up to the snow if we want.
We still need heat in the winter but the temperatures aren't as intense.
I do not Boston though just not the weather.
Fun fact: heating oil is just diesel fuel. I ran out of oil a while before the gas installation and didn’t want to pay for the minimum 150 gallon delivery the local companies required, so I made it through by visiting the local gas station with some gas cans a few times.
Plus air conditioning in the summer is a nice bonus.