Renewable Revolution

Jeff Noordsy 

June 21, 2015 at 7:42 pm


To those who are following the recent cavalcade of commentaries and op/ed pieces favoring the pipeline I’m guessing that you too are taking note that NONE of the proponents are mentioning the cost of the project. Should we not, as taxpayers or ratepayers, consider the costs of a project versus the benefits? That’s certainly what we all do as homeowners, but the gas company is hoping that they will not be scrutinized in this manner. The simple fact is that the gas company is asking (demanding, actually) 40,000 or so already overburdened Vermont taxpayers to write a $154 million dollar check that MIGHT provide service to 3000 Vermont homes. That simply does not make sound economic sense. No matter your feelings about energy in general or natural gas in particular, this project’s costs far exceed the benefits. There’s a reason that the proponents will not speak directly to that issue.



Jane Palmer 

June 21, 2015 at 9:28 pm


While the author of this opinion piece has many impressive credentials, it doesn’t appear she has used any of what she must have learned through her experience in terms of how to filter out hype and propaganda from truth and reality. This piece reads just like a PR release from Vermont Gas. In fact, she uses most of the same phrases and comparisons and statistics. Problem is, she most likely got those so called “facts” directly from Vermont Gas! Forgive me if I am wrong, but she didn’t reference any studies or articles in her opinion piece.
 Everyone is entitled to their opinion…but it would be more interesting to read something someone actually thought about instead of just parroting back what they “learn” from the advertising and press releases from the company that stands to gain from the project.
 As someone who acknowledges climate change and the need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel, Ms Nystrom Meyer should know it makes no sense at all to spend over $154 million to hook up less than 3000 new customers. Since the author lives in Colchester, she should be pressuring VGS to deliver gas to her area and other parts of Chittenden and Franklin Counties that don’t currently have gas but could be hooked up without the insane expense of building a transmission line.


Philip Beliveau 

June 21, 2015 at 9:31 pm


Wow sounds like you just got a new job with Vt gas. Nice job of cherry picking the numbers you like to support the position that lines your pockets. What about the cost of converting furnaces etc? What about the fact that existing customers will be paying for this pipeline? Does that obliterate the savings they have enjoyed? What about that this pipe will cost 180 million to serve 3000 customers? When is the price to high? What about the other states that are experiencing earth quakes and water contamination? Is it ok for Vt to benefit when other states suffer the consequences? Either you know better or you are being paid to look the other way. Sad!



Sally Burrell 

June 21, 2015 at 10:57 pm


We need to discuss methane as well as CO2 when comparing GHG emissions. Methane is 80 times more potent as a Green House Gas than CO2. Extracting natural gas releases a significant amount of methane into the atmosphere and actually makes natural gas a poor choice compared to oil, propane and even coal. VGS customers may have enjoyed better rates in the past, but rates are fluctuating and generally rising. The same savings are no longer available. Many ratepayers will be paying well beyond their means to cover the pipeline if it is built. We were not as aware a decade ago of the overall societal and environmental costs of using fossil fuels. Now that we know better, it doesn’t make sense to put long term infrastructure into the ground for a fuel that causes more destruction, expense and climate chaos for our future. Renewable sources are steadily being developed and implemented around the world. We need to transition to a more sustainable energy system starting now.


Chuck Reiss 

June 21, 2015 at 11:12 pm


Karen Meyer it appears to have decided of the two “solid” arguments the new gas pipeline is the more solid of the two. Based on savings of course. It also appears she has cherry picked her facts to support her argument. Or perhaps she does not have all the facts she needs. Facts like we can and are taking older homes and converting them to renewable energy, by way of conservation, heat pumps and solar pv (on site or community based). Reducing a household’s energy load any where from 80 – 100%. and in some cases making the home owner cash positive on a monthly basis. This is what the comparison should be, not choosing between a polluting and a less polluting fuel source. This type of half analysis is exactly what Vermont Gas is hoping for. They are so far down the path to a fossil fuel dependent future for Vermont, the idea that we actually have alternatives that are really clean and less expensive for the Vermont home owner only wreaks havoc with their corporate model of keeping us dependent on their infrastructure. So lets learn the facts before we sit in judgement of the more solid argument.


Don Peterson 

June 22, 2015 at 8:22 am


Ms Nystrom might have had a long career in public service but she has failed to grasp that the “Public” has changed dramatically. The public can meet and share ideas in ways that were not possible ten years ago. Collective wisdom in this case trumps the status quo.

We expect higher levels of transparency, competence and public utility than perhaps she is used to. It’s a wake up call for bureaucrats everywhere.

Why she would place her weight behind this poorly executed project is a mystery. No doubt someone asked her to help out.


Joel R. Davidson 

June 22, 2015 at 8:35 am


This pipeline project has become to costly to have any benefit to the customers or State taxpayers. Stop it now before we get in too deep to back out. New technologies will soon make propane and natural gas an outdated source of fuel. The solar farms, while unsightly to some will work effectively with hydrogen based system. Fuel cells are a viable option. If the storage and safety concerns can be overcome hydrogen will be the “green” fuel of choice. It is in endless supply here on earth and produces pure water as a byproduct. There is no need for major pipelines and solar energy can help produce large quantities over time that can be stored where produced. Hydrogen fueled cars already exist although efficiency needs improvement. How many readers have not produced hydrogen in a school lab using electrolysis? There are now much more effective methods of producing hydrogen. See links below

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3706/20140225/scientists-discover-cheaper-way-to-make-hydrogen-fuel.htm

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html

Joel


Peter Burmeister 

June 22, 2015 at 11:21 am


Fossil based fuels, including natural gas, are an obsolete technology. To continue to invest in distribution systems at the price of hundreds of millions of dollars, only to be building a 21st century equivalent of an Erie Canal, is absurd. The environmental cost of encouraging the burning of carbon is enormous. Certainly our best minds can find far more viable and less devastating solutions to the problem of home heating during the Vermont winter.

Karen Nystrom Meyer: Solid arguments