If a developer really cared, just pay for the new pipeline with a discount on all gas passing through the pipeline.
I still don’t have gas in my NJ home. My wife says, "Go clean, go gas, go boom." It’s one less bill to pay.
I weep for real estate developers and I weep for the monopolies that are Con Ed and National Grid. A little competition in the market place for energy would be a good thing.
3
Governor Cuomo created this crisis by opting to prioritize internal Democratic party politics over the energy needs and security of New York citizens. Now he wants to blame ConEd rather than admitting he made a mistake.
9
Good we have seen what happens when a utility tries to just do what people want or regulators will approve. Give them the pipelines or live without the gas, your choice. I would like to service everyone that makes more money for a utility I own some shares in, but safety first, last, and always.
3
As one who uses cheap natural gas to heat my home in the winter, heat my water, and cook on my open flame gas range (my wife says she would stop cooking before going back to an electric range), and also uses electricity generated by a nuclear power plant and local wind farms, I and my neighbors are more than pleased that the New York City area will stop using more natural gas. We can turn the natural gas the New York City area uses into propane and sell it to Europe and Asia.
The whole idea of denying new gas pipelines to the area is obviously to force new residential dwellings to use other means of power--non-carbon dioxide generating power such as wind or solar. It will make new buildings more expensive to build and live in , but New York City residents can afford it and the experiment will show us whether large-scale renewable power development from wind and solar is feasible in places with 20 million residents.
2
This moratorium is more than about new buildings. I know the owner of a "kitchen upgrade" business in nearby White Plains. He fears his business will be dead in the water, because a large focus of new kitchen design and installation is the professional style gas stove. ConEd knows how much gas you use now. It can't allow more. And if you want to add a room to your home because you have a) more kids or b) you need to take care of an aging relative, forget it. That's forbidden as well. All the "no gas, no pipeline" extremists in this County, and State, and their political fellow travelers, can take credit for this fiasco. The politicos deserve to be run out office. As for the rest of us, this is just one more nail in the coffin for remaining in New York.
9
Am I missing something here? Why is natural gas essential (as opposed to desireable) for mid-rise residential buildings or townhouses? Electric heat pumps, electric washers and dryers, electric hot water and cooking are all existing technologies in common use in this area. And there are or will be alternative sources of electricity with the various renewables currently being developed.
1
@Jim Sheehan What you are missing is an idea of the scale of renewable generation to power all these appliances.
A dryer uses about 3,000 watts. That’s about 10 standard solar panels with a surface of 17-18 square feet each. A heat pump can use easily five times that, and unfortunately uses maximum power when the sun doesn’t shine. Batteries certainly can’t store that much power without being prohibitively expensive (we are talking 4-5 figures here, and they don’t last forever).
In theory we could control our appliances remotely with smart meters so I don’t dry my clothes when you’re baking a cake in your electric oven, and this way we could need less solar panels, but the technology does not really exist yet, so the amount of solar panels needed for a single building of 40 apartments is ridiculously high. You can pretend that your building is energy-neutral because you produce as much power in the summer as you need in the winter, but it only works because other people use gas in the winter and buy your power in the summer. It doesn’t work if everybody does it.
Ask people with remote cabins, RVs or boats: you can charge your phone with solar panels, run your lights, a TV and maybe an efficient fridge, but in most climates you can’t keep your (small) place cool or warm with them, let alone run washing machines, dryers, or cooking appliances.
6
We need to provide incentives to make heat pumps and Passive House standards more competitive.
@EdBx Well-insulated houses are already competitive. Add a double-flow central air with a heat exchanger, and that's pretty much most savings done already: you don't need much heating or cooling then.
We are better off encouraging more new-built (removing obstacles to construction does not cost much) that is so much more energy-efficient than the existing stock, rather than trying to throw ever-more money for the small energy savings of heat-pump vs efficient boilers.
Curently we could be energy self sufficient but aren't. We developed and drilled for nat gas and oil domestically using the "stop the imports from the Mid East" mantra. this turned out to be a lie. We are doing it for $$$$, nothing more. We currently are importing oil from the Mid East all the while we have built several nat ga exporting facilities and are shipping it to Eastern Europe, Japan, and other countries all the while ignoring our own needs. Developers in Yonkers are saying it takes away the choice for consumers thereby increasing greenhouse gases? Such stupid reasoning. We can thank George Bush and Cheney for this, and their connections to the big oil and nat.gas industries.
1
I'm a lifelong progressive, but wow, I cringe when so many people here in my beloved Woodstock show a lack of knowledge and practicality about energy generation. Many want existing nuclear plants shut down, when that major carbon-free source has actually proven quite safe. Ask anyone how many died in the Three Mile Island "disaster" or in the Fukushima "disaster," and few will correctly answer "not even one person." While, meanwhile, 12,000 people annually die of lung diseases caused by coal. They also are anti-fracking, when that method actually has a good safety record, and that fuel's low cost is the single biggest reason our nation went from 50% coal-fired electric generation to just 35% coal in this past decade. So of course, renewables are the future. But jeez, keep nuclear and natural gas going until we reach that day in, hopefully, the not-too-distant future.
15
Every new natural gas pipeline makes a clear statement. Whatever 300 comment writers may say about their commitment to dealing with global warming, most of them very likely cannot imagine switching to renewable non-fossil fuel systems.
-
Why do I make this assertion? I recently had a well received comment setting forth the renewable energy systems that dominate in Sweden. Then I asked readers including those who supported my comment this question:
How is your living and work space heated and cooled?
Not a one answered that question. I wonder if the absence of answers reflects a committment to natural gas at home and in power plants.
The Times is also culpable. Not a single columnist, even those said to have some interest in dealing with climate change can give readers a single column informing them about energy systems in the Nordic countries. To make matters worse, Times International had a column in September 2018 by Amy Yee with this title: "In Sweden, Trash Heats Homes, Powers Buses and Fuels Taxi Fleets " She was writing about the system in place in my city, Linköping, a system I write about often. She did not seem to understand it very well, and her article was directed to the wrong set of readers, Europeans who already know. I will be correcting that article at my blog.
No pipelines, no more natural gas.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
3
They certainly put the "con" in Con Edison.
Heating/cooking seem to be the big stumbling blocks. We can make enough electricity through wind and solar to meet our needs, but not to heat buildings and cook food.
What is the solution for those needs?
1
I hope Con Ed’s cynical ploy backfires. During this moratorium, bring on the geothermal contractors, the passive house experts, the heat pump and solar installers. Wait till people find out how much cheaply they can heat and cool their houses while also making air cleaner and helping to dial down climate change.
Sorry, fossil fuel folks, your time is up.
1
"Mike Spano, the mayor of Yonkers, fears that the moratorium will endanger development that he says is creating housing and jobs and helping revitalize his city."
Make that 'ruining his city.' Certainly not revitalizing, Mayor Spano.
The beautiful Larkin Plaza area in the photo, which sweeps down to the river has its views blocked and marred by a behemoth of an ugly apartment building, which is visible in the photo, outsizing the Minuteman statue in the foreground.
That scenario, which benefits only greedy developers, is happening all over the city. The riverside was meant to be accessible to Yonkers residents. Now it's clogged and blocked off by these towers and not accessible, not even visible as the background of a Hudson River city.
3
To think that solar and wind will replace natural gas as an NRG source is loony.
5
Just curious...what heat source is the Governor currently using in Mount Kisco?
4
@Mike KonopskiThat is a great question! Not sure about the Guv's house, but I do know that he is using 3 natural gas plants to replace Indian Point Nuclear. Here's the WSJ article and the verbage due to needing a WSJ subscription to see the whole article - Wall Street Journal article - https://www.wsj.com/articles/andrew-cuomos-wind-farm-wont-fly-without-fracking-1526679929 that indicates how Indian Point will be replaced: “If Indian Point closes as scheduled, the New York Independent Systems Operators (NYISO) expects its output will be replaced by electricity from three gas-fired plants now under construction, including the 678-megawatt CPV Valley Energy Center in Wawayanda, N.Y., the 1,020-megawatt Cricket Valley Energy Center in Dover, N.Y., and a 120-megawatt addition to the Bayonne Energy Center in New Jersey.“ Looks like Andy deplores wind and solar but LOVES natural gas.
6
This article supported ConEdison's efforts, rather than discussing how all-electric homes and businesses are being built instead of new gas lines. My house is all-electric, and my cold climate heat pump (a developer called it a "green energy technology" for space heating) keeps my house warm all winter. This is much ado about nothing.
3
I am probably missing something but with natural gas unavailable to new customers, shouldn’t we expect the Westchester developers to opt for heating systems fueled by oil? Somewhat more expensive and more carbon-intensive but...proven and reliable? Presumably, when and if pipelines are developed down the line, conversion from fuel oil to natural gas is a well-trod path?
3
@John McMahon Last week, the Public Service Commission just announced a $250 million Clean Energy Plan for Westcester County. Why don't these developers take advantage of these clean energy incentives?
1
I think it is b/c the alternatives are unproven/unreliable/maybe expensive. Real estate developers want certainty, if their project fails, it is really, really really bad for them. So they will seek to minimize uncertainty. There are sound reasons to opt for alternatives including marketing but I’d go tried and true.
1
We need to impose a moratorium on new fossil infrastructure and phase out current fossil fuels. Climate catastrophe will cost an awful lot more than this Con Ed moratorium.
There are technological alternatives to expansion of gas for building heating in energy efficiency, building design/passive solar, geothermal heat pumps, and electrification powered by renewables
2
@Bill WolfeMr. Wolfe: please be advised that the U.S. Energy Information Administration is predicting that, nationally, natural gas usage is going to increase from 25% by 2025 to 39% by 2050 - https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/ You must begin to disregard all the propaganda that is being thrown around and pay attention to the science and reality. Because AOC says the world will end by 2031 does not make it so. If we as a nation are going to increase our usage of nat gas to 39% by 2050, what in the world is governor Cuomo thinking that by NY going to 100% renewables is going to achieve?
6
Con Ed is trying to panic the public into approving more fracked gas pipelines to deliver gas that we don't need, and their customers would get stuck with the bill, paying back the cost to manufacture the pipeline plus a tidy 14% profit for the company's coffers. The FERC (federal regulators)approve such projects based on need, and if Con Ed signs a contract with the pipeline company, that's considered sufficient proof of need, whether or not the numbers actually add up. Here's what does add up: if we improved energy efficiency, we'd create good jobs that will last throughout the next decades while we prepare for the coming challenges of existing and evolving climate instability, we'd save so much energy (and of course money) that the new developments would be well-supplied, and we'd be able to invest in more renewables and battery storage, both of which are also growing and evolving at a rapid pace. What is needed is for our Governor to make good on his claims to take the state to a greener and safer future, to get us off fossil fuels, to support the remedies of efficiency and renewable energy, and to let go of past alliances with the gas industry that threaten us with a hostile climate and a polluted, depleted planet. Read "False Demand: The Case Against the Williams Pipeline", by 350.org and written by a former DEC official, proving that the argument for need for the gas in National Grid's customer base is specious. Worth a read by all gas consumers across the country.
13
@JK Canepa - I filed a comment saying the same thing you say and then discovered your comment just below the enter comment box.
No more natural gas pipelines.
Do not heat your house with natural gas.
Do not look to your, even my, governor (I vote absentee in Monroe County).
He vetoed construction of a solid-waste incinerator not apparently because he knew anything about but probably because he knows nothing about the use of that technology in its most advanced form, right here in Linköping, Sweden.
My blog shows examples of advanced systems.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
I learned from being on the board of my coop that Con Ed already rations gas. Buildings in nyc apparently operate on a dual fuel basis - gas until the temp drops to a certain level (24 degrees maybe?) and then a switch over to a backup supply of heating oil. We buy a tank of oil to get us through those very cold nights.
2
We’ll see soon enough if Con Ed can get away with this. The lawsuits are coming. The irony here is that I’m old enough to remember the huge push decades ago to switch from oil to clean gas heat by Con Ed. In the 1980’s these commercials were ubiquitous. Now they say they can’t supply the product? Can you say bait and switch?
20
@Mike L
Just look at all the new development in the last 20 years. Westchester did not have all the new big high-rise towers and development in the 1980's. You can't expect existing infrastructure to supply new development without a increase in capacity. It's basic math.
29
@Mike L Or over regulation, natural gas is way better for everyone than fuel oil.
4
New York doesn't need more gas supply, it just needs to update old gas lines that leak 2-5 percent of the gas flowing through them. And it needs to mandate that old buildings update their boilers, replace windows, add insulation. Landlords are too shortsighted to update their buildings even when improvements would pay for themselves.
Cheap gas won't be cheap forever, especially if New York wants to maintain its ban on fracking.
52
@Tom
Making existing infrastructure more efficient would be a great way to ensure gas for new customers. The utilities, government and RE developers should support the creation of energy efficiency offsets. For example, a developer with a proposed project could help fund a program to modernize existing buildings with very enticing incentives. Then use the energy saved offset to attain the right to secure gas supply for a new building in a state of the art, efficient way. This would encourage a public/private initiative to seek out sites for modernization and motivate those existing building owners to become more efficient with incentives and peer pressure.
3
@Tom - Better yet, it should end the use of natural gas. Almost all structures in my Swedish city, Linköping, are heated by hot water piped from advanced technology solid-waste incinerators. There are no natural gas pipelines.
That system ranks as about 85% renewable. In addition, one of the very best renewable energy systems is in widespread use here, ground-source geothermal heat pump, and also a variety of small-unit heat pump systems.
I left fossil fuel when I left the USA and can state categorically from 22 years experience that the systems in use here are superior to anything I had to put up with in the USA.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
3
@Dan I don’t understand why you would want the developers to fund anything? If anything, new developments are a solution, not an issue: the buildings they build are already much more efficient than the existing housing stock, just because very good insulation is cheap to install while the existing stock is often very bad in that regards.
If we want a program to modernize existing buildings, why not do it with tax money instead, instead of paying a developer to do it, hoping that the system is designed well enough so they don’t just take advantage of it?
Either the program costs money and there is no reason for the developers to bear that cost, or it pays for itself and we might as well do it with tax money. You are imagining a complex system for no reason here.
1
I wonder if this reporter has read the reports put out by environmental organizations like 350.org about how ConEd's argument is totally unsound and this moratorium is creating a false sense of panic??
1
The Times should do a follow-up article about the move to ban gas hookups in the UK and California, and the advances in electric heat technologies. Electric heat pumps are practical and affordable now, so all-electric buildings are feasible. With New York state planning to go all renewable for electricity, it's time to start converting buildings to use that zero-emission power rather than fracked and leaky natural gas.
For example: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/2/15/18224470/california-climate-policy-decarbonize-building-sector
1
@Ben Paulos Heat pumps do not work when temperatures go below 20 degrees, which happens much more often in New York than in the UK and California.
People can use a gas backup, but then you don’t decrease the need for pipelines (since these are sized to provide enough gas for the coldest temperatures of the year).
Usually people would use an electric heating backup, but then you need power plants to run harder… on gas. And gas power plants are much less efficient at generating heat than gas boilers, so you would need actually more gas (and hence more pipelines). Unfortunately the sun doesn’t shine very hard when temperatures are at their lowest, and you can’t rely on wind to provide power, nor on batteries (the amount of batteries needed to heat a home even for an hour is prohibitively large).
4
See the future of socialist New York and the Green Deal we have plenty of natural gas but our governor in an effort to appease the radical left banned fracking and pipelines in New York instead he gave us the buffalo billions and casinos. Well AOC did say people should stop having kids to help the environment so in a couple of years we won't need any housing or gas. Keep voting democratic New York
2
What is missing in this article are the many alternative energy building strategies that developers can take. How about a zero net energy development ? Just to state the old dogma ‘alternative energy is not reliable ‘ is so 1980sh. There are options these day. Just talk to a resent graduated architect.
2
@Judge There is no need to generate electrical energy where it is used, because it is transported easily. Quite the opposite: it is much cheaper to build photovoltaic or wind power generation outside of big cities.
Therefore, why would you put the responsibility of building these on the developers’ shoulders? Their job is to build housing, not manage power generation.
3
Too bad this isn't happening in Queens so AOC could claim a "green victory."
2
The smart developer would build to Passive House standards and laugh at her competitors on the way to the bank.
3
This sounds like a great implementation of Green New Deal style policies. AOC and company should take note. Blanket moratoriums on fossil fuel usage would do wonders for lowering carbon emissions, let's just not worry about how people will continue to live when we ban all fossil fuels.
1
I would rather try and move to renewables now and fail than ignore the environmental burden our business-as-usual lifestyle places on future generations. Failure often leads to some innovation that was not thought of initially. Whatever labels we like to put on people - liberal, progressive, hipster, greenie - we all need to look in the mirror and put the opposite on ourselves. The party is over, it's time to clean up.
The problem with heat pumps is that they don’t solve the capacity problem: the need for pipelines depends less on the overall consumption than on peak consumption. If you can provide enough gas for peak consumption you can provide gas all year long, but if you can’t you have a big issue because you don’t want to have to stop providing gas when it is the most needed.
You can save a lot of energy with environment-friendly (and economically-efficient) solutions such as heat pumps and solar heaters (a simple black water tank can heat up water a lot when in the sun). But you’ll save on overall consumption, not on capacity: unfortunately heat pumps (just like solar heaters) do not work well during peak consumption, which is when the temperatures are at their coldest. A heat pump takes heat from the outside air and brings it inside: therefore when it is very cold out it will have to run very hard without providing much heat. It is basically a fridge which only heats up the inside as it cools down the outside: how much cooler than -20 outside do you think it can get?
2
The solution is very simple: stop the development in that part of the state, unless renewable energy is primarily used for any new development. We cannot continue this over reliance on this form of energy.
4
@Isle But this is where the jobs are.
No new development means sky high property values and rents, making inequality worse.
3
@I Shall Endure Eventually, the development must stop because of a lack of space to develop, and so, what will we do then? Then might be now.
@NYTimes: Interesting story! Question: Are all or most of the affected building projects rentals, or are they condominiums? That can make a big difference, especially for who pays the heating bill year after year. When making the decision how well to insulate and how economical it is to heat a building, it all depends on who pays for heating. Almost universally, if the occupants pay, the heating solution will be the cheapest possible, i.e. just to barely comply with regulations. That makes economical sense from the builder's perspective: keeps costs down, and most buyers look at price, not the high long-term costs of a lower efficiency heating system when they look for a place.
1
Hmmm, what happened to private industry being more efficient than government. Seems that this private utility didn't hear about the need to plan ahead. New York and every other state needs to move to renewable fuels and get rid of these dinosaurs that prioritize greed over the future of the planet. The utility company in California that was responsible for the horribly destructive fires in that state went bankrupt because it didn't take care of it's power lines. All to save a few bucks to increase their bottom line.
5
@susan abrams. Government regulations control the construction of pipelines. This is corporate efficiency - forcing government to get out of the way.
6
@susan abrams It’s not about greed: the utility does not care whether it spends 100 on pipelines or 100 on heat pumps, because in the end the tariffs are defined so it gets 100 from the consumers to pay for it.
It is not about public vs private either, because the plans from the company need to be approved by the (public) regulator. Obviously we don’t let private companies deal with such important topics without supervision…
I can see two possible problems here in the public/private issue: either the public (the utility regulator + whoever is involved in that kind of decisions) is giving conflicting instructions: build enough gas capacity so everyone in this region can ask for a gas connection to heat their home (which is pretty standard as far as regulators go), but we don’t want more gas use. If that is the case, the utility is not at fault.
The other possibility is that there are solutions that the utility just ignored (incompetence would be the main cause) against the regulator’s instructions, and therefore it is at fault.
The article does not allow us to go one way or the other: we don’t know if there was another possible way for the pipeline that would have cause less environmental stress. We don’t know if heat pumps and environmentally-friendly solutions are an option, because I’m sure the utility considered it but I don’t know why they decided against it (I suspect because it would not work).
2
@LHP. To me it looks like an extortion scheme. Your comment also ignores the dangers the original commenter pointed to when energy companies are negligent in maintaining their equipment. Google the ITC fires that have been spewing toxic substances into the air and waterways since Saturday. Today they are spewing out benzene.
Seems like the perfect time to force the developers to do the right thing. "Market forces", "competition" and all that. Why does everyone assume that the developers deserve our help in any of this?
Or, even better, why don't we just NOT build these towers? Plant some trees instead. Don't the present residents of these suburbs deserve some consideration?
10
@laurence The reason why we build these towers is because people need somewhere to live. The fact that these towers would not remain empty means that there is a need.
By the way if you don’t build the towers, the people who would have lived in them still exist, and still need a place to live (and still need gas to heat up their place). I’m sure the locals don’t care about these people and would rather have trees instead, but if we viewed the problem this way we would never build anywhere.
It does not mean we need to help developers in any way, but providing access to utilities is not considered a help. It’s just standard (the locals have access to gas after all, don’t they?).
6
@Bob Robert,
My question stands. Don't the present residents deserve ANY consideration.
People want to move into towers next to the train stations so they don't need to interact with a community. They can hop out of bed and zip right down to their jobs in the city.
Perhaps if there were no towers the companies involved would be forced to find somewhere else to do business. And perhaps in that way the emptying out of the country side would start to turn around. And all those disappearing towns would be rejuvenated and people would start commuting every which way, from one suburb to another exurb. And the traffic problems and the housing problems (including the outrageous costs) would start to solve themselves.
And, just maybe, people would learn to enjoy saying "hello" to their neighbors again.
Just a dream some of us have.
@laurence I don’t know what you mean by consideration to the residents. If what you mean is that maybe we shouldn’t build because that is what they would prefer, then no, we should not do that.
People want to move into towers next to the train stations because it is more convenient than moving far from the train station, when you need to go to the train station in the morning. That is quite normal to build more housing in these places since you might have noticed that places with easy commutes are quite rare in NYC. I don’t know why you are bringing the community into that.
Now perhaps if we don’t do anything, things will go better by themselves. Good luck with that. Actually not building housing where people need it is what we have done for decades, and the result is not that people start moving out in the countryside or in disappearing towns, or stop using their cars. What they do is that they cram themselves in the ever-tinier existing housing stock, pay more money for it, live farther away from their work, and drive more, not less. And the rat race that we have created by listening to locals who don’t want new housing next to THEIR neighborhood has not been very conducive to people saying hello.
2
There is no gas shortage in New York. The proof has been meticulously outlined in the just-released report "False Demand: The Case Against the Williams Fracked Gas Pipeline" (link below), which deals with National Grid's claims in particular and which will tell you everything you need to know about this “game of chicken.” Heat pumps are not “too fancy or too creative,” as the developer puts it. St. Patrick’s Cathedral is powered by heat pumps, which, as NYSERDA has shown, could address 43 percent of the thermal heat load on Long Island and 38 percent of the thermal heat load from small residential housing in New York City. And, of course, the article makes no mention of the fact that natural gas is largely methane, a greenhouse gas 86 times more powerful in the short term than Co2. When just 3.2% of methane leaks—and gas infrastructure is known to leak as much as 11%—methane is as bad for the climate as burning coal. The utilities are holding business and real estate hostage with these false claims because they’re desperate to preserve their antiquated business model, which relies on the fuel of the past. Don’t fall for these scare tactics.
False Demand: The Case Against the Williams Fracked Gas Pipeline
https://350.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Stop_Williams_False_Demand.pdf
Trust Us: Manufacturing a Panic for Pipelines and Profit
https://drive.google.com/file/d/110OKMECsnIq0h05iiyEj2ZjYVB6kKnD3/view
7
@Robert Wood Heat pumps can work for individuals (such as your cathedral), because they can always use the power grid for backup when it is too cold out and the pumps don’t work anymore (or as a cathedral, you can just remain cold and ask people to keep their coats on, or shut down entirely; not an option for people’s homes).
On a grid-basis this can’t work, because you can’t expect everyone to use the power grid as backup at the same time, especially when the power plants run on gas (and are much less efficient than gas heaters) anyway.
Pipelines are sized to peak capacity needs, and heat pumps do not provide much at peak need, because the colder it is out the less heat they can provide.
2
@Robert WoodA link to 350.org may as well be a link to the National Inquirer. The founder of 350.org is Bill McKibben, a fanatical anti fossil fuel hater who in all likely hood has a lot of investments in renewable energy corporations. An outstanding article on Mr. Mckibben - https://naturalgasnow.org/rockefeller-dirty-trickster-bill-mckibben-whines-tricks/
1
@Bob Robert The state itself apparently disagrees with you, my friend. NYSERDA itself just announced the $250 million Westchester Clean Energy Investment Program, which will offer $165 million in grants that will go directly towards the installation of heat pumps (and other things) in Westchester in direct response to Con Edison's false claims. Also, newer air source heat pump models are incredibly effective at 5 degrees F, with lower limit temperatures as low as -13 degrees F. See the 350.org report linked to above for more info.
this is the kind of industry overreach that is going to end fossil fuels dominance sore than later. Here in Colorado we've had an oil and gas industry that dumps drilling rigs next to school playgrounds and in peoples front yards. Well, colorado is about to pull back on the reins and regulate the industry in a manner that allows local control and focus on safety and environment rather than development of the "resource". You over play your hand an eventually the little folks get pissed off. Industry is going to regret the day it ignored the concerns of Coloradans. Soon that will be the case across this nation. Fossil Fuels need to die. Let's help them along. Don't give in to Con Ed and developers. Make them shift technologies.
8
Wonder if the climate change hipsters will now start to figure out their nonsense has consequence?
I doubt it. NY State sits on millions of dollars worth of natural gas and refuses to drill for it. Better to import it from Russia?
This is almost like a death wish. Is there any wonder the city with the most out migration in New York?
No.
14
@Sparky Jones You don’t produce gas, you only extract it. If you don’t extract it, it will still be there if and when it actually becomes difficult to find gas. When and if gas becomes scarce one day, you don’t want to have already extracted all your resources for a quick buck and have to rely on Russia.
@Sparky Jones You might want to read up on the oil and gas business before commenting.
1
@Sparky Jones: I think you may be getting NYC and NY State mixed up. Also, outmigration is not the same as a loss in total population—plus you're not accounting for percentages of population compared to other states.
Even so, the city's population is still growing given new immigrants and births. The population of New York State overall has gone down slightly, but that isn't because of metro NYC.
https://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-migration-northeast-population-trend.html
https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/upstate-population-drop-continues-46-of-62-ny-counties-down-since-2010/
Looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. Terrible luddite-esq policies from simple minded politicians has put the brakes on economic increases.
4
NY should call Con Ed's bluff. Every time we exhale, our bodies are preventing an overdose of CO2 in our bodies. Meanwhile we've increased atmospheric CO2 by 40%, and have made the oceans 25% more acidic. Nature cannot "exhale" the massive amount of extra CO2 our machines are pouring into the air. If our bodies were as unregulated as our economy, we'd be dead. Sure, fossil fuels are more dependable than solar or wind, which is to say that burning fossil fuels will dependably sabotage our collective future. Think about that. Our need for dependability is dependably sabotaging a livable planet for those who will follow us. Nowhere in the article is there any mention of the need for conservation, or any need for personal sacrifice in order to have more people in the world. Also, for all of the pessimists with a low opinion of American resourcefulness, who think we are so hopelessly incompetent that we must continue to carry the albatross of fossil fuel around our necks, necessity is the mother of invention. It's a comment on our collective impotence, born of anti-government ideology, that Con Ed is the one that is creating some scintilla of necessity.
11
Hey, NYT, here's a thought: Every story that touches on climate change -- be it from pipeline expansion to car sales to town planning -- should start with these two statistics:
1. Our own government scientists anticipate that the earth will warm by 7 degrees by 2100. (See the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration environmental impact statement on fuel standards from 2018)
2. That level of warming would cost $551 trillion in damage to the world economy -- more than all wealth currently in existence. (See "Risks associated with global warming
of 1.5°C or 2°C" from the University of East Anglia's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research)
I mean, you could also add in all the stuff of about ecosystem collapse too.
Anyway, just a thought!
20
Where is the long term plan to get Con Eds East Village gas plant off fossile fuel on renewable fuel and supplemented by wind, tidal, solar, etc? Where is the medium term plan to make the IPCC latest 1.5o target, let alone the the Paris accord targets that our Mayor and Governor claimed they would make, considering the federal government has rescinded?
4
@Paul Bill Gates says renewables are JUNK - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xe3BWPsBTU&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1DVL3RTEcH511OYusnRTjmASOgh0mdWXHKQeA4azLQQOzPzAgd_rn4CRs Starting at 20 seconds into the video, Mr. Gates states: “Here’s Tokyo, you have 27 million people you have three days of cyclone basically every year. It’s twenty Gigawatts rate over three days. You know, tell me what battery solution is going to provide that power? I mean, let’s not jerk around, you’re multiple orders of magnitude, oh a hundred dollars per Kilowatt hour, that’s nothing. That doesn’t solve the reliability problem. And remember electricity is twenty five percent of green - house gas emissions. Wherever we came up with this term clean energy, I think it screwed up people’s minds, now they don’t understand.”
This story cracks me up. No to fracking, no to transmission lines, no to everything. What could go wrong. Is it just me that thinks we not very intelligent leaders. If you don't want to grow just say so. But if you do you should be aware of your actions because they have consequences.
4
@Mike Says the guy from Idaho who will suffer no direct environmental impact from things that go on in NY. Hop a plane down to Deer Park in Houston today. Rent a nearby motel room. Oh, you can't because the entire city of Deer Park is under lockdown due to benzene releases by an irresponsible chemical company whose facility has been on fire since Saturday. Yes, actions have consequences.
2
Rocky Mountain Institute is a green energy think tank that is well respected across the US. To reduce carbon emissions they recommend moving residential heating and cooling to electric heat pump technology. Highly efficient mini-split heat pumps are one option. Geothermal heat pumps are another option. A google spin-out called Dandelion Energy is selling a low cost geothermal system.
14
In Brazil, many, if not most, people power their stoves with propane cylinders. Some are so used to this method that they resist gas hookups for their buildings when it comes up as an option.
2
@Brian Propane is much more expensive than natural gas, because handling cylinders from the bottling plant to the consumer is much less practical than piping it (as long as you have enough demand to fill the pipes, which is obviously the case for a city the size of New York with large heating needs).
It is also much more dangerous, because it is more prone to leaks (because of the manipulations to change the bottles), leaks themselves are more dangerous because propane sinks (it is much heavier than air) and therefore doesn’t vent out as easily as natural gas, and it can only be cut out at the bottle when there is a fire.
Not to mention the issues of storing and transporting bottles in a crowded city.
3
@Brian Propane is the most expensive ways of using a natural gas product for domestic consumption possible.
4
@Brian (part 1 of 2): Natural gas trunk-pipelines are like commercial airline travel in a way. Incredibly safe statistically but highly susceptible to risk-ignorant hysteria thanks to human emotional responses to vivid images. A natural aversion to fireballs probably doesn't help either ;) But seriously, and I'm not knocking the good people of Brazil, have you not also noticed that pipelines need to be situated in areas/societies where the rule-of-law is strong? Or else the threat of prosecustion is not taken lightly? It almost doesn't even matter what commodity is being 'piped.' People will tap the tube and steal the contents if they think they understand the risks and won't get caught.
2
Move to Texas. It's got more gas than it knows what to do with, and its got a lot of smart people, too.
3
@george eliotTexas does have an adequate supply of natural gas, but it also has the most wind power development in the United States. So, the smart people in Texas understand the problem and are addressing it. The people than the Northeast should do the same. Heat pumps are more efficient and more environmentally friendly in heating with natural gas. We need to get rid of fossil-based fuels. Great place to start is Westchester County. Let’s build wind farms out at sea and mandate stringent standards to minimize energy needs for heating. You don’t need to burn fossil fuel to heat or cool our nation.
4
@George eliot Yes, move to Texas where there is no environmental oversight. Eat some Gulf Oysters now that benzene is spilling into the Houston Ship Channel. Come breathe the air!
1
Electric heat?
1
@Heather Jordan
Electric heat is extremely inefficient because you have to use energy at the power plant to generate heat that spins a turbine which generates the electricity so you can transport it to a home. Then at the home you have to turn the electricity back into heat again through resistance coils. It's much more efficient to use the energy source at someone's home to directly create the heat in the first place.
20
@Peter actually at th epoint of use, electricity is 100% efficient. Gas only about 95-97% and that's only with modern appliances not to mention the dangers that goes with nat gas. PG&E nat gas explosion a few years back anyone?
The NIMBYs of NYC are getting what they deserve. Quit whining. You don’t want drilling, you don’t want pipelines. You don’t want solar farms near you even if you had sunshine. You don’t want windmills as they obscure the view. Sit in the cold and dark.
31
@EdSuperb reply!!!!
Gross mismanagement on all levels is the norm, here. Call it a free-for-all, business-as-usual for these players. There's hostage taking, lack of oversight and profit-taking, but no organized effort to improve the public infrastructure in a thoughtful, well managed manner, over time.
Reactionary impulses will drive the urban northeast into severe conditions. Top down reforms from federal, state and local should be on going efforts, because a one-time grand plan is impossible. It's not a pretty picture, as a nation, we are in real trouble.
3
If someone buys a gasoline car, it will be with us about 15 years and have little value after about half of that, but a gas-burning building will last decades and mostly retain or increase in value. New buildings can use electricity, not gas, to take advantage of increasingly greener energy production over its lifetime.
A green future requires using electricity for home heating and cooking. This seems like a fine place to make a step in that direction. A pipeline is the opposite.
12
@Alan. Actually, electricity has its own environmental issues. Solar panels and wind cannot generate enough to sustain large cities. Creation of hydro-electricity by dams has its own inherent problems as there aren't many natural Niagara Falls around. For example, the James Bay Hyrdo-Electric Project in northern Quebec has flooded over 11,000 sq. kilometres (4,250 sq. miles - Connecticut is 5,544 sq. miles in size for comparison) of virgin boreal forest making it the second largest man-made deforestation in the Americas after the destruction of the Amazon. And don't forget these large dams give off methane gas for decades.
17
@Alan--Electricity is a fine energy source. But for the foreseeable future, most of it will be made with gas, coal, or oil. Converting that type of energy to electricity and then converting it back to heat is a very inefficient process. Burning the fuel where the heat is needed is much more efficient, and therefore, less damaging to the environment.
12
@AlanDid you know that the land disturbance multiplier for the still under construction 22.5 acre, 1,100,000,000 watt natural gas Cricket Valley Energy Center in Dover, NY is 1 while the multiplier for the 22.5 acre 5,200,000 watt Broome County Solar Farm at 399 Corporate Parkway in Conklin, NY is 212? That means that it takes 212 Broome Solar Farms to generate the same 1.1 gigawatts of electricity that a single 22.5 acre natural gas fired Cricket Valley plant generates. That also means that a solar array to generate 1,100,000,000 watts takes up 4,714 acres vs the 22.5 acres for the Cricket Valley Energy Center. Do you really want "green" energy given the fact that Cricket Valley can deliver power 24 / 7 while a solar array puts out ZERO at night and when snow covered and is decreased by as much as 80% on a cloudy day? Cricket Valley also generates enough power for 1,000,000 homes and the Broome Solar Farm can supply 567 homes. Here's the links with all the data - https://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/2018/07/18/broome-county-expects-new-solar-farm-conklin-save-140-k-year/796205002/ AND from the Poughkeepsie Journal - https://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/tech/science/environment/2018/05/30/cricket-valley-energy-center-target-2020-open/600143002/
2
But isn't this what progressive NY wants? No fossil fuels. Looks like Con Ed is just helping you along sooner. After all, the DEMs are saying we are all toast in 12 years anyway. By the way, renewables are not reliable in a somewhat northern climate. Germany, the old darling of green, went solar and wind as they shut down their nuclear. Then they found out it couldn't meet demand - something about it's not windy enough and the sun doesn't shine all the time. So since 2010, Germany has built over 20 new coal fired electricity plants burning lignite or brown coal (the worst). So, be careful what you wish for.
34
The Germans are an example of what not to do. We are not obligate to poison people with diesel exhaust or retire nuclear plants early while we claim to be concerned about climate change.
Technology improves, sometimes rapidly. A building that uses electricity can change its underlying energy source over its lifetime without its occupants even noticing. In contrast, once someone sinks the costs of a pipeline and builds a building with gas heat, it will be a very hard decision to reverse.
2
@Charlie Starkman, this is a bald-faced lie. Coal consumption has fallen in Germany since 2010. Not enough, true, but it has not risen. See https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts
5
@Charlie Starkman Far more options exist, with careful planning that would not result in more pollution.
1
It's time for us to start looking at alternative energy sources such solar and wind. We need to develop ways to roll these out to large scale developments. When will we take our heads out of the sand? The problem is not going to solve itself.
9
@E.A. At this point in its development renewable energy, solar and wind generation, are not reliable. They are intermittent sources. They only produce electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows. Because of this they can't follow the change in electric demand on the system. There needs to be developed an efficient method of large scale storage of electricity for renewable sources to become reliable, follow the changing electric demand and replace conventional fossil fuel generation.
Because of this the system still needs generation such as gas fired units whose output can be adjusted to meet the electric demand on the system.
6
A good example of where the tire meets the road or is this political brinkmanship?
Energy monopolies, consumer demand, climate changes and a country that worried more about money than long term planning and correcting environmental damage. Warnings before but certainly clearly identified with the advent of Earth day 1970. Nearly 50 years of stone walling, denying the truth, and failing to plan.
15
The gas industry has FERC approval to build a 48 inch liquified gas pipeline ( the Penneast pipeline)across Pennsylvania and New Jersey directly to Trenton, where gas will be shipped to Europe by tankers. They are motivated by profit not supplying the domestic market and will create spot shortages to get their way.
28
Never-ending development and population expansion is unsustainable. This is just a symptom of that truth.
46
I totally agree.
6