View the article’s original source
Author: Charley on the MTA
Kinder Morgan announced its intent to build its gas pipeline through New England, despite not having sufficient orders to make it profitable. Why? Is this in order to make it seem like a fait accompli in order to gin up more orders and discourage local opposition? Are they really that committed to an old-industrial white elephant for all of us to enjoy? It’s really hard to figure.
Two things to consider:
- Do we actually need it? Considering how much gas we waste due to end-point inefficiencies and leaks from our old infrastructure, that’s a really open question, so to speak.
- Is the pipeline gas for us? The Acadia Center did an analysis that found that if that gas is headed east to foreign markets, prices could actually go up. Depends on with whom you’re competing for gas, doesn’t it?
- Gas is not, not, not, preferable to coal in the timeframe relevant to climate. Ask MIT clean energy expert Jessika Trancik:
… Trancik and one of her graduate students developed a new metric for assessing GWP [Global Warming Potential] that accounts for how far out that target “stabilization year” is and thus reflects the increasing urgency of our situation. With their metric, the benefits of natural gas decreaseover time as we get closer and closer to the point of no return. “At current methane leakage rates, about half the advantage of natural gas over coal is lost within two decades,” Trancik says, meaning however good natural gas looks compared to coal now, it’ll look only half as good in 20 years.
So we don’t need it + they can’t sell enough to make it worthwhile = PROFIT?
Surely I’m missing something.