The January 22, 2020 Bangor Daily News Op Ed from Tony Marple in support of the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) project strains all credulity.
The claim that the No NECEC opposition is funded by the fossil fuel industry is nothing but a conspiracy theory promoted by a well-funded, Pro NECEC group headed by a well-paid and well-known political operative. The truth is that the NO NECEC opposition is a grass roots effort funded by individual donors.
Scientific information from Bradford Hager, an earth scientist at MIT, and research by Washington State University, has proven that hydro power, especially from the shallow headwaters of Hydro Quebec, is not clean energy and may exceed the CO2 output of energy produced by fossil fuel sources. The Massachusetts Attorney General, acting as the Public Advocate for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has continued her action against the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, claiming that hydro power purchased from Hydro Quebec will replace hydro power beyond New England with energy produced by fossil fuel sources.
Comparing on an equivalent basis small-scale logging operations and cross-country ski trails to a 300-foot-wide by 53-mile-long clear cut, in which forest growth will be suppressed by herbicide and contain thousands of 100-foot-high transmission towers, is especially egregious. The forests of the western Maine mountains are not entirely pristine, but they are typical of our beautiful Maine forests. The trees grow back to shelter an abundance of wildlife and native brook trout.
If Tony Marple believes that transferring hydro power from Quebec to Massachusetts is critical in reversing climate change, then he should support the competing transmission corridor in Vermont, New England Clean Power Link, that would be much more sensitive to the environment.
John Nicholas
Winthrop
The suggestion that greenhouse gas emissions remain as high as coal, or even natural gas, fired power plants is just plain wrong. While they do spike in the years immediately following construction, as flooded biomass begins to decompose, greenhouse gas emissions drop to a level commensurate with any other lake or pond within decades. On average, hydropower releases 35 times less greenhouse gas than natural gas and 70 times less than coal.
Opponents of the project encourage folk to dig only deep enough to prove them right. In this case that means learning that greenhouse gas emissions are elevated immediately following construction. Because that’s true they can present the testimony of an expert taken out of context in support of the conclusion they’d like you to draw. They hope you’ll be triggered so that emotion precludes further investigation.
The strategy reminds me of what Congress did to ensure that the intelligence community would be blamed for failures leading to the attacks of 9/11 in their stead. I held a security clearance as I endeavored to prepare Marines to contend with the guerrilla fighters then defending terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. As a result I knew that the CIA became aware of a terrorist plot to hijack and use passenger aircraft as missiles in an attack of the United States years before it happened. Most of you won’t know that Congress repeatedly refused to authorize measures meant to contend with that threat before 9/11. They didn’t have to accept blame because you were still reeling from the attacks as they placed blame at the feet of the intelligence community.
I bring this topic up because I was unfortunate enough to train for a profession in the field that could contend with climate change and global warming if allowed to after serving one that could have contended with terrorist before 9/11 if allowed to. Interestingly, both of these professions serve the fossil fuels industry in one way or another. The military in protecting the trade routes that facilitate recovery and transport of fossil fuels, geologists in devising means by which the raw materials themselves can be extracted from the Earth.
It is incredibly frustrating to watch people who have a fraction of the information you do attempt to distinguish good decisions from bad while being bombarded with misinformation. Professionals from each of the above mentioned communities have offered reasons why we should begin using more energy derived from local resources. All find themselves contending with deeply entrenched beliefs and argument offered in support of them.
The fossil fuels we rely on today have only been readily available since about the time that a large easily exploited source was discovered in the Middle East in 1938. Before that we were primarily dependent upon beasts of burden for transportation, although some public means of transport was powered by coal and electricity. Coal fired and hydroelectric facilities provided the energy that lit communities and powered industry. Although short lived our dependence on liquid fuel has so profoundly changed life that some can’t even imagine an alternative. That’s at the heart of this matter.
Seriously, you will argue with an MIT professor who has just published two peer-reviewed articles and also with Dr. David Schindler who has done nearly TWO DECADES of research and reached the same conclusions. I have to simply shake my head in disbelief that people can make statements like yours with no real proof otherwise. Show me some data and show me some facts about YOUR point of view. Otherwise just keep your ‘gut feeling’ to yourself. You are obviously NOT a scientifically-oriented person. This just gets better every day.
I completely agree with the statement about the alternative routes to the NECEC. Putting this power line through Maine to provide the electric needs of Massachusetts does not make sense. I think that there are many optional routes for this transmission line that make more sense.
1. The existing corridor bringing HQ produced DC power into Massachusetts could be improved, with new poles and lines for the additional power that Massachusetts wants, see Hydro Quebec’s website where they boast about this existing line:
http://www.hydroquebec.com/international/en/exports/markets/new-england.html
2. A proposed corridor through New York State can be utilized to bring power into Massachusetts from the west, and they could cut their own corridor through their state to have power delivered where they want. Both states involved want the power and only those states will be impacted. Please see the Sun Journal article about the New York corridor here:
https://www.sunjournal.com/2019/04/24/new-york-city-eyes-quebec-hydropower-in-bid-to-go-green/
3. As stated in this letter, Vermont has fully permitted a corridor for this project. Massachusetts and Hydro Quebec should explore this option as a most likely scenario. See the article about this option here:
https://www.concordmonitor.com/Vermont-project-ready-to-assist-Mass-after-Northern-Pass-denial-15328792
These optional routes should be considered by all regulatory bodies that are looking at permitting the corridor through Maine. I believe that their process includes looking at the impact of optional routes. The Maine DEP should seriously review the impact to Maine of the Proposed corridor compared to the impact of these other routes.
Perhaps a better option would be for Maine to build new hydro electric plants, then our state could produce the power for Massachusetts and keep all of the money from this project ourselves. There would be no profits to foreign companies, no debate about whether not not the project would benefit Maine, and no single massive corridor to shut out other electricity producers. Our hydro projects would be from several different locations and would require several smaller transmission projects, possible along existing routes. The state of Maine has a Hydro Electric study you can read here:
https://www.maine.gov/energy/publications_information/001%20ME%20GEO%20Rpt%2002-04-15.pdf
Of course, hydro electric dams may not be green, may be illegal to build in the US, as they would violate Federal law, and may not be the most efficient way to produce electricity. It is clear to me that more study and review is needed before the US allows projects of this type. Perhaps we should pass new laws that require states to produce all of their own power within the borders of their own state. Problem solved
Of course I’m going to question an MIT professor. Whether you fail to understand how scientific debate works or not, an he does not. One peer reviewed article does not undo all studies previously published on the topic, although it may inform and inspire further research. I graduated from Brown University with a masters in Geology after conducting research on Mantle flow for three years. It’s not a PhD but the experience prepared me to discuss me to consider questions like this one carefully.
There is research published on the emissions of greenhouse gases from land flooded to construct hydroelectric facilities. If you look closely at even those articles that show elevated greenhouse gas emissions at some hydroelectric facilities you’ll find disclaimers such as this one stating that research is ongoing and that their findings should not be used to change policy, let alone decide the fate of local energy projects.
“The EDF study is based on simplified assumptions and should not be used to influence local and global policies on hydropower, Coleman said. He added that scientists and regulators have yet to reach a consensus on determining the net emissions from hydropower generation, and that only 3% of the 90,000 dams in the U.S. are tied to a hydropower plant.”
That particular study found that just 100 of the 1,500 facilities investigated produced greenhouse gas emissions greater than those produced by fossil fuels. As I said yesterday, because those emissions are related to the decay of organic matter they do decline over time. As many of those facilities investigated were newly constructed the findings of that study may change with time. The same can be said of Hydro Quebec’s facilities.
Research shows that some fraction of our hydroelectric facilities produce more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels, not all. Researchers like Schindler admit as much and urge us not to use their findings to make assumptions about all hydroelectric projects because factors like location, size, and time elapsed since flooding impact emissions. They are in large part asking that we not overlook this potential when deciding how we respond to the threat of climate change and global warming.
Schindler has this to say:
“When you add the emissions from building and producing materials for a dam, as well as the emissions from clearing forests and moving earth, the greenhouse gas production from hydro is expected to be about the same as from burning natural gas.”
That’s actually pretty good, as the combustion of natural gas is far lower than that of other fossil fuels. Ours is a consideration of options. Leave those energy demands no longer being met by the 5 nuclear power plants that have closed in New England the oil fired facilities in place and we guarantee elevated greenhouse gas emissions for as long as those facilities remain in operation. Or meet those energy demands with electricity produced by facilities where greenhouse gas emissions are most often lower than those produced by fossil fuels and which have been shown to decline over time.
Jamie- there are pros and cons to the GHG emissions argument- thats for sure. But it is not a slam dunk either way and CMP fought an independent study to prove it out in this case. What is not debatable is the destruction of all that forest for reservoirs, which disrupts the natural migrations of fish and animals and renders populations of first nation peoples unable to sustain themselves. And the fact that waters like the gulf of Maine are both warmed and robbed of nutrients from a lack of free flowing rivers.
Take the methane factor, the reduction of carbon sequestering trees and the disruptions I mentioned above and its clear enough to me. Especially when its all about making CMP and HQ billions and opening up western Maine to an onslaught of development in the future.
I dont need any degrees to point out one simple fact of life that JAMIE is right on. Its not if its when we run out of oil. At the rate we are wasting oil its going to be sooner then later. Common Sense will have to wait until greed runs its course. At some time we will go back to our old train routes for public transportation and we will find a different way, old or new to keep our backsides warm in the winter and cool in the summer. There is absolutely no doubt about this. What we need to do is to make the right decisions to be ready for that day. Placing our future in the hands of someone else when that day comes is not my idea of being prepared. You want a nightmare on elm street just imagine ten below in the city,electric cars,electric trains,electric heat all controlled by people who could not care less about anything but themselves. The only thing I have to laugh about is it will not happen in what lifetime I have left. We need to keep our eye on the big picture and not get lost in the details.
Thank you Darryl for pointing out the warming waters in the gulf as has been shown with the shrimp and lobster markets. Some want to blame it on global warming but it has more to do with this “green” energy from HQ.
darryl – The provinces lease much of the land in question from Native tribes. Many have aided in the construction of the facilities in question as well. I know an Iroquois who did concrete work as a contractor as part of one of the many projects in question.
I think what’s being lost here is that the facilities are completed. Therefore, they will produce no more greenhouse gas emissions if generating electricity than if allowed to lay dormant. If that electricity is instead generated by fossil fuels combustion we must add the emissions produced by both to estimate total greenhouse gas emissions. It’s obviously going to be less harmful to use the hydroelectric facilities already in place under these circumstances.
No proposal on the table would alter greenhouse gas emissions generated by Hyrdo Quebec facilities, nor any other environmental factor associated with them. Those effects will continue to be felt no matter what the decision is on CMP’s proposal to extend power lines through Maine to deliver power to Massachusetts.
The proposal in question impacts a tiny fraction of Maine forests, 0.005 percent to be exact. Some of that work has been completed. Block the rest and what damage was done was for nothing. Left without the ability to utilize Hydro Quebec, Massachusetts would be left no option but to generate that energy no longer produced by the Pilgrim Nuclear facility by increasing the load on existing fossil fuels powered facilities. The impact on our environment would then include both those generated by this increased combustion of fossil fuels and those generated by the existing Hydro Quebec facilities.
We do not lessen environmental impact by blocking the transmission of electricity from Hydro Quebec to Massachusetts we increase it!