I think its known as "projection". If you encountered this person publicly, on this issue, his lack of empathy for the hurt and loss that this project will cause thousands of people is quite startling. In fact it is disturbing. ...(full comment)
Part of the reason for sidewalk repairs and dying trees in some parts of town is the gas company's placement last year of new pipeline in tree strips. Tree roots were sliced and diced with abandon; sidewalks and driveways ripped up and temporarily repaved. Cheaper than digging up streets and replacing road asphalt? It all depends what you value. Seems to me another disappointing decision in a town fast losing its "tree city" reputation. ...(full comment)
What does it take to make oxygen? Maybe there are too many humans exhaling co2. Most of the green people believe there are too many humans. Should we cull the herd? There are too many poor people that can't afford a green car or afford green energy. Should we cull the herd?
How much CO2 would not be produced if we got rid of non-producing humans (those that can't produce for society)? Maybe let people live in retirement for no more than 5-10 years, then move them to a termination center. This would help keep their carbon footprint down and help get the earth back in balance.
Is this the slippery slope you want to go down, it seems that way, I mean the government knows best. Right? ...(full comment)
Did not our military actions in WW2 and WW1 also have the same effect. Besides destroying many cities in Germany and Japan and leaving many people homeless and hungry. Of course they did. Why would you leave them out of the discussion? What is the difference between these and the others wars?
I guess the one against Japan is ok because the did attack us, but Germany did not ever attack us. Maybe FDR wanted to get in the wars to jumpstart our economy. I think everyone knew it would be almost impossible for anyone to cross the Atlantic or Pacific and invade us. ...(full comment)
Mr. York makes a statement that a clever accountant can get the rate down to about 17 %. He makes no comparison for a tax accountant between the time of 1934-70. If you think it was anywhere close to the actual rate you are very mistaken.
The only reason the country's economic growth happened was because of WW2 (the wartime economy). The economy from 1934 until the buildup of the wartime economy was terrible. Most of FDR's policies hurt the economy. The Great Depression would have been over sooner w/o the governments meddlesome hand. Oh, probably the current booming economy (tongue in cheek) would have bounced back sooner and better if the govt. would have let gm and the banks and others fail.
Think of it like forest fires out west. If you let the dead wood lay around the fire is bigger the next time. ...(full comment)
I was fortunate to have attended Mr. Shams Carnegie Hall recital at the Weill venue. His virtuosity and musicality were inspiring and delighted the entire audience! I hope this is only the beginning of a splendid career! Jack Josephson ...(full comment)
Farrell is not coming off well here and personifying the bullying and blackmail that Berkshire Gas is engaging in. Being against the pipeline because of its impacts on global warming is the very definition of caring about families and local businesses - there is no dispute among anyone that drilling for natural gas increases greenhouse gas emissions, and so how is that "eco-terrorism?" Environment aside, as forced investors in this project we also don't appreciate being made to pay for infrastructure that will only increase private profits without guaranteeing any rate decreases here - show me somewhere in the country where that has actually happened. No smart investor would put their money towards such a doubtful ROI. And what kind of investor puts all their eggs in one basket anyway by making us even MORE reliant on only one source of fuel? That's stupid! No, local business would grow more here if we took that tariff and put it towards subsidizing solar. This isn't about personal agendas, this is about making thoughtful (and not desperate/panic-mode a la Berkshire Gas) decisions about our long-term needs, especially when so much of OUR $ is on the line. Finally, I'd love for Farrell to explain how they can justify building a 2.2 bcf/d pipeline when NESCOE says we only need .7 bcf/d - come on buddy, we're not idiots. ...(full comment)
With Greenfield taxes being so significantly higher than surrounding towns, I really don't understand how it can't come up with $4000 or so to replace what they cut down (maybe cut the overly zealous arborist's budget??). When you walk around old historic towns, part of their charm is their big old trees - and they tend to have sidewalks and I don't hear of tons of people dying because of branches. There must be ways to fix sidewalks without cutting everything down - sidewalks and trees go hand in hand, making walking more enjoyable. It may be cheaper to clear cut than actually think, but DPW is not serving the town well in the long run this way. ...(full comment)
Pieridae has an application before the DOE for export: published in the Federal Register on Dec. 10 2014. Reading in related documents states that "pipeline and fossil fuel companies" will make 18 QUADRILLION DOLLARS from the export of LNG from that facility. THIS IS AN EXPORT pipeline: there will NEVER be any benefit whatsoever to this region. Only private profit: and seeking eminent domain for this is an outrage. All this will accomplish is to enrich the obscenely greedy, and raise gas rates permanently as we compete with other nations for a U.S. resource we have already subsidized to the tune of billions every year. Mr. Farrell is making many false statements: allegations of "terrorism" are a peculiar form of projection: he and his ilk are so intent on greed that they are endangering and permanently harming hundreds of thousands of people all along this route. ...(full comment)
The "bodyguards" are unnecessary and this is complete fabrication. High Theatre. This is an export pipeline that is seeking eminent domain for private profit. There are already measures in place to address New England's energy needs: Demand for gas has been flat lining in New England, nonetheless there is the TGP NH-NY pipeline (already in service, over 300,000 dth): William's Rockaway lateral and Northeast connector (100,000 dth in service, 547,000dth coming in 2015); and between the PNGTS non-pipeline option and the likelihood that either Constitution or Aim will begin construction this summer- 300,000dth to 1,100,000 dth. Additionally, National Grid has received approval from the Massachusetts DPU to liquify large amounts of pipeline gas instead of imported LNG. That is an ample amount of supply. Also, by 2017 there will be savings from LED lights and at least 36GW of renewables. The so called "eco-terrorists" are homeowners and stewards of conservation land, who rightfully object to the use of pristine land for private profit: this pipeline is not needed, and is only intended to syphon off U.S. gas for private profit. P.S. Mr. Farrell, someone who advocates putting enormous quantities of volatile gas under horriffic pressure near live electricity, and poisoning well water, along with obscene amounts of compressor gas belching out chemicals: well, the benign and heartfelt protestors look a lot less like terrorists than a gas cabal harming innocent and hard working citizens. I guess anyone who disagrees with the gas lords gets called names. It is the citizens of our region who need body guards: and thank God for our representatives. ...(full comment)
It is absolutely correct that safety trumps shortcuts. Vermont Yankee, and all plants have been designed and operated that way. It is also true that the NRC does not require wasting money on measures to satisfy vocal opponents.
Why would keeping the Emergency plan with a 10 mile evacuation zone be wasting money? Because the hazard is much less than when the plant is in operation, and it decreases every day.
When the reactor is operating, atom splitting provides 93% of the power, with the additional 7% coming from the radioactive decay of the splitting pieces-which are other atoms. There is a steady level of atom splitting pieces in operation. As soon as splitting stops the number of radioactive pieces decreases continually, because they are radioactive.
The potential hazard comes from the possible release of these pieces in an accident. The possible accidents with the reactor not operating and fuel in the pool take a long time to reach the point of fuel damage, time for corrections!! The pool has so much water in it, that cooling can be stopped for a period of time. The water will heat up and eventually begin to boil off. This is not harmful, since the fuel boiled in the reactor!! There is time to restore water from any loss due to accident or sabotage.
With so man fewer radioactive pieces (and the number decreasing minute by minute) any release would be much, less than from a reactor just shut down. ...(full comment)