Comments
dante662 t1_iuj81n5 wrote
The Jones ACt was supposed to "protect the american shipping industry". Instead, it destroyed it.
​
It's illegal to ship port-to-port within the USA if the ship isn't:
A) built in the USA
B) Financed in the USA
C) Flagged in the USA
D) Crewed by americans
​
Because of this, Hawaii, Alaska, etc have staggering prices because an international cargo vessel heading from China to, say, Long Beach, cannot first stop at Hawaii and then continue to LA. In fact if it goes to LA it can't then go back to Hawaii.
We have almost no merchant marine in this country and the shipping we do have is outrageously expensive. Killing this stupid Act is one of many things we need to have done decades ago, but won't, because "muh jobs".
​
Spoiler alert: international maritime shipping has almost no American presence whatsoever. The jobs are already gone. We should at least stop paying extra for no reason.
SilentR0b t1_iujiwik wrote
Maybe I'm too cynical but I just have that feeling even if we repeal the act, they'll still keep the prices $$.
dante662 t1_iujkf0q wrote
You immediately gain economies of scale. The massive international cargo haulers can suddenly stop at Puerto Rico on the way to Miami.
​
Instead we have to unload the cargo from the supermax ships, reload it onto tiny american merchant ships, then sail it back to the island. Not only does this add costs because of delays (it can add weeks to delivery times) but unnecessarily burns fuel.
​
You can also send emergency supplies much easier. In fact one of the reasons PR keeps getting insane delays on supplies after storms is because the government has to wait until the feds temporarily waive the jones act to send help, because we have effectively no merchant marine anymore.
Skippypal t1_iujk2ye wrote
Basically what big oil is doing with gas currently.
Cutriss t1_iujrvrw wrote
Incidentally, do you have any idea what country holds most of those maritime jobs that the Jones Act pushed out of the US?
It’s Ukraine.
Nobiting OP t1_iui8ihm wrote
And cruising!
To add: It's absolutely insane it is illegal to fill a ship with LNG in Texas and sail it up to Boston Harbor. It has to be rail or pipeline by law.
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iuia1yk wrote
>To add: It's absolutely insane it is illegal to fill a ship with LNG in Texas and sail it up to Boston Harbor. It has to be rail or pipeline by law.
It’s not illegal to ship LNG, it’s just that there are no American flagged vessels who can do it.
Only American flagged vessels can trade between America ports, which was meant to keep the shipping industry alive in order for us to be able to raise a navy.
This was decades before the military industrial complex created a mind boggling defense industry of shipbuilders that do nothing but build warships.
Since basically all LNG transporters are foreign, we cannot buy American fuel from an American port and transport it here.
We have to buy it internationally, from further away, and compete with international buyers who are in turn, squeezed by Russia.
Repealing the Jones Act would allow foreign ships to bring us domestic natural gas, and would allow foreign (cheaper) ships to operate between Puerto and the Continental US, driving the cost of everything down significantly, and opening them to more trade.
_____A_Username_____ t1_iuinl8p wrote
> American flagged vessels
The ship also has to be built in the U.S., which there are no such LNG ships in existence.
gnimsh t1_iuj9wc1 wrote
So like, build the ships here and staff them with Americans? can't we do that? Or would that only be profitable half the year so we won't?
TywinShitsGold t1_iujmwq4 wrote
Takes too long to pay the investment off if LNG is scheduled to be decommissioned.
Now if we could get Cuomo and the NY establishment to stop being an absolute dick about pipelines, we could plug into the “western” US pipeline supply and compete with the “rest” of the country on LNG price. Except he won’t let new pipelines cross NY, so New England is stuck shipping the stuff.
Because pipelines are apparently not green enough (because they pipe LNG), but shipping it around the world and back is the right answer (because we need it).
_____A_Username_____ t1_iujrc8c wrote
True but let's acknowledge that people in Mass are blocking gas lines to NH and Maine for pretty much the same NIMBY reasons of "don't help me none".
The feds should have stepped in long ago, but they don't usually do shit until there's a crisis at which point it's too late. Well, come February, we might just have that crisis opportunity.
gnimsh t1_iuk81ip wrote
Ok but psa cuomo is no longer ny governor.
Nobiting OP t1_iuia7b0 wrote
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification!
ReferenceAny4836 t1_iuin1r1 wrote
Jesus Christ. It's worse than I thought. I thought it was insane that we were exporting LNG to Europe without right of first refusal for Americans. But it turns out, we're not even allowed to buy American LNG in the first place? For fuck's sake.
dtmfadvice t1_iuir98m wrote
This may be repeating someone above but - the Jones Act requires that shipping stuff by sea between US ports must be done on US-made, US-flagged boats. There aren't many of those boats for any kind of cargo, but there are none at all that can carry LNG. So, it's legal to ship... just not legal to ship in any sensible or cost-effective way.
This has been a huge problem for Puerto Rico for ages because it makes EVERYTHING there a lot more expensive. But it's a giveaway to a couple of important donors and lobbyists, so, you know, fuck them kids. They don't have a congressman to bribe, so who gives a fuck?
SkiingAway t1_iuivb1e wrote
Eh, it's a minor footnote in PR's many issues, not really the cause of them.
Hawaii is more than twice as far from CA.
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iujk3er wrote
>Hawaii is more than twice as far from CA
Sort of making the argument that PR would benefit tremendously from Jones Act repeal, as it’s far closer to American ports?
ZzeroBeat t1_iuiftbv wrote
so why hasnt it been repealed yet? seems like an ancient law that doesnt benefit anyone anymore. other than LNG distributors i guess
TotallyErratic t1_iuih0zy wrote
I imagine trade group that owns american flagged vessel who has a monopoly on shipping between US ports?
gallaj0 t1_iuimy7d wrote
politicians in states with US shipyards love the Jones act; unless they can get a military contract, it's the only thing keeping those yards alive.
quintus_horatius t1_iuirdwl wrote
It doesn't seem to be helping much, there are hardly any.
SkiingAway t1_iuiuuw1 wrote
It keeps the very small amount of non-military US shipbuilding/shipping left alive. Whether or not you feel that's worthwhile is up to you, but that's the function.
In the event of more serious world issues, being unable to supply our non-contiguous territories with our own fleet is potentially a pretty significant national security issue.
[deleted] t1_iuj7osx wrote
[deleted]
SkiingAway t1_iuj9k84 wrote
Uh, yes. You're trying to be sarcastic, but that's basically 100% accurate.
The US commercial shipbuilding industry is pretty much entirely dead outside of that. We build about zero ships of any substantial size other than the shipbuilding that's protected/subsidized by the military + the couple dozen Jones Act ships.
If it isn't built here for purposes of complying with either military or Jones Act rules....it isn't built here, ever.
World shipbuilding is ~49% China, ~39% South Korea, ~9% Japan, and the entire rest of the planet is basically a rounding error with 3-4% total market share.
ZzeroBeat t1_iujfsuo wrote
so it sounds like its not really working as intended anyways. might as well just open it up and help reduce energy prices. i don't see how holding back on that is worth the thousands or whatever it is of shipbuilders that may or may not exist.
SplyBox t1_iujqe7s wrote
Because the US government doesn’t like killing any amount of US jobs if it can help it
[deleted] t1_iuim1wv wrote
[deleted]
dante662 t1_iuj858c wrote
It's not just flagged American vessels. They have to be built here, financed here, and crewed by Americans as well.
​
The Jones act is the peak of idiocy and proof that governments don't understand the basics of economics.
Nobel6skull t1_iujkqn4 wrote
American naval shipbuilding is in a disgraceful state. We should be inventing in Naval and merchant shipbuilding in America instead of just shrugging and letting it all go.
_Hack_The_Planet_ t1_iuim23d wrote
Go Teamsters!
Head_Zombie214796 t1_iuimquw wrote
go oil tychoons !! hoorah lets make the billionaires richer
_Hack_The_Planet_ t1_iuiorwy wrote
There's only one of them and he looks like that guy from Monopoly.
Head_Zombie214796 t1_iujlz9b wrote
LoL yeah right the classic edition, that will be the day, lets sell off all the properties and put the money into the reduction of fuel costs. since they like to raise the rates of fuel, we can raise the millionaire tax rate for sure. we are gonna pass a similar tax law in mass in just a few days.
getjustin t1_iuj65pg wrote
I have an acquaintance who works in the cruise industry and he's planning Mississippi river cruises and you wouldn't believe the red tape that goes into it because of the Jones Act. Primarily, getting a passenger vessel built in the US in 2022 is no easy feat. Plus having to crew it with ALL navigational crew being domestic AND the vast majority of support crew being from the States has been a huge headache.
and_dont_blink t1_iuk3tia wrote
Repealing the Jones Act would be beneficial to everyone, as noted in other comments it is a poster child for protectionism at it's worst. The cost savings for goods would apply across the board.
Even though I'm paying it, it's hard to feel bad for us in MA. We voted for these policies that ended up with us paying Hawaii prices, but Hawaii doesn't have a winter. Other parts of the nation had no clue prices spiked last winter, but MA went and Germany's itself and had people having to pay $800-$1k to heat their homes. No real solutions, we literally just didn't want pipelines because it would lower prices and encourage use and affect the environment, and I'd poorer people can't afford $550/mo to heat their apartment oh well someone richer can.
We've known this is coming for months, and it was just ignored. You never go full Germany, who is getting their LNG from the same places we are (Africa and Caribbean now, Russia previously) and tearing down turbines to reopen coal mines
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iuk7fz5 wrote
and_dont_blink t1_iuka3ui wrote
True, but there is the Kinder-Morgan pipeline, or any of the other projects including the nuclear plant? And then there's the fracking ban, which again Germany and the UK bought into after a huge push of propaganda often from Russian NGOs.
As a consequence, 2/3 of MA's energy generation is natural gas and we simply can't supply enough in the cold months via the SW pipeline, hence Russian tankers were sitting in the harbor to supply is us with LNG.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_iuj7gkm wrote
My whole fucking life this country has been whipsawing up and down with the price of oil. When are we going to say enough is enough and stop sending massive gobs of wealth to these oil and gas rich countries who are massively corrupt and unstable? And if that's not enough burning petroleum is going to make our planet hostile to human life.
Time to break the shackle and build some goddamn nuclear plants and other green energy. This shit is ridiculous.
50calPeephole t1_iujeg52 wrote
If we are going all electric- and that's what MA seems to want to do, there is no other choice.
We don't have the oil, we don't have the natural gas, and we don't even have the distribution network ready for 100% electric, look at where our electricity rates are going and that's before people are forced into all electric cars and fossil fuel surcharges for home heating.
We are going to price ourselves into a problem unless we start working on solutions now.
NotnotNeo t1_iujeblc wrote
ya but...i gotta get to work tomorrow and heat my house today.
i agree, more transition, but we're stuck even more now that supply chains were disrupted enough to generate shortages in things like materials and EVs. and not only is the cost of an EV higher, but the legacy energy costs are higher too, making it harder for people to save up for a transition.
idk what oil production investment policies could have a near immediate impact, but cant get around the fact that the green transition requires, preferably cheap, oil to make it happen.
Michelanvalo t1_iujkqsp wrote
I think /u/9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 's point is that we need to get on that transition plan now. Build the wind farms, build the solar farms, build the nuclear plants, force them through if we have to.
DrunicusrexXIII t1_iuk19ce wrote
And if we run out of diesel in the next 24 days? Farms and all shipping rely on diesel fuel. Today. Now. And nearly all cars that people take to work run on gasoline.
I'm sure I'll get slammed with downvotes for asking, but. What sustainable, equitable, just and tolerant solution may we use, to prevent economic collapse and starvation?
Michelanvalo t1_iuk1dko wrote
If we run out of diesel in 24 days society as a whole is fucked regardless
DrunicusrexXIII t1_iuk2w9f wrote
Yeah, except all of this shit is entirely self inflicted.
There aren't any good reasons why food and heat have doubled and in some cases tripled in prices. Your average Tesla plaid owner is fine. Middle class losers like me and the poors are feeling it.
Michelanvalo t1_iuk37j3 wrote
Oh yeah sure, it's all inflicted by corporate greed. Their pushing the limits of what consumers can afford because they can.
I have a product at work that doubled their price and blamed it on inflation. I said "Inflation is 7%! Where the fuck you get the other 93% from?!"
Woah_Mad_Frollick t1_iujjq2b wrote
Congress just passed the IRA which is going to do a whole lot to unlock clean energy potential, including nuclear. Though a needed permitting reform was supposed to accompany it, and has not yet happened
The government should probably use an option-writing strategy to try and stabilize domestic energy prices in the meantime
DrunicusrexXIII t1_iuk4csf wrote
I hate to break this to you, but very little solar power is generated at night, which is when we need heat and light. Ditto for windmills, when there's no wind.
The average windmill costs one million dollars, last ten years, and powers at best 500 homes. The average set of solar panels, absent large taxpayer subsidies, costs $50k, degrades to uselessness in 10 years, and powers one house.
And good luck trying to get a reactor online, when we can't build or maintain even a subway line.
People should've thought of that shit a little earlier in the process. Angry, unemployed, hungry people tend to not vote for environmental things when they're looking for food and fuel. They tend to act more like the cast of Mad Max.
Woah_Mad_Frollick t1_iuk6h6q wrote
Storage is becoming more diverse and cheaper by the day. A wide array of clean firm power sources such as advanced geothermal power, more scalable nuclear technologies and Allam Cycle gas can compliment variable renewables nicely. PV panels can be built at utility scale far more efficiently than what can be achieved with rooftop solar. Your estimate of rooftop installation is also more than double top end figures so I don’t know where you’re pulling that out of. Likewise your figure for rooftop PV productive life is off by double. I also already mentioned the need for permitting reform so I’m not going to go back and forth with you about the difficult of getting contemporary nuclear plants built
And did you miss the link I provided which recommended we reverse underinvestment in domestic O&G fields via option writing?
Nobiting OP t1_iuj7xim wrote
Preach!
es_price t1_iujdzu1 wrote
We do at least get some students in return and that keeps the clubs and restaurants and universities in business.
UltravioletClearance t1_iuie1r3 wrote
Maybe we shouldn't have spent the past decade fighting natural gas pipelines in the name of green energy without having said green energy infrastructure in place first.
No_Judge_3817 t1_iuieh0s wrote
and buying into anti-Nuclear fearmongering
Coolbreeze_coys t1_iuiscdi wrote
My god, anti-nuclear has to be one of the most frustrating opinions
septagon t1_iuivr1g wrote
I put my tinfoil hat on tight and have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy not being "green" can only be a masterclasses in social engineering from the fossil fuels industry.
RamblinSean t1_iuj44pz wrote
You say that but we can't even keep water lines from deteriorating and damaging populations, you expect me to believe the United States will do the same with an increased amount of long term storage of nuclear waste?
scolfin t1_iuj98d1 wrote
It's because the environmentalist left only stopped seeing science and technology as the military industrial complex in the 1980's.
Gvillegator t1_iuium5u wrote
This is the big one IMO
d3fc0n545 t1_iuj5byq wrote
Here, here!
Yeah that type of opinion is dated and fairly nonsensical at this point. There are too many things that need to go wrong for an emergency to happen and the disasters that are commonly brought up have very explainable issues.
scolfin t1_iuj9ds2 wrote
Eh, nuclear still has the local pollution issue you see with heavy metals... and natural gas. We're still paying the Navajo reparations for our current supply.
ajafarzadeh t1_iuiuq47 wrote
Maybe we should have put more effort into the green energy infrastructure rather than sacrificing the climate for short-term practicality
mungthebean t1_iuivfbx wrote
Ain’t nothing like innovation and production speed than a crisis
It’s gonna happen sooner or later, might as well rip the band aid off
reifier t1_iuj8tu3 wrote
Spoken like a true Zorg haha
psychicsword t1_iujlf87 wrote
I will keep that in mind when heating my home costs more than my mortgage.
lazyfinger t1_iujqoev wrote
Renewables are the cheapest form of power
psychicsword t1_iuju874 wrote
Massachusetts uses 389 billion cu ft of natural gas and 89 million barrels of petroleum and only 16.9% of homes use electricity for heating(often the inefficient induction variety).
Renewable sources becoming cheaper is great news for the world a few decades from now when that changes but this year is going to be a cold one for anyone trying to survive on a budget.
Most people won't be able to install a multi-thousand dollar new heat pump furnace that is entirely fueled by pre-negotiated renewable electricity providers. Even the ones with heat pumps would get hit hard by increasing energy demand on the grid(which still heavily used gas and oil for energy production).
lazyfinger t1_iujy62g wrote
I don't disagree with you, I just wanted to point that out because the fossil fuel industry is not interested in investing in renewables. So this situation is a consequence of it. Of our lack of energy independence bc their profit come before citizens' wellbeing and our planet.
LiamW t1_iuiz5mn wrote
The gas pipeline from PA to New England was never going to pencil out. The actual cost savings is tiny relative to the capital required to build and maintain such a pipeline (basically the most expensive real estate per-mile in pipeline history).
The price differential between New England and the rest of the country is not much, it spikes right now as both Europe and New England share climate conditions, and is exacerbated by Putin/Ukraine.
New England is going to have some of the highest energy demand per square foot (note: not household) in the continental US due to the realities of: average oldest buildings, highest density most northern settled area, and the most days requiring moderate to heavy indoor temperate adjustment in the U.S.
In New England, the absolute best improvement people can make is insulation, heat pump retrofits, upgrade lights/appliances, and solar/geothermal systems.
Subsidizing wasting more energy is not a good idea, regardless of how you feel about “green” tech.
batmansmotorcycle t1_iujob8k wrote
Remember when they wanted to put a few hundred wind mills off shore to produce power and it got shot down?
Remember when we blocked two natural gas lines coming through the State?
Remember when NH blocked Northern Pass which brought in hydro from quebec?
Remember when we let the Yankee Nuclear Plant shut down in VT?
Remember when we shut down the Pilgrim Power Nuclear Power Plant?
This is why ISO New England is almost 70% fueled by Natural Gas....
We made our beds.
[deleted] t1_iujz5dy wrote
[deleted]
batmansmotorcycle t1_iuk64pk wrote
As did NH. It’s terminus was in MA. Point is it’s all one grid.
MarquisJames t1_iuidr8w wrote
Fuck Eversource, hate that company with a god damn passion
Shemsuni t1_iuilh7s wrote
Why?
_Hack_The_Planet_ t1_iuim6uv wrote
She had to pay her bills, once.
powsandwich t1_iuirs27 wrote
Eversource seems to do alright here but head over to r/Connecticut; a common hatred of Eversource seems to be the only thing that unifies the left and right
_Hack_The_Planet_ t1_iuis3xl wrote
They park (and drive) like assholes, fer shur
amphetaminesfailure t1_iuju1ww wrote
>She had to pay her bills, once.
Or maybe they just have issues with the company making record profits while charging outrageous costs?
I don't have an issue with paying a bill to use a product and service.
I do have a problem with aforementioned though.
To give an example, my highest electrical use is always for my August bill.
My supply cost was $72, my delivery cost was $103.
Here's an even more egregious example. I don't use much natural gas in the summer.
This past July I paid $9 for supply but fucking $22 for delivery.
I'm on budget billing, and this year they set me at $133 a month gas, $186 electric. That's $319 a month to power a single family, 1200sq ft home, with one occupant.
Now, feel free to call me a dirty commie, but I don't think a utility company should be a for profit and publicly traded business.
hithisishal t1_iuk9z2k wrote
Have you had mass save come through to look at your energy efficiency? Those bills sound high. More than I pay for 3 people in about 2k sq ft.
Toastbuns t1_iuj3x73 wrote
I'm not fully in the loop but if I recall correct they basically didnt use money they were given to do storm prep in CT and then when a big storm came thru, portions of the state were out of power for weeks. Eversource used it as a bargaining chip when they could have and should have been more prepared with storm response teams.
Source with more and better info than my memory can provide.
MarquisJames t1_iuj7upz wrote
For me, it's the constant power outage. Power goes out on my street at least 2 times a month in Dorchester. Never used to have this issue under National Grid.
Epicritical t1_iuk3l9c wrote
Privatization sucks.
lgbanana t1_iujh88s wrote
It truly is mind boggling, how MA on one hand pushes electric consumption (cars and heat pumps) and on the other hand has no fucking clue how to meet the demand or to make the price of electricity reasonable - it will be soon more expensive to drive an EV than a gas car.
Nobiting OP t1_iujlb1k wrote
🤡🤡🤡
ClarkFable t1_iuiljew wrote
How about some demand solutions too? e.g., I haven't seen a single ad out there asking the public to conserve (locally or nationally). This seems absolutely insane to me, especially since we are effectively at war with a country who is almost completely reliant on high energy prices.
SkiingAway t1_iuix3ob wrote
It's not something the public can do a great deal to conserve, especially at this point where heating demand is currently low.
It's not a gasoline issue, it's a diesel/heating oil issue.
New England has little natural gas storage, so conserving natural gas/electricity right now will accomplish little, the resource can't be stockpiled here.
The complicated answer is that it would probably be helpful to:
-
Set your heat low if you use heating oil.
-
If you don't use heating oil, the only time you can do anything significantly useful is during the deepest cold snaps in the winter. That's when natural gas demand exceeds pipeline capacity and we start needing LNG imports or burning oil to meet electrical demand. Then it would be helpful to cut your electricity demand + set back your heat if you use natural gas or electric for it.
If you figure that requests to conserve are more impactful the first few times around rather than when you've been hearing it for months, it probably makes sense to wait to ask that of the public until we're closer to the moments where that could actually help.
TituspulloXIII t1_iuj0w3q wrote
It's pretty much too late now, but anyone in New England that is more of the rural/suburban end of housing could have installed a wood stove/pellet stove.
Given, I think a lot of people are doing that as stove installers are definitely having a problem keeping up with demand.
And anecdotally I'm having a hard time finding free wood compared to what I've been able to get in recent years
ChudGuitar t1_iuj5oke wrote
From a pollution perspective, burning wood and wood pellets is pretty horrific. We're better off burning clean coal as at least we get more bang for our buck when it comes to air pollution. Building a more logical energy grid and pushing for better insulation etc. are better options.
50calPeephole t1_iujeo3p wrote
I've heard MA is eyeballing a carbon tax for pellet stoves to discourage this sort of thing too.
TituspulloXIII t1_iuj79ef wrote
It's not going to work out for Boston, but for people in Western Mass/ Norther CT/New Hampshire/Vermont/Maine to say it's horrific and clean coal would be better seems a bit ridiculous.
If you get a modern EPA certified stove the air pollution is not that bad. The pollution is less than 2 grams an hour.
ChudGuitar t1_iujeoss wrote
"Burning wood pellets releases as much or even more carbon dioxide per unit of energy as burning coal"
https://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions
"Among the many challenges of burning wood, there are three primary issues of concern. First, burning trees results in more carbon dioxide emission for a unit of energy output (e.g., BTUs). In fact, some smokestack emission tests show burning wood results in carbon emissions 2.5 times higher than natural gas and 30 percent higher than coal. Second, harvesting trees for fuel leads to more carbon release than if they remained in the forests to grow or, if they are dead, recycle carbon into the soil. Thirdly, there is a question of delay relating to the time-lag as new trees take time to establish and grow large enough to capture the capacity lost through harvesting. If you invest some time reading and learning more about burning wood, this is only the beginning of concerns; others relate to the reflective capacity of black carbon and other harmful gases released in biomass combustion."
https://ecosystems.psu.edu/research/centers/private-forests/news/burning-wood-caring-for-the-earth
It's not ridiculous, it's just how it is. Using wood as a large-scale, long term replacement for heating energy across the New England region would just be worse for the environment in the long-term when compared to existing alternatives including natural gas, coal, and nuclear power.
TituspulloXIII t1_iuji43t wrote
Wow, I was giving you the benefit of doubt that you were talking about particulates, not CO2.
Wood, and I was originally speaking of wood stoves, (although pellets are still better than coal) is CO2 neutral. Trees grow, die, decompose, new trees grow.
Where fossil fuels are carbon emitters, so sure if you only measure the burn, and ignore everything in the supply chain, wood is worse, but you have to ignore everything prior it getting to your house.
It won't be large scale, as people in dense suburbs and cities won't be burning wood, but rural people and less dense suburbs can be part of the solution.
Anybody that lives "in the woods" on about 1.5 acres or more will likely have enough dead trees to heat thier house for years.
That and power companies and other home owners take down dead/dying trees and either leave it to rot or someone can go grab it for free.
jojenns t1_iuiu3g1 wrote
We contributed 46 billion to the war, now im supposed to freeze my ass off too?
[deleted] t1_iuj311s wrote
[removed]
rygo796 t1_iuj0lgk wrote
Jimmy Carter killed his reputation by wearing a sweater on TV and asking people to turn down the thermostat a few degrees.
Using less is the only real, honest solution, but we'll run out of fuel long before anyone is willing to suggest it. The idea that American's should be slightly uncomfortable is heresy.
​
ThisOneForMee t1_iujd6pg wrote
Part of the problem is that the message is coming from wealthy people that aren't sacrificing anything
ClarkFable t1_iujdhxl wrote
>Jimmy Carter killed his reputation by wearing a sweater on TV
Yah, but if we bundled the concept together with the whole "help us defeat Russia", I think it almost becomes way less prone to attack. The real issue is politicians are just cowards when it comes to risking their own future for the benefit of society.
ConcernedCitizen13 t1_iuiwmps wrote
Yes please get rid of the Jones Act!
Nobiting OP t1_iui5uca wrote
Mirror: https://archive.ph/twbCs
dante662 t1_iujnz09 wrote
What could they do with Defense Production Act? You get heating oil from crude refining, it's pretty similar to diesel but not sure I'd want to burn diesel in an oil furnace.
​
You can't just order a company to "make more heating oil". Refining crude is the only way to get it, and unless we have more refining capability I don't see what companies in the US could do. Ban exports sounds great until you realize that will force international oil prices to start skyrocketing and trigger protectionist retaliatory actions by other countries against us.
swap_catz t1_iuk2drc wrote
Build nuclear. Yesterday.
shiningdickhalloran t1_iujz6on wrote
Burning diesel in an oil furnace is fine in a pinch. I know one guy who's used it exclusively for years and claims it's even better than regular oil.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_iuj0d5n wrote
You also have the ability to hire a governor and legislature that is not actively fighting against creating the domestic infrastructure to use local fuel.
Head_Zombie214796 t1_iuimc8p wrote
let me guess the utility company wants us to declare an energy emergency so they can force us to buy a couple million pounds of fuel at an extreamly high price, DOES THIS SOUND RIGHT ?
dtmfadvice t1_iuirgog wrote
No, they want to get temporary permission to ship fuel by boat from New Orleans to Boston.
Head_Zombie214796 t1_iujnkn7 wrote
yeah i know the deal, but this shortage was created by design and manipulating markets, the fuel industry is trying to punish mass for passing some of the most progressive renewable energy production / conservation laws in the country
Thisbymaster t1_iuijvbc wrote
Sounds like they didn't prepare and thus should lose money because they have failed to prepare.
Fourier_Transform t1_iuiupj3 wrote
How do you prepare for a lack of natural gas supply? Either by installing new natural gas transmission pipelines or huge lng facilities to store it. Both require the public to allow said construction of pipelines and or lng facilities. Which gets shot down constantly. So the issue doesn’t lie with a lack of preparation.
Thisbymaster t1_iuiv94n wrote
Build solar, hydro, tidal and other sources of power generation. They should have gone hard into clean energy but they sat on their hands instead. Now they want us to pay for their failure to prepare?
Fourier_Transform t1_iuivh5c wrote
They tried, blame New Hampshire.
https://www.concordmonitor.com/northern-pass-eversource-hydroquebec-27284387
potentpotables t1_iuj06p1 wrote
what about people who heat their homes and cook with gas?
jgun83 t1_iuiuhle wrote
Imagine taking responsibility... soon the entire strategic reserve will be depleted simply for an election ploy.
hvdc123 t1_iuizhy2 wrote
Sounds like they will just pass the cost along to customers.
thomase7 t1_iuiy9mt wrote
Unfortunately under capitalism of a company has to chose between losing money and letting people freeze to death, they will always let people freeze.
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iui7yjk wrote
> In its letter Thursday, Eversource asked the White House to consider emergency authorities including use of the Defense Production Act as well as provide a waiver of the Jones Act, a century-old law that can raise shipping costs
Repealing the Jones Act would be a boon to Puerto Rico too.