Natural Gas

No Such Thing As a Perfect Route for a Gas Pipeline

If America wants to wean off coal, it needs natural gas, and the pipelines that carry it.

|

"Don't compare me to the Almighty," said President Obama when he was running for his second term. "Compare me to the alternative." The point—which other candidates and strategists often have echoed—is plain: The public doesn't get to choose between perfection and imperfection. It must choose between two imperfect options, one of which is better than the other.

This point seems to have been largely overlooked in the discussion of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, especially by some of the ACP's most vocal critics: environmentalists and landowners along the pipeline's path through Virginia.

Start with the biggest question about the ACP: Do we need it? The short answer is yes. As a long piece about the pipeline in the Washington Post magazine recently noted, the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan "would essentially regulate coal-fired power plants out of existence, replacing them with gas-powered facilities. The goal is a dramatic overhaul of America's energy grid and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions."

Bob Burnley, a former head of Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality, told the newspaper: "I grew up professionally with big, nasty coal-fired power plants. This (the Atlantic Coast Pipeline) is a huge step in the right direction. Replacing (coal) with gas is the only thing that makes sense right now."

It's pretty to think the U.S. could replace all that coal-fired generation with renewable energy, but it's not realistic. For one thing, wind and solar power are intermittent. This means they need a dependable backup source so the lights don't go out whenever the weather changes. Advances in distributed generation and energy storage might one day obviate that need—but power companies have to make plans using currently available technology.

A second problem with renewables is acreage. Dominion's new natural-gas plant in Warren County can generate more than 1,300 megawatts on a slab of land that's only 39 acres. By way of comparison, the National Mall in Washington covers 146 acres. Generating the same power from sunlight would require a field of solar panels covering 36,000 acres, or 56 square miles. All of Washington is 68 square miles.

Another option—perhaps the best with regard to climate change—would be to ramp up nuclear power generation. And Dominion is pursuing a license for a third reactor at its North Anna station. But environmentalists don't like that, either. And even if they did, nuclear power requires an extremely long runway to get off the ground. Dominion started working on plans for a third North Anna reactor in 2001.

So the alternatives are: Continue to burn coal and belch greenhouse gases until the coal runs out. Or replace coal with natural gas. Or build nuclear plants as fast as possible—and use more natural gas in the interim. Or build renewable generation with gas-fired backup—and use more natural gas.

The second, third, and fourth options mean new pipelines. And the pipelines have to go somewhere. Dominion has been trying to find the most acceptable route for the ACP for nearly two years now, and every time it comes up with a new option, new objections arise.

The pipeline proposal was unveiled in September of 2014. Within a month, newspapers reported that the "Pipeline's path stirs opposition in Va., W.Va." As one resident in Nelson County put it, "This entire area is too sensitive and significant for a pipeline to go anywhere near."

Two months later, Dominion proposed an alternative route around Nelson, where opposition was fiercest. The alternative, however, was longer and traversed more federal land. Two months after that, Dominion proposed more alternatives designed to skirt historic sites, the property of some prominent pipeline opponents, and sensitive environmental habitats.

But those alternatives had their own downsides. They affected another 276 properties, or crossed the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Appalachian Trail. As a recent story in the Richmond Times-Dispatch pointed out, route alternatives are constrained by the Byzantine rules that govern federal lands. The National Park Service manages most of the Appalachian Trail, but has no authority to approve a pipeline crossing. Some small parts of the trail are controlled by the Forest Service or private parties, and the Forest Service does have approval authority.

The current crossing is at a location controlled by the Forest Service. An act of Congress would be required if Dominion tried to move the pipeline's intersection to a different point along the Trail, as some have suggested.

The efforts were for naught anyway. "Landowners, county officials oppose four alternative routes," the Times-Dispatch reported not much later.

Every time the pipeline path has moved, it has solved one problem but created another. Dominion shifted the route to avoid a cider producer whose owner objected—"but the change moved it closer to the archaeological site of the original Wintergreen village, first settled in 1740," news stories noted.

An alternative route drafted to avoid a historic area in Nelson called Wingina cut through a state wildlife-management area and past a "spiritual community" called Yogaville. Another tweak, this time to avoid wetlands, moved the route even closer to Yogaville. The community's Swami Dayananda called the moves "unconscionable."

When federal forestry officials objected to a route over mountains that they said would affect the federally protected Cow Knob Salamander, Dominion proposed drilling through the mountains. A pipeline opponent worried that would pollute streams.

One of the routes runs past the entrance to the Wintergreen resort. So a group called Friends of Wintergreen drafted their own alternative to that alternative—but that caused problems, too: "Preston Lauterbach, a historian who lives south of Route 664 … said the Friends of Wintergreen route would cut through his property and others in a historically African-American community founded by freed slaves."

A spokesman for Friends of Wintergreen said the group's plan was merely notional: "There was no intent or desire of any kind to go through sacred ground like that."

Opponents say all this could be avoided if only Dominion would "co-locate" the pipeline along existing utility routes, or next to highways. While co-location is feasible in spots, it's prohibitively difficult in others, for a variety of engineering reasons.

Nor is it likely that pipeline opponents would be assuaged by the idea of having compressed natural gas in close proximity to either high-voltage electricity or heavily traveled roadways. Indeed, activists in other states have warned about the supposed dangers of co-location.

Even when Dominion does what opponents want, they aren't happy. The Post story reports that when the company rerouted the pipeline's path off Nelson resident Heidi Cochran's property, "Cochran dismissed it as a ruse. 'I still think they want us to drop our guard and have division,' she said."

Understandable? Perhaps. But rational? Not in the least.

Either America is going to wean itself off coal or not. If it does, then it will need more natural gas. And if it uses more natural gas, then the pipelines have to go somewhere. Virginia is never going to find the perfect route for the ACP—but sooner or later, it has to settle on one.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

77 responses to “No Such Thing As a Perfect Route for a Gas Pipeline

  1. “Ween”? You have got to be kidding me.

    1. What do you have against Ween, Mikey?

      1. He thinks posters should never make mistakes, ever. I guess he is perfect always.

        1. I just think the guy who holds the creative rights to “Block Insane Yomomma” doesn’t have latitude to criticize anyone else for any reason ever.

    2. It’s a deliberate spelling to indicate that this is what Deaner was talkin’ about.

    3. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $12k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this Website…
      For more details visit at.________________ http://www.earnmore9.com

    4. What kind of Luddite wants to ween themselves from modern living?

      If they want to live like primitives, they should go out in the woods and have at it without dragging me and my family down with them. There is no free lunch. I’m satisfied with the cost of modern living. If some people are not, then their choices may only affect them, otherwise they’re molesting me and mine. It’s called Freedom, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      You’re free to swing your arms to your hearts content, but the second you hit my nose, you’ve violated my rights to Freedom and Liberty.

      1. My thought is simply that they could build Nuclear power stations on land they rightfully purchase from landowners willing to sell their property and transmit said power over the already existing power lines.

        Clearly, that is madness talking though. Everyone knows nuclear power makes you glow in the dark, and not the good superpowers kind of glowing. More like the glowing from Fallout that turns you into one of those icky zombies we see on AMC!

        While Natural Gas is just fine as far as energy generation goes, I wouldn’t say it’s the ‘best’. Of course, we’re engaging in discussion with people who think that generating energy for the proles is a non-starter for a variety of reasons so I’m not sure engaging with them is really a sound strategy in the first place.

        1. Also, as to the priors and particulars of the article, why isn’t nuclear deregulation even mentioned as a solution to the insane process for getting a new reactor built? Is that just off the table entirely?

  2. “This entire area is too sensitive and significant for a pipeline to go anywhere near.”

    Fine. Build a coal plant there and everywhere else infested with NIMBYs.

    1. Sensitive like “I cry during Ol’ Yeller” or sensitive like “after I shave my balls?”

    2. Or just cut off electric service to all of the NIMBY’s.

      Then they reap what they sow.

      1. Bingo! Don’t enjoy the fruits if you’re going to bitch about it the whole time.

  3. “This entire area is too sensitive and significant for a pipeline to go anywhere near.”

    This is apparently the current go-to maneuver in the eco-nimby playbook. It’s being used out here in attempt to block mining on private land outside Yellowstone.

    “Sure it’s a legitimate business enterprise, but we think it’s icky.”

    1. Plus it has the added benefit of implying that those who invoke it are actually saying, “You know, personally I would have no problem with the pipeline going through my neighborhood, but I don’t think the environment can handle it.”

    2. The proper response to that would be if you want to preserve the land as it is, then YOU buy and keep it that way.

      1. Since the ACP is using eminent domain proceedings against landowners that don’t agree to their terms, this isn’t an option.

    3. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the literal entirety of the Yellowstone area also merely the top of a massive super volcano? Call me crazy, and I’m by no means an expert, but is a great idea to mine inside the cap of a world-ending volcano?

  4. the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan “would essentially regulate coal-fired power plants out of existence, replacing them with gas-powered facilities. The goal is a dramatic overhaul of America’s energy grid and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

    So… we need this pipeline because Obama said so. I certainly hope we destroy all those dirty old coal plants so we can pat ourselves on the back as we totally burn that bridge.

  5. “OK. Looks like the gas pipeline and gas generation facility is right out. Next on the agenda: permitting for construction of a nuclear power plant.”

    [heads asplode]

    1. Some People Want to Book Of Internet That issued some time never ever get because the internet now How can Fast and Earning Categorize Very much.Now i have to able freelancing of internet online jobs and makes a book who help learn about herself and next generation teach very well.

      Go to the website>>>>>>>>>> http://www.CashPay60.Com

      1. Agile Cyborg got into spamming?

  6. So, Northern VA is pretty much saying “No” to any plausible means of providing themselves electricity?

    Good. I say let DC sit in the dark.

    1. Except that DC will then just steal/syphon electricity from Maryland. Baltimore will riot in the blackouts and the media will blame MD Gov Larry Hogan because he is a republican and corporations are evil. (see Flint Michigan).

  7. The Sunday local rag has a ‘good week/bad week’ list and moonbeam has made ‘bad week’ for the last several weeks, since he won’t condemn shipping coal out of the Port of Oakland.
    The list is compiled by “The Chron editorial staff” so no individual has to take the blame for that stupidity.

  8. As a long-time Reason fan, one-time intern, and homeowner dealing with Dominion Power, I found Mr. Hinkle’s article disappointing as it failed to mention three things I would have expected.

    1. “Eminent domain” – land required for the pipeline will be seized or placed under easement. That’s a salient point, and an angle most Reason readers would value.
    2. “Property rights” – there is no mention of Dominion’s use of state law to enter property against the wishes of homeowners, and a trivializing of what individuals do with their land. The underlying WaPo article says Dominion is pursuing some 245 lawsuits to gain access to properties for surveying.
    3. “Crony capitalism” – Dominion is not just another private company frustrated by regulation. It can exercise eminent domain, is an example of regulatory capture, and is THE player in state politics. Also the former DEQ executive mentioned happens to be on their payroll (the WaPo story notes this). Nothing against the executive or Dominion, but it is an important detail.

    Hinkle’s discussions around energy dependency and options are on-point. So are the hard choices involved. But when a pair of stories treat small-time property owners so disparately… and when WaPo is the outlet that treats them with respect while a Reason blogger opts to be dismissive… that’s worth a sad comment.

    1. You patchouli-stinkin’ hippies can’t stop PROGRESS!

      1. Is Progress Energy involved here, too? Asking for a friend.

    2. Eminent domain is the reason I wasn’t upset when Obo ‘vetoed’ the oil pipeline. It seems like a small price to pay trucking or RR freight charges to avoid stealing someone’s land.
      I know nat. gas doesn’t ship in the same energy density, but if it takes the cost of LNG plants to avoid theft, so be it.

      1. It’s an insidious angle, and should never be discounted. I’ve seen some otherwise strong pro-market, pro-tech, etc, groups get tangled in their shorts trying to defend things like expedited permitting or by-right use of land for heavy-infrastructure purposes. These groups think they are simply reducing regulatory burden (and may be) but at the same time are eliminating small-time property owners last best shot to state their case when the direct use has secondary consequences (like building a powerline).

        1. And yet these protesters have no concern about the CPP or the easements required to keep *their* lights on. The factis that pipelines are generally unintrusive, so this argument amounts to not wanting to be inconvenienced in any way. Utilities and roads areone of the few legitimate uses of eminent domain smokescreens and pearl clutching notwithstanding.

      2. It seems like a small price to pay trucking or RR freight charges to avoid stealing someone’s land.

        (a) Not stolen. Bought.

        (b) I wonder how many people’s property has been damaged or destroyed by the forced use of less safe transport. There have been some major crashes of trains hauling oil that would have gone through the pipeline.

        I don’t have a problem with ED for utilities like water, gas, oil, electricity. For one, calling those “private” elides the public nature of these state-regulated monopolies. For two, without ED, costs (and damage) are imposed on third parties in an actual, no-kidding “externality”. If the recalcitrant property owners had to pay these foreseeable costs of their refusal, that would be one thing. But they don’t. So, ED it is as the least bad option.

        1. “(a) Not stolen. Bought.”
          At the point of a gun. Fail.

          “(b) I wonder how many people’s property has been damaged or destroyed by the forced use of less safe transport. There have been some major crashes of trains hauling oil that would have gone through the pipeline.”
          Irrelevant. Fail.
          Batting a thousand, R C.

          1. Foreseeable consequences? If your decision will impose costs on others, well, sometimes that means you pay damages, sometimes it means you don’t. The answer here isn’t terribly obvious to me.

            I dunno. There may almost be an analogy to “common enemy” doctrine in property law, where you aren’t allowed to divert water onto your neighbor’s land. For public/monopoly infrastructure like pipelines, I’m not sure property rights absolutism is the way to go.

            1. R C Dean|6.20.16 @ 7:04PM|#
              ‘Foreseeable consequences? If your decision will impose costs on others, well, sometimes that means you pay damages, sometimes it means you don’t. The answer here isn’t terribly obvious to me.’
              So if if saves just one life, it’s all just ducky? How about the chillens; can we make it for them?

              “I dunno. There may almost be an analogy to “common enemy” doctrine in property law, where you aren’t allowed to divert water onto your neighbor’s land.”
              I’d like to see some explanation of that; not seeing it.

              “For public/monopoly infrastructure like pipelines, I’m not sure property rights absolutism is the way to go.”
              As I mentioned, there are market options and for all I know, there is no penalty. Regardless, they are not ‘absolute’ denial of the products, just a higher cost to the consumer and an avoidance of government theft.

    3. While, yes, eminent domain is an option here for Dominion to coerce ‘small time’ property owners, Hinkle’s article also tackles the local governments, other federal and state entities that are all taking the NIMBY angle…most likely at the objection of a small portion of their community. OR coming up against pushback from environmental groups that oppose the project even if the property owners are willing. I would say his point is…if the federal government wants the pipeline then things should get done to convince other federal agencies to cooperate. If state governments want the pipeline then it should work with its agencies to cooperate. ETC. ‘Small time’ property objectors will be handled by eminent domain…as wrong as that is…but I think all here understand that.

      1. Agree. There are many things in the article I’d agree to. But expressing sympathy or exasperation on the part of a large corporation (a) without expressing similar for property owners or even better (b) pointing out some are likely to get nailed… not what I expect to read in this venue.

    4. But a pipeline is just about a paradigmatic example of proper use of eminent domain.

      1. No it isnt.

        A private transportation system doesnt need ED.

        Buy the right to put in the pipeline. If someone balks, route around them or pay more.

        1. Or ship by alternate methods.
          Is Dominion a gov’t sponsored monopoly? If so, there’s all sorts of bad incentives built in.

          1. They’re an investor-owned utility: publicly traded, heavily regulated (controls and guarantees, exclusivity to sell in certain areas),

    5. People here are mostly too young to remember the great Interstate highway program of the 1950’s. Hundreds of millions of acres were taken from landowners at bargain basement prices. If you refused, the fed simply took your land by force. The whole thing was said and done deal within a ten year span.

      With a burred pipeline, you still get to use your land, it’s not like having an Interstate bisect your cornfield, or having 18-wheelers roar past your bedroom window, day and night.

  9. You know, the details of that article were insufficient to really establish who has the property rights for all the properties in question. But overall I’m of the perspective that it should be hard as hell to gain the right to a long, narrow stretch of land anywhere in the United States; the difficulties therein make energy more expensive but serve as the basis for us to own private property at all.

    Some of the links indicated we really were talking about private land. In which case, more power to those environmentalists. I’d certainly sell the rights to build on my property for the right price, but I determine that price, not anyone else, and if they’re going to build something that goes against my best interests my asking price might be a thousand times the market value, which is my right.

    When it comes to public land, I’d lean toward favoring infrastructure building on it, but there has to be a good cost-benefit analysis and at least some of the protests here seem reasonable (certainly not all).

    1. Well, it should only be as hard as the particular property owners make it.

      1. But not as hard as some would want to. That’s the reason for eminent domain: When somebody has something that needs to get across someone else’s land, you don’t want that someone else to extract economic rent, which is what would tend to happen w/o eminent domain. The reason is that once you’ve gotten the deal with all the land owners except 1, that owner has the party that needs to get across over a barrel! So what eminent domain does is provide for just compensation, no more, no less. Because of the particulars, this is a case where there really is a just price other than what’s set by supply & demand.

        1. If routing around recalcitrant property owners adds costs, then those costs will be paid by other customers.

          A property owner who refused an easement has imposed costs on third parties. Why shouldn’t that property owner have pay those costs? If routing around my property costs a million (net) dollars, rates will be increased to recover that money. Those ratepayers are now paying for the property owner’s decision. That doesn’t smell like fairness to me. So why shouldn’t those ratepayers be able to put up a class action suit to recover their damages from the property owner?

          Remember, freedom to do X doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of doing X.

          1. A property owner who refused an easement has imposed costs on third parties. Why shouldn’t that property owner have pay those costs?

            Because exclusivity is pretty much the whole point of private property? This is like arguing you have right to steal my car because hiring a taxi instead would cost you money.

            1. Exclusivity, sure.

              But if my exclusive use of my property imposes costs on you, those costs may be damages (depending on circumstances, of course) that you get to charge back to me.

              1. R C Dean|6.20.16 @ 7:06PM|#
                “But if my exclusive use of my property imposes costs on you, those costs may be damages (depending on circumstances, of course) that you get to charge back to me.”

                Damages, AFAIK, are costs caused by harm to what is already owned, not costs to what a party might hope a good costs sometime in the future.

          2. “A property owner who refused an easement has imposed costs on third parties. Why shouldn’t that property owner have pay those costs?”

            So the utility can demand use of private land, and the land owner has to pay for the privilege of saying no? That only makes sense if you think the utility is entitled to the land.

    2. There’s a mix of concerns: state-sanctioned surveying without property owner permission; eventual impairment or easement; and compensation worked out. In the underlying WaPo article the situations dealing with specific property owners were better spelled out.

      1. No doubt those property owners have fought all previous easements to get utilities to their houses. I’m sure they refuse all utility hookups out of a matter of principle. Thought so.

        1. Like most property owners, I have easements for utilities, HOA, others. I accepted those when I bought the property. The easement is just a vehicle for some objective. I might even agree to additional easements, for example, if FIOS came through or the county wanted to take over a private road.

          Doesn’t mean I would not fight like hell to avoid a major piece of infrastructure coming through. In that case, the easement is for a purpose that hurts my utility and likely hurts property value. Impairment… yes, I would fight every one of those.

  10. RE: No Such Thing As a Perfect Route for a Gas Pipeline
    If America wants to wean off coal, it needs natural gas, and the pipelines that carry it.

    We must never create pipelines for energy usage by the little people for a host of reasons.
    First, it creates much needed jobs. Employment will only make the unwashed masses financially independent from the State and their socialist slavers.
    Secondly, we must continue to import oil from freedom loving nations such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Otherwise these democracies won’t like us no more.
    Lastly, our socialist slavers in Washington, DC won’t be able to collect their large amounts of “campaign contributions” from these foreign countries. This will only result in the ruling elitist turds not being able to buy their third vacation home in the Bahamas, pay for their 12 illegitimate children’s Ivy League education, unable to buy their fourth yacht, and only live off six of their offshore bank accounts.
    So let’s all forget about this nonsense about building a pipeline in Amerika.
    So let’s not start talking about ending dependency on foreign energy.
    Life is good for our socialist slavers oppressing us in our nation’s capital.
    It might ruin their five martini lunch.

  11. Yeah, Bart, every time a new route is proposed, difficulties arise. Know why? Eminent domain. You’re just proving to be another libertarian phony who loves ED when it’s for oil. When it’s anyone else, it’s an affront to the Constitution.

    It’s not needed. What is needed is more investment in renewables, not fossil fuels, whose days are now numbered after Paris.

    Save us your next rant about individual liberty and constitutional rights. You’re just a phony.

    1. Here is a conservative group explains that ED isn’t needed for the pipeline, that it could in fact be built through existing easements. Of course, the private company doesn’t want to because it cuts into their profits.

      Good job, Bart, sticking up for a private company’s profits over individual citizens rights to their own property. Phony.

      http://www.cfact.org/2016/05/1…..-pipeline/

    2. Oh, and fuck off.

    3. The author literally mentions renewables, and how you can’t base energy policy now on wishful thinking. While you could use renewables to supplement a primary method of power generation, they can not on their own provide enough energy for current demand let alone projected future demand. It’s doubtful that they ever will, either, unless you think it’s a good idea to just turn all of fly-over country into one giant solar panel just to power New York.

      The fact you’re wasting electricity to come on this website and taunt Libertarians with your half-baked, ill conceived ideology tells me that you aren’t serious about conservation, energy policy, or intellectual honesty though. If you actually cared, or actually believed any of this tripe, you would be curtailing your own usage to what’s necessary. If you ever wonder why people don’t listen to you, it’s because you refuse to lead by example.

      Sure, you’re one drop in a sea of humanity but if greens are truly in the majority imagine what effect all of you returning to the middle ages at once could do. So go ahead, put your money where your mouth and voting preference are. Go back to the 1800’s and show us all how it’s done.

      You won’t though. You’ll make an excuse just like the rest of your ilk about why other people should shoulder the burden of your ethos.

  12. Property owners in Nelson County conducted their own analysis of the economic impacts the pipeline will have for them. This is what they found

    ? Total one time loss to county: $19-$41.2m
    ? Additional Annual costs to county: $21.1-$24.5m /year
    ? Total loss in property values $14.7-$25.3m
    ? Annual loss in property tax revenue $83,666-$144,363 /year
    ? Annual loss in recreation tourism expenditures $18.5m /year
    ? Annual loss in local Tax revenue $526,000 /year
    ? Annual loss in personal income $1.2 m /year

    You think, Bart, that they are being compensated fairly for their property? They don’t. But maybe you’re just smarter than they are.

  13. Here is one woman (just one, Bart) who found out that her house would be 50 feet from the pipeline. When she asked Dominion what the impact zone would be if an explosion occurred, she was told 1100 feet on either side of the pipe. Does that happen? Check out San Bruno in California.

    Yeah, Bart, if that was your land you would sit back and say his great ED was, particularly for natural gas.

    1. Jackand Ace|6.20.16 @ 9:19PM|#
      “Here is one woman (just one, Bart) who found out that her house would be 50 feet from the pipeline.”

      Given that you’re a fucking idiot, there’s no use pointing out this has nothing to do with principles, of which you have none.

    2. Trains with explosive chemicals drive through towns all the time. The chemical plants in NJ could kill a lot of people in NY. Life is risk.

      1. Yeah. Let me explain the difference. I her case, the potential explosion is right on her own property, on her own land that was taken away from her against her will by a private company. Real different from trucks on public highways.

        That I have to explain that on a supposed libertarian website is telling.

        1. How is it different when those roads were built by using eminent domain to take away people’s land? There is literally no difference between the two. It’s a common saying among Libertarians of ‘Muh Roadz’, why the fuck do you think that is?

          1. Keep in mind, that this isn’t me supporting this usage of eminent domain. The only reason it’s being done in the first place is because idiots like you shot down every other viable mass production of electricity because you live in a fairy tale where renewable energy can power everything. It can’t. Ergo we’re left with this exact monstrosity of being the best of the shit sandwiches that are left.

  14. The solution to all of it is simple, the molten salt thorium reactor.

  15. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.Reportmax90.com

  16. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.Reportmax90.com

  17. I’m not sure if this is ironic, but Hinkle (in January 2015) wrote an article trashing Dominion for violating property rights and generally being hypocritical WRT propery owners, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE.

    http://www.richmond.com/opinio…..07345.html

    What has happened in the 18 month since? Almost a total 180-turn (away from a libertarian position or at least disposition, it seems).

    1. And Reason picked up the piece…..

      https://reason.com/archives/201…..rty-rights

      I realize the burden of stating things with extreme consistency across time and publications is challenging. The change between these articles and the recent one belittling select property owners seems to be more than an inconsistency or simply emphasizing different themes. It reads like a 180.

  18. Proggies/Greenies are a lot like my 3 year old. They throw a tantrum and keep saying no when presented with alternatives. What they really want here is to make electricity as expensive as possible, which it would be if we only have solar and wind as choices, to make modern life as expensive as possible and make us pay for the sin of living. Hydro is also anathema to them.

  19. Property rights are one of the topics I am fairly libertarian on, so it amuses me to see so many here lobbing out defenses of emminent domain.

    Face it, no one is entitled to a pipeline or, for that matter, cheap electricity. So if the states of Virginia can’t find a pipeline path without using eminent domain, then too bad. They’ll suffer the consequences of their choices eventually, whether it be blackouts/brownouts or higher electricity costs as they have to rely on plants further and further away.

    And the people there will either come around on new power plants/pipelines/what-have-you, decide that the higher power costs are acceptable, or find some other alternative (reducing their electricity footprint to make the cost acceptable, increasing private solar usage, whatever). That’s how the free market works.

    Or, to put it another way… if the people of the states of Virigina can’t agree to a pipeline, then let them suffer the consequences. These things will work themselves out, one way or another.

  20. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  21. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.