By Tom Glynn, Next Big News staff writerThe world has experienced a wave of natural gas production and the price has gone up.
That has pushed up demand for electricity, and now some utilities are starting to see a spike in demand for power.
The industry has been experiencing a spike, too.
It has been getting more expensive to produce and sell electricity, which has made some power stations reluctant to build new ones.
And so a new proposal to pump a natural gas pipeline through Nebraska’s Great Plains would make a lot of sense, said Mike Hickey, an engineer with the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
It would be cheaper than the current energy infrastructure, but it would be less efficient and would take a long time to get to a particular spot.
“It’s not something that we want to do right now,” Hickey said.
“We’ve got enough natural gas right now to run everything in our community for at least 30 years.
If you’re not going to build a pipeline right now, you’re probably not going see any growth in natural gas consumption in the next few decades.”
Nuclear power, which uses a lot more electricity than natural gas, has a much lower rate of demand growth.
“Nuclear is the least energy-intensive of the options for the pipeline,” said Daniel D. Hynes, a senior energy policy analyst at the NRDC.
But the cost of nuclear plants has skyrocketed.
Nuclear plants need about 1.3 million more megawatts of electricity than they did a decade ago, he said.
That’s why the Nebraska Legislature decided to study the feasibility of using a pipeline through the Great Plains.
The state has about 40 nuclear plants, so the pipeline would allow for that expansion.
“Nuclear plants are not built like they used to be, so it’s hard to build them today,” said Dwayne Kuepper, a nuclear engineer with Duke Energy who studies the economics of nuclear power.
“There are all sorts of issues with infrastructure, so they’re just not built to be built today.”
The pipeline would go through the Plains, the region that includes Nebraska and parts of Wyoming.
It would also pass through parts of South Dakota and Montana.
“We think the pipeline will get built,” said Hynes.
“I would love to see it go through North Dakota.”
The state’s other energy option, the coal industry, has said it has no plans to build pipelines.
But some states have begun to see the benefits of the pipeline.
The federal government is also investing more in natural-gas pipelines.
“You can’t really go into the coal sector without seeing the benefits,” said David J. Anderson, president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
“The price of natural-Gas has gone way up.”
The idea has been around for years, but there have been so many setbacks and so many problems, Hynes said.
It’s one reason that it was put on the back burner.
There’s no timetable for when the pipeline could start operating, and it could take years to build it.
It might be too expensive to build the pipeline if it’s not ready.
The State Department of Environmental Conservation and the National Park Service are working on getting a permit.
They’re going to continue to do so, even if the pipeline is built. “
They’ve done a lot with natural gas.
We don’t want to just throw it at it, but we’re going there.””
But it’s very difficult to get the money in place for the projects.
We don’t want to just throw it at it, but we’re going there.”
The Energy Information Administration projects the pipeline’s construction could cost about $7 billion.
That’s about one-third of the cost to build an average coal-fired power plant in the U.S. That works out to about $400 per megawatt hour of electricity.
“The reality is, if you’re going into the energy sector, you need to have the infrastructure to support it,” Anderson said.
“And you need the money to make it work.
So I think there are ways to get around that.”