Councilors put the brakes on solar carports at NSHS and the library last night, according to live Tweeting from @NewtonVillages. At issue were aesthetics, particularly at the Library which sits next to Olmsted-designed landscapes, and the loss of tree canopies. The project seems to be on a very tight timeline in order to qualify for funding.
Rendering of NSHS lot from item #133-15
More information on the project is available in the 3/14 Finance agenda
UPDATE: Councilor Cote chartered only the library portion of the item
Could have also titled this one “Where the sidewalk ends”. This is where most students walk through to get to classes in the morning, the sort of oversight we just can’t make in our school building projects anymore. I’m hoping this can be fixed as part of the project.
Could have also titled this one “Where the sidewalk ends”. This is where most students walk through to get to classes in the morning, the sort of oversight we just can’t make in our school building projects anymore. I’m hoping this can be fixed as part of the project.
Not knowing anything about the proposal for the library, I count a grand total of maybe three non-sapling trees in the interior of the parking lot. I’d think they could be built around.
Regardless, it’s funny to hear concerns about aesthetics in proximity to Olmsted landscapes – is there anything more patently offensive to the ideals of Frederick Law Olmsted than a 120-car parking lot? This is the man who deeply regretted ever having allowed transverse streets in Central Park (a mistake which he vowed not to repeat, thus giving us the longest stretch of unbroken meadow in any US urban park – Long Meadow in Prospect Park, Brooklyn).
In deference to Olmsted may I hereby propose that the library parking lot be closed, jackhammered, and flooded by the stream. Or in lieu of that, covered with solar panels.
Is there any documentation about the proposals online? Would the energy output make the project(s) worthwhile?
Not knowing anything about the proposal for the library, I count a grand total of maybe three non-sapling trees in the interior of the parking lot. I’d think they could be built around.
Regardless, it’s funny to hear concerns about aesthetics in proximity to Olmsted landscapes – is there anything more patently offensive to the ideals of Frederick Law Olmsted than a 120-car parking lot? This is the man who deeply regretted ever having allowed transverse streets in Central Park (a mistake which he vowed not to repeat, thus giving us the longest stretch of unbroken meadow in any US urban park – Long Meadow in Prospect Park, Brooklyn).
In deference to Olmsted may I hereby propose that the library parking lot be closed, jackhammered, and flooded by the stream. Or in lieu of that, covered with solar panels.
Is there any documentation about the proposals online? Would the energy output make the project(s) worthwhile?
Trees and solar panels are, unfortunately, directly opposed to one another.
Fine points about Olmsted. How much can these panels offset our suburban life style, low-density housing, driving to local schools and libraries, etc, or are they just a token gesture?
Follow the link above for the 3/14 Finance agenda and dig through. You’ll find more detailed diagrams, benefits, energy generated, etc.
Trees and solar panels are, unfortunately, directly opposed to one another.
Fine points about Olmsted. How much can these panels offset our suburban life style, low-density housing, driving to local schools and libraries, etc, or are they just a token gesture?
Follow the link above for the 3/14 Finance agenda and dig through. You’ll find more detailed diagrams, benefits, energy generated, etc.
That’s a real shame. I’ve parked at an REI that had solar panels and found it had benefits beyond generating electricity. In the hot summer, it means you always find a spot in the shade, and when it’s raining or snowing it shelters the cars. And I can’t say I’ve ever found the library parking lot particularly aesthetically pleasing!
That’s a real shame. I’ve parked at an REI that had solar panels and found it had benefits beyond generating electricity. In the hot summer, it means you always find a spot in the shade, and when it’s raining or snowing it shelters the cars. And I can’t say I’ve ever found the library parking lot particularly aesthetically pleasing!
I wonder why the Newton Villages Alliance considers this to be an issue…if it indeed does? Do solar panels on an existing parking lot fit into its fears about urbanization? I’m not trying to be flip here. Maybe this is a bad idea, maybe not. Just want to understand this issue better.
And Adam, why are trees and solar panels opposed to one another? Aren’t both good ideas?
I wonder why the Newton Villages Alliance considers this to be an issue…if it indeed does? Do solar panels on an existing parking lot fit into its fears about urbanization? I’m not trying to be flip here. Maybe this is a bad idea, maybe not. Just want to understand this issue better.
And Adam, why are trees and solar panels opposed to one another? Aren’t both good ideas?
No idea if this is an NVA thing or concerns of an anonymous tree-lover (or both) I should have linked also to Julia’s piece on newtonforum.org The comment thread is probably as close as you’ll get to an NVA position.
Maples and Elms in the middle of the parking lot would likely grow to shade the solar panels, at least in the seasons when the sun is strongest. Seems like you have to choose, or signficantly reduce the coverage. I’ve got that problem at home. As much as I’d love to go solar, I’m unwilling to take down my 60+ foot Hemlock.
No idea if this is an NVA thing or concerns of an anonymous tree-lover (or both) I should have linked also to Julia’s piece on newtonforum.org The comment thread is probably as close as you’ll get to an NVA position.
Maples and Elms in the middle of the parking lot would likely grow to shade the solar panels, at least in the seasons when the sun is strongest. Seems like you have to choose, or signficantly reduce the coverage. I’ve got that problem at home. As much as I’d love to go solar, I’m unwilling to take down my 60+ foot Hemlock.
Trees shade solar panels but are a necessity to the environment, as well as us humans. The solar company would take down the trees and remove the grass berms in the library parking lot and change completely the feeling and look of the area it is in. I would like more trees there instead.
I think the Councilors made a good decision. They approved putting solar panels in the other places, Part A. Seems reasonable to me to see how it works there before moving on. Doing things a step at a time to see the results before continuing seems like a good idea in this and other decisions. Sounds like a conscientious decision making process.
“There was a motion to approve Part A, which carried by a vote of eight in favor and none opposed. A motion to hold Part B in order to see what the carports at 60 Elliot Street will look like and get further design information on the carports carried unanimously.”
What was the reasoning used in deciding not to put solar panels on city hall? Just curious.
Trees shade solar panels but are a necessity to the environment, as well as us humans. The solar company would take down the trees and remove the grass berms in the library parking lot and change completely the feeling and look of the area it is in. I would like more trees there instead.
I think the Councilors made a good decision. They approved putting solar panels in the other places, Part A. Seems reasonable to me to see how it works there before moving on. Doing things a step at a time to see the results before continuing seems like a good idea in this and other decisions. Sounds like a conscientious decision making process.
“There was a motion to approve Part A, which carried by a vote of eight in favor and none opposed. A motion to hold Part B in order to see what the carports at 60 Elliot Street will look like and get further design information on the carports carried unanimously.”
What was the reasoning used in deciding not to put solar panels on city hall? Just curious.
Adam, I had a similar issue at my house. We have a 60 foot Linden tree and a 50 foot Sugar Maple that would have had to come down to make solar panels cost effective. On top of that, we have an old house with a slate roof. And, I have to be candid, our house faces south and the solar panels would have meant replacing the slate roof and detracting from the overall appearance of our house. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t doing something to promote renewable sources of energy, including solar. We chose an electricity supplier which uses 100% renewable sources and, fortunately, we were also able to buy into a solar farm that is eligible for tax credits, which will save on energy costs and reduce carbon emissions. So, win, win.
It is not as if the City Council has not supported solar power in Newton. Indeed, we approved a 4 acre solar farm at Rumford last term, as well as installations at various schools and the DPW Eliot Street yard. Last night we approved the Newton South location. Like about half of my colleagues, I just did not feel that either the City Hall roof of the Library grounds were the best locations. The Library parking lot is surrounded by trees, and trees and landscaping on the berms would have to be removed to install solar panels there. The library parking lot, though not beautiful by any stretch of the imagination, is one of the better landscaped city-owned lots that actually has wide grass berms, landscaping and trees as opposed to a sea of asphalt. And the canopies–which remind me of the car ports at strip mall diners–would have IMHO detracted from the appearance o the Library, which is one of the most beloved buildings in Newton. There are other parking lots and buildings (NNHS’s desolate asphalt desert on Walnut Street would be a good candidate) that would benefit more from solar canopies and would not require the removal of trees and landscaping. But as far as I can tell, some of those sites were not even considered.
It is also not as if these panels will not be installed at all–just maybe not in Newton. There is a cap on tax incentives for solar panels and the reason for the rush to approve NSHS and the Library was so that Newton could grab as many as possible before the cap is reached. If not another location in Newton, then another community will take advantage of the tax incentives until the cap is reached. Hopefully, the legislature will raise the cap or eliminate it. But until then, Newton can still require solar panels as part of every school, fire station or other public facility construction project–with or without the tax incentives.
Adam, I had a similar issue at my house. We have a 60 foot Linden tree and a 50 foot Sugar Maple that would have had to come down to make solar panels cost effective. On top of that, we have an old house with a slate roof. And, I have to be candid, our house faces south and the solar panels would have meant replacing the slate roof and detracting from the overall appearance of our house. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t doing something to promote renewable sources of energy, including solar. We chose an electricity supplier which uses 100% renewable sources and, fortunately, we were also able to buy into a solar farm that is eligible for tax credits, which will save on energy costs and reduce carbon emissions. So, win, win.
It is not as if the City Council has not supported solar power in Newton. Indeed, we approved a 4 acre solar farm at Rumford last term, as well as installations at various schools and the DPW Eliot Street yard. Last night we approved the Newton South location. Like about half of my colleagues, I just did not feel that either the City Hall roof of the Library grounds were the best locations. The Library parking lot is surrounded by trees, and trees and landscaping on the berms would have to be removed to install solar panels there. The library parking lot, though not beautiful by any stretch of the imagination, is one of the better landscaped city-owned lots that actually has wide grass berms, landscaping and trees as opposed to a sea of asphalt. And the canopies–which remind me of the car ports at strip mall diners–would have IMHO detracted from the appearance o the Library, which is one of the most beloved buildings in Newton. There are other parking lots and buildings (NNHS’s desolate asphalt desert on Walnut Street would be a good candidate) that would benefit more from solar canopies and would not require the removal of trees and landscaping. But as far as I can tell, some of those sites were not even considered.
It is also not as if these panels will not be installed at all–just maybe not in Newton. There is a cap on tax incentives for solar panels and the reason for the rush to approve NSHS and the Library was so that Newton could grab as many as possible before the cap is reached. If not another location in Newton, then another community will take advantage of the tax incentives until the cap is reached. Hopefully, the legislature will raise the cap or eliminate it. But until then, Newton can still require solar panels as part of every school, fire station or other public facility construction project–with or without the tax incentives.
@Ted and Adam – Adam’s post says that the panels at South were not approved last night, but Ted wrote above that they were approved. Which is correct?
@Ted and Adam – Adam’s post says that the panels at South were not approved last night, but Ted wrote above that they were approved. Which is correct?
@mgwa, just going by what’s in the tweets, it sounds like the item was split. Was it really chartered and when would it be reconsidered? Hopefully the minutes will be posted soon.
@mgwa, just going by what’s in the tweets, it sounds like the item was split. Was it really chartered and when would it be reconsidered? Hopefully the minutes will be posted soon.
The solar canopies at NSHS were approved overwhelmingly. After over an hour of debate, Councilor Cote chartered the Library installation.
The solar canopies at NSHS were approved overwhelmingly. After over an hour of debate, Councilor Cote chartered the Library installation.
The NNHS parking lot on Lowel would be another great place to put solar car ports.
The NNHS parking lot on Lowel would be another great place to put solar car ports.
@Greg: NVA has a website (newtonvillagesalliance.org) that articulates its position on loss of trees, greenery and open space. I think it is well written advocacy and offers facts gathered from the City’s Recreation and Open Space Plan, as well as photographic evidence to back its claims.
When you asked about their position, I went to their site and was most struck by their author’s observation that “the Recreation & Open Space Plan also notes that open land in Newton has decreased by over 80% in the last 30 years.”
Whether one is pro or con development, protection of Newton’s open space and tree canopy remains a valid concern. In fact, the more I read about groups being pro or con development, the more I think the difference is whether development is to be approached with a fine chisel or a chainsaw.
@Sallee: Thanks but the part that confuses me is: This is not open land. It’s not a tear down. It won’t bring more traffic here. It doesn’t displace any residents. It doesn’t crowd our schools. It doesn’t take commercial property off the tax base. It’s a parking lot that will remain a parking lot.
@Greg: NVA has a website (newtonvillagesalliance.org) that articulates its position on loss of trees, greenery and open space. I think it is well written advocacy and offers facts gathered from the City’s Recreation and Open Space Plan, as well as photographic evidence to back its claims.
When you asked about their position, I went to their site and was most struck by their author’s observation that “the Recreation & Open Space Plan also notes that open land in Newton has decreased by over 80% in the last 30 years.”
Whether one is pro or con development, protection of Newton’s open space and tree canopy remains a valid concern. In fact, the more I read about groups being pro or con development, the more I think the difference is whether development is to be approached with a fine chisel or a chainsaw.
@Sallee: Thanks but the part that confuses me is: This is not open land. It’s not a tear down. It won’t bring more traffic here. It doesn’t displace any residents. It doesn’t crowd our schools. It doesn’t take commercial property off the tax base. It’s a parking lot that will remain a parking lot.
The solar panel car ports are not listed as a concern on the NVA website.
There is a post about it on newtonforum.org by Julia as Adam points out. Julia and NVA often tweet during council meetings that they are interested in. This time it was trees in the library parking lot, I would guess.
The solar panel car ports are not listed as a concern on the NVA website.
There is a post about it on newtonforum.org by Julia as Adam points out. Julia and NVA often tweet during council meetings that they are interested in. This time it was trees in the library parking lot, I would guess.
Precisely this is not about solar panel dislike. Go to the NVA site and read their concerns about TREES. They are upset about the trees being cut down to make way for solar panels. Greg…people are multi-dimensional. They may be for or against densification and still have other concerns This is not about development…it is about TREES.
@Sallee: You were the one who brought up recreation and open space in response to my question! :)
Precisely this is not about solar panel dislike. Go to the NVA site and read their concerns about TREES. They are upset about the trees being cut down to make way for solar panels. Greg…people are multi-dimensional. They may be for or against densification and still have other concerns This is not about development…it is about TREES.
@Sallee: You were the one who brought up recreation and open space in response to my question! :)
@Greg: You asked: “Do solar panels on an existing parking lot fit into its (NVA’s) fears about urbanization?”
My understanding, AND I DO NOT SPEAK FOR NVA…I merely observe it and its actions:
1) No. And to answer your loaded question, I believe that they have never beaten their spouses either!
2) NVA doesn’t fear urbanization. The people I have spoken to want change to be moderate and considered fully and to balance many interests, beyond those of developers.
3) The NVA considers trees to be important to a garden City concept as opposed to a concrete City concept. Insofar as solar panels are concerned, I strongly suspect that if trees were not to be removed, NVA would support solar panel installation on asphalt plains.
4) The concepts are separate. Tree conservation being one concept and densification as beneficial or detrimental being another.
5) Demonizing all the thinking of people who have some opinions in conflict with yours doesn’t allow for discussion and resolves little.
@Greg: You asked: “Do solar panels on an existing parking lot fit into its (NVA’s) fears about urbanization?”
My understanding, AND I DO NOT SPEAK FOR NVA…I merely observe it and its actions:
1) No. And to answer your loaded question, I believe that they have never beaten their spouses either!
2) NVA doesn’t fear urbanization. The people I have spoken to want change to be moderate and considered fully and to balance many interests, beyond those of developers.
3) The NVA considers trees to be important to a garden City concept as opposed to a concrete City concept. Insofar as solar panels are concerned, I strongly suspect that if trees were not to be removed, NVA would support solar panel installation on asphalt plains.
4) The concepts are separate. Tree conservation being one concept and densification as beneficial or detrimental being another.
5) Demonizing all the thinking of people who have some opinions in conflict with yours doesn’t allow for discussion and resolves little.
Some numbers:
NSHS predicted annual generation (year 1): 476,796 kWh (from Ameresco presentation July 30, 2015)
The average US household uses 10,932 kWh per year (eia.gov), so this solar carport would offset around 44 US homes annually.
The New England electricity grid emits 0.73 lbs CO2 per kWh generated (iso-ne.com), so the NSHS solar car port would offset 346,300 lbs CO2 of grid emissions per year. Putting this number in context:
The average US car driving 11,400 miles per year emits 10,340 lbs CO2 (EPA), so the solar carport would offset the CO2 emissions of about 33 cars per year.
What about the trees? An extended canopy mature mixed hardwood forest absorbs a net of about 4 lbs CO2 per square foot ground area per year. Assuming a footprint of 100 sq. ft. for a tree in the parking lot, this is about 400 lbs CO2 per year taken out of the atmosphere. Thus, the solar canopy does the equivalent CO2 uptake of about 865 trees.
None of these numbers include the additional 151,838 kWh to go on the NSHS rooftop.
Some numbers:
NSHS predicted annual generation (year 1): 476,796 kWh (from Ameresco presentation July 30, 2015)
The average US household uses 10,932 kWh per year (eia.gov), so this solar carport would offset around 44 US homes annually.
The New England electricity grid emits 0.73 lbs CO2 per kWh generated (iso-ne.com), so the NSHS solar car port would offset 346,300 lbs CO2 of grid emissions per year. Putting this number in context:
The average US car driving 11,400 miles per year emits 10,340 lbs CO2 (EPA), so the solar carport would offset the CO2 emissions of about 33 cars per year.
What about the trees? An extended canopy mature mixed hardwood forest absorbs a net of about 4 lbs CO2 per square foot ground area per year. Assuming a footprint of 100 sq. ft. for a tree in the parking lot, this is about 400 lbs CO2 per year taken out of the atmosphere. Thus, the solar canopy does the equivalent CO2 uptake of about 865 trees.
None of these numbers include the additional 151,838 kWh to go on the NSHS rooftop.
If 33 NSHS students agreed to give up driving the 33 cars whose CO2 emissions the solar carport would offset, and bike or walk to school (if Newton committed to making it safe for students to bike), then I would gladly support the removal of 33 parking spaces to allow the existing trees to be retained and an expansion of greenspace and reduction in asphalt. Is the NVA willing to trade parking spaces for trees?
If 33 NSHS students agreed to give up driving the 33 cars whose CO2 emissions the solar carport would offset, and bike or walk to school (if Newton committed to making it safe for students to bike), then I would gladly support the removal of 33 parking spaces to allow the existing trees to be retained and an expansion of greenspace and reduction in asphalt. Is the NVA willing to trade parking spaces for trees?
Could there be any consideration of working with the appropriate authorities to install miles long sets of panels on the south facing side of the east / west length thru Newtono of the Massachusetts Turnpike ? No great aesthetic loss there !
Could there be any consideration of working with the appropriate authorities to install miles long sets of panels on the south facing side of the east / west length thru Newtono of the Massachusetts Turnpike ? No great aesthetic loss there !
Nathan, I have a comment and a question.
I wonder how many kwh could be saved by turning off the lights at NNHS at night. It does not seem to matter whether it is 9PM or 1AM: every night I drive past NNHS on my way home from City Hall, it is lit up like a Christmas tree. I am not just talking about the athletic buildings, I mean every single hallway, stairwell, and the lobby are lit no matter what time of night or early morning.
And, can you tell me how many gas powered leafblowers the NSHS installation will offset? ;-)
Nathan, I have a comment and a question.
I wonder how many kwh could be saved by turning off the lights at NNHS at night. It does not seem to matter whether it is 9PM or 1AM: every night I drive past NNHS on my way home from City Hall, it is lit up like a Christmas tree. I am not just talking about the athletic buildings, I mean every single hallway, stairwell, and the lobby are lit no matter what time of night or early morning.
And, can you tell me how many gas powered leafblowers the NSHS installation will offset? ;-)
Ted – in total agreement on efficiency as the “first fuel”, including reducing single occupancy vehicle trips. http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/08/iea-marks-energy-efficiency-worlds-first-fuel-worth-310-billion/
Leaf blower test shows emissions from 1/2 hr of use exceeds driving a pickup truck across the US: http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-dirtier-than-high-performance-pick-up-trucks-says-edmunds-insidelinecom.html
Bill – great minds think alike:
http://newtonstreets.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-solar-sound-barrier-at-auburndale.html
http://www.wired.com/2015/08/clear-solar-panels-double-highway-sound-barriers/
Ted – in total agreement on efficiency as the “first fuel”, including reducing single occupancy vehicle trips. http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/08/iea-marks-energy-efficiency-worlds-first-fuel-worth-310-billion/
Leaf blower test shows emissions from 1/2 hr of use exceeds driving a pickup truck across the US: http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-dirtier-than-high-performance-pick-up-trucks-says-edmunds-insidelinecom.html
Bill – great minds think alike:
http://newtonstreets.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-solar-sound-barrier-at-auburndale.html
http://www.wired.com/2015/08/clear-solar-panels-double-highway-sound-barriers/
Thanks Nathan, for putting this in perspective. So comparing this to driving to South daily (which unfortunately, I do), let’s say an average round trip is 5 miles, twice daily (traffic conditions and idling probably would yield more emissions) 180 days a year, that’s 1800 miles or 1633 lbs CO2. You’re saying the parking lot solar panels would offset roughly 200 of those families.
Thanks Nathan, for putting this in perspective. So comparing this to driving to South daily (which unfortunately, I do), let’s say an average round trip is 5 miles, twice daily (traffic conditions and idling probably would yield more emissions) 180 days a year, that’s 1800 miles or 1633 lbs CO2. You’re saying the parking lot solar panels would offset roughly 200 of those families.
The reason for my action to Charter the docket item on the Library proposal: My colleague Ted Hess-Mahan’s detailed response earlier in this string explains the library situation perfectly, with the important note that the solar credits will be used somewhere if we deny the library location.
My reasons are twofold: 1st the process has been open, but in the end a surprise to many to the extent that even the ever vigilant Urban Tree Commission wasn’t in the loop; and from what we were hearing the public wasn’t engaged in the conversation.
Secondly, the location for the library is a poor selection in that you take away from the historic location next to City Hall. The library was built to fit in with the location and as solar panels were denied on the roof of City Hall, we should also deny them at the library.
The industry operates on thin margins mostly like a commodity product, and you can envision that the carports could possibly look good in the first few years, but 5 years and longer down the road is the concern. As they fall in disrepair and they start looking aged, questions as to who will clean them up and repair them will fill the media and the Council.
Please see this recent situation with a vendor operating in our area: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/03/18/i-team-boston-next-step-living-closes-masssave/
Again, as Ted mentioned, the Mayor and the city has accomplished an enormous solar undertaking, doing a great job in pushing citywide implementation. The small space at the library will be made up elsewhere and that we know for a fact.
The reason for my action to Charter the docket item on the Library proposal: My colleague Ted Hess-Mahan’s detailed response earlier in this string explains the library situation perfectly, with the important note that the solar credits will be used somewhere if we deny the library location.
My reasons are twofold: 1st the process has been open, but in the end a surprise to many to the extent that even the ever vigilant Urban Tree Commission wasn’t in the loop; and from what we were hearing the public wasn’t engaged in the conversation.
Secondly, the location for the library is a poor selection in that you take away from the historic location next to City Hall. The library was built to fit in with the location and as solar panels were denied on the roof of City Hall, we should also deny them at the library.
The industry operates on thin margins mostly like a commodity product, and you can envision that the carports could possibly look good in the first few years, but 5 years and longer down the road is the concern. As they fall in disrepair and they start looking aged, questions as to who will clean them up and repair them will fill the media and the Council.
Please see this recent situation with a vendor operating in our area: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/03/18/i-team-boston-next-step-living-closes-masssave/
Again, as Ted mentioned, the Mayor and the city has accomplished an enormous solar undertaking, doing a great job in pushing citywide implementation. The small space at the library will be made up elsewhere and that we know for a fact.
Councilor Cote, with all due respect, solar photovoltaic energy is a technology and is the antithesis of the fossil fuel commodity business model. Solar panels operate for two or more decades and decline at 1% or less per year.
http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/7475/What-Is-the-Lifespan-of-a-Solar-Panel.aspx
The argument about letting other communities do the renewables is really disappointing, as well as supportive of the idea that the state should have a fixed cap on renewables and not accelerate the scaling of renewables by lifting the cap.
Councilor Cote, with all due respect, solar photovoltaic energy is a technology and is the antithesis of the fossil fuel commodity business model. Solar panels operate for two or more decades and decline at 1% or less per year.
http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/7475/What-Is-the-Lifespan-of-a-Solar-Panel.aspx
The argument about letting other communities do the renewables is really disappointing, as well as supportive of the idea that the state should have a fixed cap on renewables and not accelerate the scaling of renewables by lifting the cap.
Nathan, don’t get me wrong. We have had and will have future opportunities for solar panel installations. The cap on the tax credit program should be lifted, but until then, we should seize every opportunity to integrate solar panels into every city construction project. Indeed, the Crescent Street project is supposed to include 8 units of Net Zero Energy housing built by the city.
In addition, our zoning ordinance includes a special permit criteria that, in addition to Newton’s first in the Commonwealth stretch energy code, requires that “In cases involving construction of building or structures or additions to existing buildings or structures, if those proposed buildings or structures or additions contain individually or in the aggregate 20,000 or more square feet in gross floor area, the site planning, building design, construction, maintenance or long-term operation of the premises will contribute significantly to the efficient use and conservation of natural resources and energy.” We have often used this criteria to require some advanced level of LEED certification, but this could also be used to require NZE or solar panels on the roof as well.
So, Newton is moving toward creating more renewable energy sources and sustainable design in both public and private construction projects.
Nathan, don’t get me wrong. We have had and will have future opportunities for solar panel installations. The cap on the tax credit program should be lifted, but until then, we should seize every opportunity to integrate solar panels into every city construction project. Indeed, the Crescent Street project is supposed to include 8 units of Net Zero Energy housing built by the city.
In addition, our zoning ordinance includes a special permit criteria that, in addition to Newton’s first in the Commonwealth stretch energy code, requires that “In cases involving construction of building or structures or additions to existing buildings or structures, if those proposed buildings or structures or additions contain individually or in the aggregate 20,000 or more square feet in gross floor area, the site planning, building design, construction, maintenance or long-term operation of the premises will contribute significantly to the efficient use and conservation of natural resources and energy.” We have often used this criteria to require some advanced level of LEED certification, but this could also be used to require NZE or solar panels on the roof as well.
So, Newton is moving toward creating more renewable energy sources and sustainable design in both public and private construction projects.
Interesting discussion. Reluctantly agree about the Library, disagree about City Hall. City Hall is a building that needs to send the right messages, not just sit there and look historic. NNHS would be a good substitute for the Library lot.
Interesting discussion. Reluctantly agree about the Library, disagree about City Hall. City Hall is a building that needs to send the right messages, not just sit there and look historic. NNHS would be a good substitute for the Library lot.
No one is disputing the inclusion of solar technologies into the City’s sustainable energy goal; the question is the appropriateness of carports in the library parking lot. Newton has its own small Emerald necklace that begins in the Newton Cemetery, winds through the Library and historic City Hall properties, and ends in the bucolic Bullough’s Pond. The carports are just plain ugly and not in keeping with the architecture of that location. Even one of the carport advocates said on Monday night “Well, they’d be hidden by bushes”. Ugh.
It’s unclear why the City hasn’t advocated for a number of other, more appropriate locations, which would include:
-The Newton Centre Parking lot, which cannot possibly get uglier and is a HUGE heat island.
-The Newton North parking lots (the one facing Walnut St and the one along Linden near the playing fields);
-The new Angier School parking lot, where the carports could be extended to the playground to offer playground shade coverings, which Melanoma Awareness groups advocate for.
Over the years, the City has made more than a few bad aesthetic decisions. I hope the City Council prevents another one from being made here.
No one is disputing the inclusion of solar technologies into the City’s sustainable energy goal; the question is the appropriateness of carports in the library parking lot. Newton has its own small Emerald necklace that begins in the Newton Cemetery, winds through the Library and historic City Hall properties, and ends in the bucolic Bullough’s Pond. The carports are just plain ugly and not in keeping with the architecture of that location. Even one of the carport advocates said on Monday night “Well, they’d be hidden by bushes”. Ugh.
It’s unclear why the City hasn’t advocated for a number of other, more appropriate locations, which would include:
-The Newton Centre Parking lot, which cannot possibly get uglier and is a HUGE heat island.
-The Newton North parking lots (the one facing Walnut St and the one along Linden near the playing fields);
-The new Angier School parking lot, where the carports could be extended to the playground to offer playground shade coverings, which Melanoma Awareness groups advocate for.
Over the years, the City has made more than a few bad aesthetic decisions. I hope the City Council prevents another one from being made here.
I think it is important to think about where Newton’s electricity comes from now, ie what solar replaces.
– Coal. Here are some pictures of mountaintop removal. Note the dearth of trees. In addition people living near coal plants, such as our own neighbors to the south in Somerset, as well as Holyoke before the closing of Mount Tom, suffer higher rates of asthma & other respiratory diseases. Fish in area waterways are inedible due to high levels of mercury. Burning coal also contributes to climate change. In addition people of color and low income individuals are disproportionately impacted by our dirty energy choices.
– Nuclear. The Pilgrim Nuclear Plant is being shut down because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has deemed it unsafe and the owner doesn’t want to spend the money to fix it. We live within 50 miles of it. It won’t close for 3 more years.
– Fracked gas. As today’s today’s Bill McKibben makes clear, “natural” gas is no better than coal and may be worse in terms of climate change. Fracking also pollutes waterways and is causing earthquakes in Oklahoma.
These are all the things Newton is contributing to each time we turn on the lights. That is why I would think we would embrace every single opportunity we have to take responsibility for our energy choices and choose clean renewables over our current destructive alternatives.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I believe over time we will come to think solar panels are quite attractive, as they signify an investment in clean air, a healthy planet, and not offloading our energy impacts to others.
I think it is important to think about where Newton’s electricity comes from now, ie what solar replaces.
– Coal. Here are some pictures of mountaintop removal. Note the dearth of trees. In addition people living near coal plants, such as our own neighbors to the south in Somerset, as well as Holyoke before the closing of Mount Tom, suffer higher rates of asthma & other respiratory diseases. Fish in area waterways are inedible due to high levels of mercury. Burning coal also contributes to climate change. In addition people of color and low income individuals are disproportionately impacted by our dirty energy choices.
– Nuclear. The Pilgrim Nuclear Plant is being shut down because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has deemed it unsafe and the owner doesn’t want to spend the money to fix it. We live within 50 miles of it. It won’t close for 3 more years.
– Fracked gas. As today’s today’s Bill McKibben makes clear, “natural” gas is no better than coal and may be worse in terms of climate change. Fracking also pollutes waterways and is causing earthquakes in Oklahoma.
These are all the things Newton is contributing to each time we turn on the lights. That is why I would think we would embrace every single opportunity we have to take responsibility for our energy choices and choose clean renewables over our current destructive alternatives.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I believe over time we will come to think solar panels are quite attractive, as they signify an investment in clean air, a healthy planet, and not offloading our energy impacts to others.
@Emily, by (my own ridiculous) extrapolation one could infer that you could advocate for solar panels in open swaths of our national forests. I suspect that you would not clear cut the trees for more solar area.
I think Barbara makes a good point. Let’s not jump on every available square foot of open space when better (in the eyes of many beholders) alternatives exist. Perhaps one desperate day we need the power from the library lot but it doesn’t have to be today.
@Emily, by (my own ridiculous) extrapolation one could infer that you could advocate for solar panels in open swaths of our national forests. I suspect that you would not clear cut the trees for more solar area.
I think Barbara makes a good point. Let’s not jump on every available square foot of open space when better (in the eyes of many beholders) alternatives exist. Perhaps one desperate day we need the power from the library lot but it doesn’t have to be today.
@Groot: I would not advocate cutting down forests for solar. I do think installing them on roofs and parking lots within our city makes sense.
The Republican mayor of San Diego has set a legally binding target for his city to go 100% renewable by 2035. St. Petersburg, FL, Burlington, VT, and many others are also taking the plunge. Why NOT Newton?
@Groot: I would not advocate cutting down forests for solar. I do think installing them on roofs and parking lots within our city makes sense.
The Republican mayor of San Diego has set a legally binding target for his city to go 100% renewable by 2035. St. Petersburg, FL, Burlington, VT, and many others are also taking the plunge. Why NOT Newton?
I’m all for additional solar in our parking lots, as long as the power purchase agreements and other documentation all for us to redevelop that land in the future. For instance, the NEwton Centre parking lot may one day be developed or changed. Same with the library parking lot. We need to make sure that the agreements with the ultimate power purchasers are structured so that there are sufficient buy out rights after a reasonable point in time. There are many different ways to structure solar installations from a financing standpoint, and the city should make sure it has flexibility in later years.
Before folks jump on me regarding developing parking lots, flexibility is a good city approach for most things. 40 years ago it made sense to them to see our school buildings. Wouldn’t you like to have some of those decisions that limited flexibility back. For the record I see no development in the near term for these areas. But I remember folks trying to say Austin Street shouldn’t be developed due to the goodwill truck…and I was glad that the goodwill truck didn’t have a 100 year lease on the spot.
Solar is a proven technology. So is public transportation, smart growth, and energy efficient buildings. I think we should be pushing all of those as we grow as a community.
I’ll also note that it helps to do so if the Commonwealth leads. The fact that the solar incentives have expired I believe is a travesty.
I’m all for additional solar in our parking lots, as long as the power purchase agreements and other documentation all for us to redevelop that land in the future. For instance, the NEwton Centre parking lot may one day be developed or changed. Same with the library parking lot. We need to make sure that the agreements with the ultimate power purchasers are structured so that there are sufficient buy out rights after a reasonable point in time. There are many different ways to structure solar installations from a financing standpoint, and the city should make sure it has flexibility in later years.
Before folks jump on me regarding developing parking lots, flexibility is a good city approach for most things. 40 years ago it made sense to them to see our school buildings. Wouldn’t you like to have some of those decisions that limited flexibility back. For the record I see no development in the near term for these areas. But I remember folks trying to say Austin Street shouldn’t be developed due to the goodwill truck…and I was glad that the goodwill truck didn’t have a 100 year lease on the spot.
Solar is a proven technology. So is public transportation, smart growth, and energy efficient buildings. I think we should be pushing all of those as we grow as a community.
I’ll also note that it helps to do so if the Commonwealth leads. The fact that the solar incentives have expired I believe is a travesty.
clearly I shouldn’t post in a rush. Sorry for the spelling mistakes.
clearly I shouldn’t post in a rush. Sorry for the spelling mistakes.
Thanks Barbara and fignewtonville.
To be clear, I wholeheartedly support Newton’s goals for renewable energy and solar power in particular. But implementing those goals in a thoughtful, deliberate way is every bit as important as the goals themselves. The City Council should not allow noble causes to blind us to flaws in the City’s plan in our decision making process. For instance, Newton partnered with Next Step Living, to promote energy improvements. Next Step Living has a history of complaints about the quality of work performed by its contractors, and just last week, it abruptly went out of business leaving many homeowners–including homeowners in Newton–in the lurch.
I, for one, am going to scrutinize these decisions even more carefully in the future.
Thanks Barbara and fignewtonville.
To be clear, I wholeheartedly support Newton’s goals for renewable energy and solar power in particular. But implementing those goals in a thoughtful, deliberate way is every bit as important as the goals themselves. The City Council should not allow noble causes to blind us to flaws in the City’s plan in our decision making process. For instance, Newton partnered with Next Step Living, to promote energy improvements. Next Step Living has a history of complaints about the quality of work performed by its contractors, and just last week, it abruptly went out of business leaving many homeowners–including homeowners in Newton–in the lurch.
I, for one, am going to scrutinize these decisions even more carefully in the future.
I am not sure what Next Step Living has to do with the proposed solar carport at the library, which I hope Councilor Hess Mahan will change his mind and vote to support.
Re Next Step Living, I am pasting an email that Sustainability Director Andy Savitz sent to the City Councilors earlier today:
I’ve been working to make sure that this unexpected event has no adverse impact on our residents, or on our goal of getting 1000 assessments done by September. I have been in touch with MassSave daily since I got the news late Thursday night. Here’s the status:
1. MassSave has assured me, (and all the cities and towns that had similar arrangements with NSL) that everyone in the NSL pipeline will be contacted by another certified vendor to complete the process, within 3-5 weeks. Anyone who has put down a deposit can either get a full refund or proceed with the new HPC.
2. MassSave has circulated a number to call if you are a homeowner or renter with questions. The number is 1-800-632-8300.
3. At the beginning of or program we set up our own quality control process between NSL, Green Newton and the City. Out of 650 assessments and 120 insulation jobs completed, I received only 2 complaints about NSL, one of which came from a homeowner in Watertown and both of which got solved. I’m not saying that NSL was perfect, and I am unhappy about their abrupt departure, but my contact information has appeared every week in the Tab since the program started, and I believe that if any resident was unhappy with the service, they knew how to find me. That is a surmise, obviously, but my experience here is that people will call when things go wrong.
I am not sure what Next Step Living has to do with the proposed solar carport at the library, which I hope Councilor Hess Mahan will change his mind and vote to support.
Re Next Step Living, I am pasting an email that Sustainability Director Andy Savitz sent to the City Councilors earlier today:
I’ve been working to make sure that this unexpected event has no adverse impact on our residents, or on our goal of getting 1000 assessments done by September. I have been in touch with MassSave daily since I got the news late Thursday night. Here’s the status:
1. MassSave has assured me, (and all the cities and towns that had similar arrangements with NSL) that everyone in the NSL pipeline will be contacted by another certified vendor to complete the process, within 3-5 weeks. Anyone who has put down a deposit can either get a full refund or proceed with the new HPC.
2. MassSave has circulated a number to call if you are a homeowner or renter with questions. The number is 1-800-632-8300.
3. At the beginning of or program we set up our own quality control process between NSL, Green Newton and the City. Out of 650 assessments and 120 insulation jobs completed, I received only 2 complaints about NSL, one of which came from a homeowner in Watertown and both of which got solved. I’m not saying that NSL was perfect, and I am unhappy about their abrupt departure, but my contact information has appeared every week in the Tab since the program started, and I believe that if any resident was unhappy with the service, they knew how to find me. That is a surmise, obviously, but my experience here is that people will call when things go wrong.
Enron, Evergreen solar, NSL … what did we learn?
Enron, Evergreen solar, NSL … what did we learn?
I spoke with Ryan Kath, WBZ-TV’s investigative reporter (and a West Newton resident) who broke the story about Next Step Living. Most homeowner complaints went to the consumer protection division of the Attorney General’s office. And I recently learned that a neighbor who laid down a deposit and applied for a loan has been left in the lurch as a result of NSL abruptly closing up shop. This could have been avoided since the utilities companies were well aware of complaints about NSL. One of my colleagues also raised concerns about the city’s decision to partner with NSL based on her past experiences on energy improvement projects with the company, but her warnings went unheeded.
I continue to believe that the decision-making process used here was flawed and that there are far more appropriate sites to locate a solar panel installation than the library which will not result in the removal or loss of mature trees. For example, I understand that the Urban Tree Commission held a special meeting this week so that it could weigh in on the library proposal. Frankly, I am surprised they were not consulted in the first place.
I spoke with Ryan Kath, WBZ-TV’s investigative reporter (and a West Newton resident) who broke the story about Next Step Living. Most homeowner complaints went to the consumer protection division of the Attorney General’s office. And I recently learned that a neighbor who laid down a deposit and applied for a loan has been left in the lurch as a result of NSL abruptly closing up shop. This could have been avoided since the utilities companies were well aware of complaints about NSL. One of my colleagues also raised concerns about the city’s decision to partner with NSL based on her past experiences on energy improvement projects with the company, but her warnings went unheeded.
I continue to believe that the decision-making process used here was flawed and that there are far more appropriate sites to locate a solar panel installation than the library which will not result in the removal or loss of mature trees. For example, I understand that the Urban Tree Commission held a special meeting this week so that it could weigh in on the library proposal. Frankly, I am surprised they were not consulted in the first place.
I’m stunned that there’s still nothing in the Globe about NSL closing.
I’m stunned that there’s still nothing in the Globe about NSL closing.
Installing solar carports at the library will save the city $17,000 a year in energy costs, and the amount of clean solar energy produced is equivalent to the carbon sequestered by 139 acres of trees.
In terms of aesthetics, Newton’s current energy sources are pretty darn ugly: mountaintop removal, fracking, nuclear waste. But it’s other people being impacted. Does that make it ok?
Installing solar carports at the library will save the city $17,000 a year in energy costs, and the amount of clean solar energy produced is equivalent to the carbon sequestered by 139 acres of trees.
In terms of aesthetics, Newton’s current energy sources are pretty darn ugly: mountaintop removal, fracking, nuclear waste. But it’s other people being impacted. Does that make it ok?
Solar carports could save a whole lot more $$$ at a location like Newton North. I wish the Ward 2 Councilor would look into the reasons that the NNHS parking lot was not one of the sites chosen. It is in her Ward. That parking lot is a sea of asphalt and would not require the removal of mature trees.
BTW, manufacturing solar panels consumes energy and requires mining of minerals. It takes at least 5 years at these latitudes to realize the “carbon payback.”
Solar carports could save a whole lot more $$$ at a location like Newton North. I wish the Ward 2 Councilor would look into the reasons that the NNHS parking lot was not one of the sites chosen. It is in her Ward. That parking lot is a sea of asphalt and would not require the removal of mature trees.
BTW, manufacturing solar panels consumes energy and requires mining of minerals. It takes at least 5 years at these latitudes to realize the “carbon payback.”
Councilor Norton, I’m confused about why you are so adamant that solar panels be installed in the library lot when maintaining the character of Newton has been one of your major talking points. That character would be negatively affected by removing grass berms and mature trees and installing panels at the Newton Free Library. They would be much more appropriate, and equally effective, on any and all of the parking lots at NNHS in Ward 2, my ward as well as yours.
Councilor Norton, I’m confused about why you are so adamant that solar panels be installed in the library lot when maintaining the character of Newton has been one of your major talking points. That character would be negatively affected by removing grass berms and mature trees and installing panels at the Newton Free Library. They would be much more appropriate, and equally effective, on any and all of the parking lots at NNHS in Ward 2, my ward as well as yours.
@Martibowen – I do not agree with your assertion that the character of Newton will be negatively affected by installing solar panels at the Newton Free library parking lot. Rather I think it will demonstrate our community’s character in terms of commitment to clean renewable energy, and interest in taking responsibility for the impacts of our own energy choices.
And I fully agree that NNHS is an excellent location for solar carports, which is why I’m pleased they are part of the City’s phase 3 solar initiative, along with a number of other parking lots around the City.
@Martibowen – I do not agree with your assertion that the character of Newton will be negatively affected by installing solar panels at the Newton Free library parking lot. Rather I think it will demonstrate our community’s character in terms of commitment to clean renewable energy, and interest in taking responsibility for the impacts of our own energy choices.
And I fully agree that NNHS is an excellent location for solar carports, which is why I’m pleased they are part of the City’s phase 3 solar initiative, along with a number of other parking lots around the City.
Ted, a five year return on carbon investment for panels that last decades is an excellent carbon and money investment and exactly why we need to accelerate solar energy in Newton, across the Commonwealth, the nation, and globe. Our alternative is to perpetuate and build out fossil fuel pipeline infrastructure that kills far more trees (gas leaks) with plans on the table now to clear cut wide swaths through our MA forest conservation lands in the name of providing for our electricity needs. To add insult to injury, the fossil fuel industry wants MA ratepayers to finance this fossil infrastructure to the tune of $8B. To free ourselves from fossil fuels, we need solar in as many underutilized public spaces like parking lots as possible, which is why I am glad that we won’t be stopping at Phase 2 and that NNHS is next up. (As for Newton Centre, I agree with fig that we need to be careful not to lock in the asphalt sea in the center of Newton Centre. There are much better uses for that parcel than a parking lot.)
Jerusalemites aren’t up in arms about the solar hot water heaters surrounding the Temple Mount. I think in Newton we can tolerate solar in parking lots. In fact, the solar car port at the Natick REI looks great and reflects a forward looking, progressive character that I hope Newton shares.
We don’t have the luxury of time, to think that we can wait to act when things get ‘desperate’. Island nations are sinking now and polar ice is melting at record rates. I am not seeing the sense of urgency in this thread that indicates an awareness of the global situation.
Let’s develop in Newton an appropriate parking lot tree mitigation plan that can serve as a model for other communities, because this issue is becoming widespread. On thought is to write a grant to pilot large tree transplantation – which is a proven technique and could mitigate the tradeoff for our necessary acceleration of solar energy.
Ted, a five year return on carbon investment for panels that last decades is an excellent carbon and money investment and exactly why we need to accelerate solar energy in Newton, across the Commonwealth, the nation, and globe. Our alternative is to perpetuate and build out fossil fuel pipeline infrastructure that kills far more trees (gas leaks) with plans on the table now to clear cut wide swaths through our MA forest conservation lands in the name of providing for our electricity needs. To add insult to injury, the fossil fuel industry wants MA ratepayers to finance this fossil infrastructure to the tune of $8B. To free ourselves from fossil fuels, we need solar in as many underutilized public spaces like parking lots as possible, which is why I am glad that we won’t be stopping at Phase 2 and that NNHS is next up. (As for Newton Centre, I agree with fig that we need to be careful not to lock in the asphalt sea in the center of Newton Centre. There are much better uses for that parcel than a parking lot.)
Jerusalemites aren’t up in arms about the solar hot water heaters surrounding the Temple Mount. I think in Newton we can tolerate solar in parking lots. In fact, the solar car port at the Natick REI looks great and reflects a forward looking, progressive character that I hope Newton shares.
We don’t have the luxury of time, to think that we can wait to act when things get ‘desperate’. Island nations are sinking now and polar ice is melting at record rates. I am not seeing the sense of urgency in this thread that indicates an awareness of the global situation.
Let’s develop in Newton an appropriate parking lot tree mitigation plan that can serve as a model for other communities, because this issue is becoming widespread. On thought is to write a grant to pilot large tree transplantation – which is a proven technique and could mitigate the tradeoff for our necessary acceleration of solar energy.
It absolutely is, Nathan. Which is all the more reason I firmly believe we should be concentrating on larger solar arrays instead of relatively small installations, like at the library, that require tree removal. We have much larger municipal parking lots in the city, such as at Newton North or in Newton Centre, that it seems to me could easily accommodate many more solar panels. And the carports could be placed over the bike racks so that students, like mine, who ride in all weather, will have some protection from the weather for their bikes. And we should be pushing solar carports for commercial development that includes parking lots. Finally, I will keep saying it until I am blue in the face: reduce consumption and turn off the lights at night at Newton North. There is no reason that building should be ablaze all the time.
It absolutely is, Nathan. Which is all the more reason I firmly believe we should be concentrating on larger solar arrays instead of relatively small installations, like at the library, that require tree removal. We have much larger municipal parking lots in the city, such as at Newton North or in Newton Centre, that it seems to me could easily accommodate many more solar panels. And the carports could be placed over the bike racks so that students, like mine, who ride in all weather, will have some protection from the weather for their bikes. And we should be pushing solar carports for commercial development that includes parking lots. Finally, I will keep saying it until I am blue in the face: reduce consumption and turn off the lights at night at Newton North. There is no reason that building should be ablaze all the time.
Ted, I’m concerned that the opportunity to do the project at the library will be lost and we won’t have the net metering incentives to do Newton North as you suggest. How fast could the city move on a Newton North proposal? Could it realistically become part of phase 2, and will you commit to pushing it forward now?
Ted, I’m concerned that the opportunity to do the project at the library will be lost and we won’t have the net metering incentives to do Newton North as you suggest. How fast could the city move on a Newton North proposal? Could it realistically become part of phase 2, and will you commit to pushing it forward now?