The city council will vote Monday on whether or not to install solar panels at the Newton Free Library parking lot. How would you like them to vote and why?
Should Newton install solar panels at the library parking lot?
by Greg Reibman | Apr 3, 2016 | Newton | 58 comments
Yes. The City has responded to concerns about tree loss by agreeing to save the large 80 year old oak, and developing a strong mitigation plan for the saplings and the several mature trees. The City has acted reasonably and in good faith to find compromise. The solar carport will be visually appealing like the REI Natick solar carport, and speak volumes about Newton’s character as a leader on climate change action.
Yes. The City has responded to concerns about tree loss by agreeing to save the large 80 year old oak, and developing a strong mitigation plan for the saplings and the several mature trees. The City has acted reasonably and in good faith to find compromise. The solar carport will be visually appealing like the REI Natick solar carport, and speak volumes about Newton’s character as a leader on climate change action.
A quick look at the presentations on the city’s website makes me wonder why anyone would be opposed to this.
The library parking lot currently generates no income, and this would generate close to $20K/year.
This project would not cost the the city anything.
The library trustees are in full support of this project.
This project results in the loss of 2 trees, which will be compensated for by planting new trees, and the solar carport has the carbon equivalent offset of close to 150 acres of trees.
There are many other obvious benefits. Am I missing something?
A quick look at the presentations on the city’s website makes me wonder why anyone would be opposed to this.
The library parking lot currently generates no income, and this would generate close to $20K/year.
This project would not cost the the city anything.
The library trustees are in full support of this project.
This project results in the loss of 2 trees, which will be compensated for by planting new trees, and the solar carport has the carbon equivalent offset of close to 150 acres of trees.
There are many other obvious benefits. Am I missing something?
Nathan, in my humble opinion, the REI carports are anything but appealing (they are actually kind of dark and foreboding), but we can agree to disagree about that. What interests me is why Ameresco, which is just down the way on Speen Street, does not have a whole bunch of solar carports in its rather expansive parking lot but has, instead, a lot of trees.*
If the city chose the library as a location for PR purposes, rather than purely logistical ones (which I believe it did), that is fine. But compromises were made because of other existing trees at the cemetery that shadow the parking lot, which make the library site less than ideal to start with. Indeed, saving this large oak tree will decrease production even further. Let us all be honest about that. We could make the point about solar power saving trees just as well–maybe better–by having carports in the parking lots at the various conservation areas and parks in the city. That would speak even louder than a solar installation at the library which comprises only about 5% of the proposed capacity.
Let us not kid ourselves that by building carports at the library we are saving any rainforests. The rainforests are being clear cut for grazing land so that Americans can satisfy their appetite for beef. We could save far more trees by not getting in our cars and driving to McDonalds, Wendy’s, Arby’s and Burger King. Let us instead concentrate on finding locations on public land where we can maximize our “bang for the buck” and not force trees and solar panels to compete.
Not doing the library site does not mean Newton does not and cannot do its part. Indeed, Newton has special permit criteria that require energy conservation measures on all buildings over 20,000 square feet which apply to new construction. The City Council can and should use this criteria to require that every new major commercial or mixed use development includes solar panels and other measures to achieve NZE (net zero energy).
*I am informed that Ameresco leases office space, and that this is one of the reasons it is so hard to market solar power to the private sector. All the more reason the City Council should use its zoning and special permit granting authority to promote and/or require NZE for new construction.
Nathan, in my humble opinion, the REI carports are anything but appealing (they are actually kind of dark and foreboding), but we can agree to disagree about that. What interests me is why Ameresco, which is just down the way on Speen Street, does not have a whole bunch of solar carports in its rather expansive parking lot but has, instead, a lot of trees.*
If the city chose the library as a location for PR purposes, rather than purely logistical ones (which I believe it did), that is fine. But compromises were made because of other existing trees at the cemetery that shadow the parking lot, which make the library site less than ideal to start with. Indeed, saving this large oak tree will decrease production even further. Let us all be honest about that. We could make the point about solar power saving trees just as well–maybe better–by having carports in the parking lots at the various conservation areas and parks in the city. That would speak even louder than a solar installation at the library which comprises only about 5% of the proposed capacity.
Let us not kid ourselves that by building carports at the library we are saving any rainforests. The rainforests are being clear cut for grazing land so that Americans can satisfy their appetite for beef. We could save far more trees by not getting in our cars and driving to McDonalds, Wendy’s, Arby’s and Burger King. Let us instead concentrate on finding locations on public land where we can maximize our “bang for the buck” and not force trees and solar panels to compete.
Not doing the library site does not mean Newton does not and cannot do its part. Indeed, Newton has special permit criteria that require energy conservation measures on all buildings over 20,000 square feet which apply to new construction. The City Council can and should use this criteria to require that every new major commercial or mixed use development includes solar panels and other measures to achieve NZE (net zero energy).
*I am informed that Ameresco leases office space, and that this is one of the reasons it is so hard to market solar power to the private sector. All the more reason the City Council should use its zoning and special permit granting authority to promote and/or require NZE for new construction.
What Ted said! We need balance. If solar carports are an excellent scientific response to unbridled carbon emissions,, install them at the two high schools in the seas of asphalt and other sites worthy of covering. Allow our Library and City Hall the dignity of remaining architecturally appealing. I’m not sneezing at $20,000/year. But there have to be better places to park the carports than next to these distinguished buildings.
What Ted said! We need balance. If solar carports are an excellent scientific response to unbridled carbon emissions,, install them at the two high schools in the seas of asphalt and other sites worthy of covering. Allow our Library and City Hall the dignity of remaining architecturally appealing. I’m not sneezing at $20,000/year. But there have to be better places to park the carports than next to these distinguished buildings.
I agree with Ted and Sallee. There are many places in Newton where solar panels would cover more area and be more productive. NNHS is a perfect place as well as the other places mentioned.
I agree with Ted and Sallee. There are many places in Newton where solar panels would cover more area and be more productive. NNHS is a perfect place as well as the other places mentioned.
The City Council approved a solar carport at the Newton South High School library during our last meeting. Newton North High School is on the list for Phase 3. We should install solar on as many rooftops and parking lots as possible, including the library. This is about owning the impacts of the energy we use–right now we are offloading it to other less privileged communities.
UNEQUAL EXPOSURE TO ECOLOGICAL HAZARDS 2005:
ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICES IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS: http://www.northeastern.edu/ejresearchnetwork/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Final-Unequal-Exposure-Report-2005-10-12-05.pdf
The City Council approved a solar carport at the Newton South High School library during our last meeting. Newton North High School is on the list for Phase 3. We should install solar on as many rooftops and parking lots as possible, including the library. This is about owning the impacts of the energy we use–right now we are offloading it to other less privileged communities.
UNEQUAL EXPOSURE TO ECOLOGICAL HAZARDS 2005:
ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICES IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS: http://www.northeastern.edu/ejresearchnetwork/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Final-Unequal-Exposure-Report-2005-10-12-05.pdf
What about on the Mass Pike like they have done in the Natick/ Framingham area?
And what about on the roof of the new building being built on Austin Street? That might make up for the land being sold by the city for such a low price. And make up for the money that the city will lose from the parking meters.
What about on the Mass Pike like they have done in the Natick/ Framingham area?
And what about on the roof of the new building being built on Austin Street? That might make up for the land being sold by the city for such a low price. And make up for the money that the city will lose from the parking meters.
When one looks at the structure of how things are currently being done in Newton, it’s easy to see that the Mayor has been very successful in putting pressure on the various boards to push through programs which will enhance his future political goals.
Unfortunately, it’s decreasing the city’s aesthetics, decreasing the tree population, decreasing the village dynamic all while moving Newton toward a more dense, more urban, and an untenable amount of pressure on the school system.
But from a PR perspective, more solar & more housing sounds really really good in a campaign speech.
When one looks at the structure of how things are currently being done in Newton, it’s easy to see that the Mayor has been very successful in putting pressure on the various boards to push through programs which will enhance his future political goals.
Unfortunately, it’s decreasing the city’s aesthetics, decreasing the tree population, decreasing the village dynamic all while moving Newton toward a more dense, more urban, and an untenable amount of pressure on the school system.
But from a PR perspective, more solar & more housing sounds really really good in a campaign speech.
While Newton debates the aesthetics of its parking lots, the gas industry whose pipelines kill hundreds of Newton’s trees is now poised to clearcut wide swaths of forestland in MA to lock us in with even more gas dependence (and charge MA ratepayers $8B to finance it) and slow our transition to renewable energy: http://www.berkshireeagle.com/local/ci_29704213/hearing-delayed-kinder-morgan-motion-allow-tree-cutting
While Newton debates the aesthetics of its parking lots, the gas industry whose pipelines kill hundreds of Newton’s trees is now poised to clearcut wide swaths of forestland in MA to lock us in with even more gas dependence (and charge MA ratepayers $8B to finance it) and slow our transition to renewable energy: http://www.berkshireeagle.com/local/ci_29704213/hearing-delayed-kinder-morgan-motion-allow-tree-cutting
Let me be clear. We must increase renewables AND reduce consumption to avoid going over the precipice of climate change. But let us be smart about it. The more I learn about the decisionmaking process involved in choosing the library site, the less confidence I have that this is the best location. Ask yourself why no one considered putting solar panels on the roof of the library. The answer is obvious: aesthetics. No one (well, except maybe some bloggers on Village 14) loves parking lots. But, more importantly, why were other locations that are free of obstructions (and trees) not considered first? I am told they are in the next round. Why not move them up in line?
The north side of the Mass Pike is an ideal location, but the city does not own it; the state does. Nevertheless, it is several miles of available space that has a constant, mostly unobstructed southern exposure. We should push the state to use this valuable resource before the existing incentives expire. That would further environmental injustice, not to mention make up for the loss of many homes for the Mass Pike extension in the 1960s, the purpose of which was to make it easier for more cars to create more carbon emissions.
Let me be clear. We must increase renewables AND reduce consumption to avoid going over the precipice of climate change. But let us be smart about it. The more I learn about the decisionmaking process involved in choosing the library site, the less confidence I have that this is the best location. Ask yourself why no one considered putting solar panels on the roof of the library. The answer is obvious: aesthetics. No one (well, except maybe some bloggers on Village 14) loves parking lots. But, more importantly, why were other locations that are free of obstructions (and trees) not considered first? I am told they are in the next round. Why not move them up in line?
The north side of the Mass Pike is an ideal location, but the city does not own it; the state does. Nevertheless, it is several miles of available space that has a constant, mostly unobstructed southern exposure. We should push the state to use this valuable resource before the existing incentives expire. That would further environmental injustice, not to mention make up for the loss of many homes for the Mass Pike extension in the 1960s, the purpose of which was to make it easier for more cars to create more carbon emissions.
Ted,
If the answer to why no one considered solar on the roof of the library is due to aesthetics, than why would the trustees agree to solar carports, which are much more visible? Please elaborate.
Ted,
If the answer to why no one considered solar on the roof of the library is due to aesthetics, than why would the trustees agree to solar carports, which are much more visible? Please elaborate.
Personally, I support adding solar carports at the library. I live next to the library and am there all the time. We have scores of library books in our house at any given moment. We donate. My three-year-old son (father’s pride speaking here) learned to ride a two-wheeler no training wheels in February in the parking lot. Much as I love the library, not once have I thought the parking lot is pretty. It is kind of beat up. There isn’t much shade. Basically, it’s some pavement. Why not add the carports? We’d get much-needed money. We show leadership. Cars stay cooler in the summer. Go for it!
Personally, I support adding solar carports at the library. I live next to the library and am there all the time. We have scores of library books in our house at any given moment. We donate. My three-year-old son (father’s pride speaking here) learned to ride a two-wheeler no training wheels in February in the parking lot. Much as I love the library, not once have I thought the parking lot is pretty. It is kind of beat up. There isn’t much shade. Basically, it’s some pavement. Why not add the carports? We’d get much-needed money. We show leadership. Cars stay cooler in the summer. Go for it!
Randy, because the solar canopies are standalone and not affixed directly to the building. I do not know whether the trustees were even asked about solar panels on the building itself, which in my view would have required a Section 5-58 site plan review. Solar panels that are laid flat on the roof would not show unlike those which are on a sloped roof.
Randy, because the solar canopies are standalone and not affixed directly to the building. I do not know whether the trustees were even asked about solar panels on the building itself, which in my view would have required a Section 5-58 site plan review. Solar panels that are laid flat on the roof would not show unlike those which are on a sloped roof.
The only problem with solar panels on the north side of the Turnpike through Newton is that it would make a build over the Turnpike less desirable, since it would block those panels from connection with the sun. However, if a build over the Turnpike ever were to happen, solar panels could be required on the roof and parking lot of any property built thereon.
The only problem with solar panels on the north side of the Turnpike through Newton is that it would make a build over the Turnpike less desirable, since it would block those panels from connection with the sun. However, if a build over the Turnpike ever were to happen, solar panels could be required on the roof and parking lot of any property built thereon.
I support the solar carports at the library as well.
Carbon sequestration to prevent catastrophic global warming is a top priority for many of us in Newton and around the world, is the stated purpose of this project, and it seems that nobody is able to dispute that this effort would on balance be a significant investment in carbon sequestration.
My understanding is that while it is unfortunate anytime you have to remove a few trees, the amount of carbon this project will sequester would take hundreds of acres of forest to be comparable. To me, this is a no brainer.
If it is possible to do this other places efficiently, we should be doing it there too. Combating global warming isn’t something we should do by finding a few out of the way sites to put solar panels, it should be done by using every efficient, available resource at our disposal to minimize its impact.
I support the solar carports at the library as well.
Carbon sequestration to prevent catastrophic global warming is a top priority for many of us in Newton and around the world, is the stated purpose of this project, and it seems that nobody is able to dispute that this effort would on balance be a significant investment in carbon sequestration.
My understanding is that while it is unfortunate anytime you have to remove a few trees, the amount of carbon this project will sequester would take hundreds of acres of forest to be comparable. To me, this is a no brainer.
If it is possible to do this other places efficiently, we should be doing it there too. Combating global warming isn’t something we should do by finding a few out of the way sites to put solar panels, it should be done by using every efficient, available resource at our disposal to minimize its impact.
In a built-out community such as Newton, parking lots may be one of the few places where we can install solar panels.
It’s my understanding that NNHS will have solar panels and I hope they are included in new developments throughout the city
“Let us not kid ourselves that by building carports at the library we are saving any rain forests…” Imagine if every community took this same stance? Maybe if every community took every opportunity possible to use solar panels, the planet would would stand half a chance of stemming climate change.
In a built-out community such as Newton, parking lots may be one of the few places where we can install solar panels.
It’s my understanding that NNHS will have solar panels and I hope they are included in new developments throughout the city
“Let us not kid ourselves that by building carports at the library we are saving any rain forests…” Imagine if every community took this same stance? Maybe if every community took every opportunity possible to use solar panels, the planet would would stand half a chance of stemming climate change.
An argument has been made that every little bit helps – yet there was very little, if any debate about the decision to not install solar on the roof of City Hall.
Excerpt from 11/04/15 – Public Facilities Meeting:
The Committee members had concerns regarding the installation of solar panels on City
Hall roof. The Mayor is supportive of putting the solar panels on City Hall as a symbol to
encourage residents and businesses to install solar panels. The Committee members were
concerned that the solar panels are not appropriate for a historic building and the panels could
cause damage to the slate roof. In addition, the panels would be very visible on the pitched roof,
including the main roof to the north of the main entrance of the historic building. Before solar
panels are placed on any roof, Ameresco and the City would complete a detailed investigation
and evaluation of the structure and condition. Commissioner of Public Buildings Josh Morse
pointed out that the City is not obligated to put solar panels on each of the roofs identified as a
possible location for solar panels. The City Hall location is a very small installation and would
have a minimal impact on the power generated. It was suggested that the City Hall location be
removed from the list of sites for solar panels. The Committee was in agreement with the
suggestion.
An argument has been made that every little bit helps – yet there was very little, if any debate about the decision to not install solar on the roof of City Hall.
Excerpt from 11/04/15 – Public Facilities Meeting:
The Committee members had concerns regarding the installation of solar panels on City
Hall roof. The Mayor is supportive of putting the solar panels on City Hall as a symbol to
encourage residents and businesses to install solar panels. The Committee members were
concerned that the solar panels are not appropriate for a historic building and the panels could
cause damage to the slate roof. In addition, the panels would be very visible on the pitched roof,
including the main roof to the north of the main entrance of the historic building. Before solar
panels are placed on any roof, Ameresco and the City would complete a detailed investigation
and evaluation of the structure and condition. Commissioner of Public Buildings Josh Morse
pointed out that the City is not obligated to put solar panels on each of the roofs identified as a
possible location for solar panels. The City Hall location is a very small installation and would
have a minimal impact on the power generated. It was suggested that the City Hall location be
removed from the list of sites for solar panels. The Committee was in agreement with the
suggestion.
I disagreed with the decision by the Public Facilities Committee to remove City Hall from the list of sites for solar. I plan to re-introduce it as soon as our rules allow (2 years). I think the City Hall roof is the perfect place to demonstrate our City’s commitment to clean energy.
However that is the past, what is before us now is the library carports, and I’m with Nathan, Bryan and Jane on this. Climate change represents an existential threat to humanity and all other living things on the planet – INCLUDING TREES – and for us to vote down this one site over aesthetics… I’m just really surprised that in the year 2016, after the Pope’s Laudato Si, after the Paris climate agreement, after Katrina and Irene and Sandy, that even in Newton people seem to not be fully aware of the massive cliff we are on the edge of.
Newton alone can’t stop climate change, but we are looked up to as a leader, in a state that is looked up to as a leader, so if we are shrugging this off as “too ugly”, then that sends a clear message to others that this clean energy stuff is just not that big a deal.
Every time you turn on the lights, you are putting more carbon pollution into the air — because our energy grid is powered largely by coal and natural gas. Why wouldn’t we want to do our part to be transitioning away from fossil fuels, toward a clean energy future?
I disagreed with the decision by the Public Facilities Committee to remove City Hall from the list of sites for solar. I plan to re-introduce it as soon as our rules allow (2 years). I think the City Hall roof is the perfect place to demonstrate our City’s commitment to clean energy.
However that is the past, what is before us now is the library carports, and I’m with Nathan, Bryan and Jane on this. Climate change represents an existential threat to humanity and all other living things on the planet – INCLUDING TREES – and for us to vote down this one site over aesthetics… I’m just really surprised that in the year 2016, after the Pope’s Laudato Si, after the Paris climate agreement, after Katrina and Irene and Sandy, that even in Newton people seem to not be fully aware of the massive cliff we are on the edge of.
Newton alone can’t stop climate change, but we are looked up to as a leader, in a state that is looked up to as a leader, so if we are shrugging this off as “too ugly”, then that sends a clear message to others that this clean energy stuff is just not that big a deal.
Every time you turn on the lights, you are putting more carbon pollution into the air — because our energy grid is powered largely by coal and natural gas. Why wouldn’t we want to do our part to be transitioning away from fossil fuels, toward a clean energy future?
I’ve spent much of the last, what, three weeks?, swatting back some very strained rationalizations for solar panels over trees, so no, I don’t want the trees cut.
For example, I think all the promises about how “the small trees will be moved” and replacement trees will be planted for the others, are just to make people feel good. First, between the cost in limited employee time, or outside contractor cost, of digging up and replanting a tree planted about two years ago that is established, the risk that it will not survive transplanting, the fact that it will need watering again to reestablish in the new location, and that transplant shock will slow its growth, means there’s not much difference cost- or outcome-wise between moving the tree, and starting over with a new tree.
Second, any available planting spots where those trees would be moved to, should be getting new trees anyway! As I’ve said repeatedly in various posts and emails, we’re losing hundreds more street trees than we’re planting each year, and that’s just public trees. In fact, we lost at least 15 trees today. I know, because I happened to call in the fifteenth one late in the afternoon in Waban. Newton once had about 45,000 street trees, as best we can tell. We’re now down to probably half that. This doesn’t even count the private trees lost to development. So we should be planting trees in those other spots anyway, while keeping the trees we already have, where people enjoy seeing them. Not diverting resources to moving around existing trees. I can’t believe the amount of staff time that must have been put into pursuing this divisive endeavor.
Then there’s ‘we compromised; we’re saving the 80-year old oak.’ This 30″ diameter was not going to be cut in one plan, and then it was, then suddenly it wasn’t again, because it would only cost them 2.7% of the annual Library carport savings, and they ‘could live with that.’ (That’s about $450 per year. Anyone looked at the budget for consultants lately?) Were they really willing to cut down that tree for so little return? Or had they not calculated the difference? Or was it put in to be taken out strategically?
And the carbon sequestration numbers – equivalent to 134 acres of forest – apparently its newly planted trees? how many trees per acre? Maybe we should put solar panels on those 134 acres and sequester 17,956 acres worth of carbon. If we’re bad people who don’t care about climate change if we don’t cut our Library parking lot trees, are we bad people if we don’t cut all the trees on the Comm Ave median and put up solar panels?
Then there’s the ‘education’ argument. You don’t believe in solar power enough, so we’re going to educate you by taking away your trees and making you look at solar carports day after day until you appreciate their importance. I thought re-education camps were for North Korea.
And the really illogical ones. Gas leaks kill trees, so we should reduce consumption by installing solar. No, gas leaks will kill trees until National Grid fixes the leaks or replaces the mains. Speculation that climate change makes tree pests like ALB and Emerald Ash Borer worse. Not those two; both arrived in wooden shipping pallets, so blame international trade. EAB is all over Minnestoa and Ontariio, and ALB showed up in NY, Chicago, Boston and Ohio. They don’t need a warmer climate. The desperate nature of these rationalizations is making me skeptical of the sequestration assertions as well.
I’ve spent much of the last, what, three weeks?, swatting back some very strained rationalizations for solar panels over trees, so no, I don’t want the trees cut.
For example, I think all the promises about how “the small trees will be moved” and replacement trees will be planted for the others, are just to make people feel good. First, between the cost in limited employee time, or outside contractor cost, of digging up and replanting a tree planted about two years ago that is established, the risk that it will not survive transplanting, the fact that it will need watering again to reestablish in the new location, and that transplant shock will slow its growth, means there’s not much difference cost- or outcome-wise between moving the tree, and starting over with a new tree.
Second, any available planting spots where those trees would be moved to, should be getting new trees anyway! As I’ve said repeatedly in various posts and emails, we’re losing hundreds more street trees than we’re planting each year, and that’s just public trees. In fact, we lost at least 15 trees today. I know, because I happened to call in the fifteenth one late in the afternoon in Waban. Newton once had about 45,000 street trees, as best we can tell. We’re now down to probably half that. This doesn’t even count the private trees lost to development. So we should be planting trees in those other spots anyway, while keeping the trees we already have, where people enjoy seeing them. Not diverting resources to moving around existing trees. I can’t believe the amount of staff time that must have been put into pursuing this divisive endeavor.
Then there’s ‘we compromised; we’re saving the 80-year old oak.’ This 30″ diameter was not going to be cut in one plan, and then it was, then suddenly it wasn’t again, because it would only cost them 2.7% of the annual Library carport savings, and they ‘could live with that.’ (That’s about $450 per year. Anyone looked at the budget for consultants lately?) Were they really willing to cut down that tree for so little return? Or had they not calculated the difference? Or was it put in to be taken out strategically?
And the carbon sequestration numbers – equivalent to 134 acres of forest – apparently its newly planted trees? how many trees per acre? Maybe we should put solar panels on those 134 acres and sequester 17,956 acres worth of carbon. If we’re bad people who don’t care about climate change if we don’t cut our Library parking lot trees, are we bad people if we don’t cut all the trees on the Comm Ave median and put up solar panels?
Then there’s the ‘education’ argument. You don’t believe in solar power enough, so we’re going to educate you by taking away your trees and making you look at solar carports day after day until you appreciate their importance. I thought re-education camps were for North Korea.
And the really illogical ones. Gas leaks kill trees, so we should reduce consumption by installing solar. No, gas leaks will kill trees until National Grid fixes the leaks or replaces the mains. Speculation that climate change makes tree pests like ALB and Emerald Ash Borer worse. Not those two; both arrived in wooden shipping pallets, so blame international trade. EAB is all over Minnestoa and Ontariio, and ALB showed up in NY, Chicago, Boston and Ohio. They don’t need a warmer climate. The desperate nature of these rationalizations is making me skeptical of the sequestration assertions as well.
Councilor Norton, I only wish you had the same passion for “affordable housing” and “smart growth” as you have for “solar carports.” Your arguments work equally well there.
Smart growth is far better for the environment than single family homes in suburban subdivisions that create sprawl and compel people to get in their cars to get to work, school and the supermarket. So we should be doing transit-oriented, mixed use development, every place we can in this city. Surely you can support that too, right?
I have already supported solar power at virtually every municipally owned location proposed. If you would support smart growth to the same degree, I might just change my vote on the one site that I consider less than ideal.
Councilor Norton, I only wish you had the same passion for “affordable housing” and “smart growth” as you have for “solar carports.” Your arguments work equally well there.
Smart growth is far better for the environment than single family homes in suburban subdivisions that create sprawl and compel people to get in their cars to get to work, school and the supermarket. So we should be doing transit-oriented, mixed use development, every place we can in this city. Surely you can support that too, right?
I have already supported solar power at virtually every municipally owned location proposed. If you would support smart growth to the same degree, I might just change my vote on the one site that I consider less than ideal.
or this
or this
Not equally well, Ted. Better, when it comes to smart growth. How we live and travel is what feeds our addiction to energy. The solar panels just feed that addiction. Just as the recycling debate is in many ways a distraction from wasteful packaging (to Councilor Norton’s credit, Newton has taken a lead on related issues) we ought to strive to fix the problem at its source.
Not equally well, Ted. Better, when it comes to smart growth. How we live and travel is what feeds our addiction to energy. The solar panels just feed that addiction. Just as the recycling debate is in many ways a distraction from wasteful packaging (to Councilor Norton’s credit, Newton has taken a lead on related issues) we ought to strive to fix the problem at its source.
@Ted
Funny you say that to Emily. I wish you had the same passion on”it’s not really that much” to support those who want to maintain density as we have now.
The hypocritical inconsistency is on both sides of this.
No reasonable amount of additional housing is going to change the fact that Newton is increasingly for the wealthy, just as no reasonable amount of solar panels will make Newton fully energy self sufficient.
@Ted
Funny you say that to Emily. I wish you had the same passion on”it’s not really that much” to support those who want to maintain density as we have now.
The hypocritical inconsistency is on both sides of this.
No reasonable amount of additional housing is going to change the fact that Newton is increasingly for the wealthy, just as no reasonable amount of solar panels will make Newton fully energy self sufficient.
Adam, as I mentioned in an earlier thread, I’d be all for converting car storage pavement to green space for trees. But unless you think that is politically realistic for parking removal at the library, the solar carport’s environmental benefits are overwhelming.
Adam, as I mentioned in an earlier thread, I’d be all for converting car storage pavement to green space for trees. But unless you think that is politically realistic for parking removal at the library, the solar carport’s environmental benefits are overwhelming.
Nathan, I’m not against solar carports nor suggesting we can remove all parking, just pointing out the hypocrisy we all share living in suburbia and how we might better prioritize.
Nathan, I’m not against solar carports nor suggesting we can remove all parking, just pointing out the hypocrisy we all share living in suburbia and how we might better prioritize.
Adam, I had a friend tell me that 100 cents of every dollar we have to spend on energy should go into efficiency because its the most cost effective. But I disagree with that, because while it definitely reduces our reliance on fossil energy in the most cost effective manner, it does nothing to promote the necessary transition to distributed clean energy. I would say that for every dollar we have, let’s spend, say, 80 or 90 cents on efficiency and 10 or 20 cents on transition to renewables. The library lot represents an opportunity before us today to cost effectively make this energy transition. It doesn’t absolve us of our other shortcomings and hypocrisies. In fact, I find it hypocritical for some to criticize solar for its visibility while spewing conveniently invisible greenhouse gases into the air and toxins into the lungs of our children.
And I know you weren’t saying to remove all parking. But let’s say you even tried to remove one row for trees? Or even one space? Like the trees in this lot, its a line in the asphalt that constitutes a threat to Newton’s most cherished civic space, the parking lot.
The city released this today about the project:
FACT SHEET ON SOLAR CANOPIES AT THE LIBRARY
The City is developing solar power on a variety of municipal sites: at the old Rumford Landfill, on school and municipal building rooftops, and in municipal parking lots — as carport canopies with solar panels on top.
A number of questions have been raised about the proposal to install two canopies at the Library parking lot. These questions center on three issues: (1) the costs and benefits of this installation; (2) the effect on aesthetics and atmosphere; and (3) the impact on trees. In addition, some of the questions asked for information about the relation of the Library panels to the overall solar development initiative.
We thought it would be helpful to set forth all the facts in one place, as they relate to those issues. In addition to this explanation, we have attached some Exhibits that may also be helpful
SUMMARY OF NEWTON’S SOLAR DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
The city’s solar projects are being built in three phases. Phase 1 was completed in 2014, with solar arrays on five school rooftops, totaling approximately 450 kilowatts (kWs) of solar capacity. Phase 2 is ongoing: the City Council approved ten of the twelve sites originally proposed, rejected one (solar panels on the roof of City Hall) and is voting next week on the Library parking lot, which has been approved by the Finance and Public Facilities committees.
Phase 2 will add approximately 3,745 kWs or 3.7 megawatts (MWs) — enough to power about 450 homes — and will be operational by the end of 2016.
The Phase 1 and 2 installations will save the City about $14M in energy costs over the 20 year contract with the developer.
Phase 3 is now out for bid, to add more sites and to develop a unique, community share solar program, for an estimated 80% of Newton residents who cannot take advantage of solar programs because of the structure or orientation of their rooftops, because they are renters, or because they can’t afford to install the panels.
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED LIBRARY SOLAR CANOPY
• Costs: The city will not pay anything for the design, installation, maintenance and removal of the panels at the end of the contract. No parking spaces will be lost as a result of the installation, but parking in the Library lot will be limited, or curtailed, for about two months during construction.
• Benefits:
o Cost Savings: The Library parking lot canopies will save the city an estimated $457,000 over twenty years
o Energy savings: The canopies will produce an estimated 237,000 kilowatt hours per year, 5% of the total output of Phase 2 — enough to power about twenty five homes. Environmental benefits: The Library panels will avoid carbon emissions equivalent to taking 34 cars off the road for 20 years. For tree planting to accomplish the same amount of carbon emission reduction, it would require planting 138 acres of new trees.
o Cover and shade: the canopies will provide cover and shade for cars in inclement or hot weather
o Educational benefits: The Library gets 700,000 visits a year and will create an exhibit about solar power, with outdoor signage that describes the panels and how they work, and with an app that will provide additional information including the amount of energy being produced and the associated environmental benefits.
IMPACT ON TREES
• A total of eleven trees will have to be transplanted or replaced to accommodate the canopies: seven young trees will be transplanted and two medium sized trees will be replaced. Two other trees are dying and need to be removed from the lot whether or not the canopies are approved.
• The eighty-year-old oak at the back of the lot will remain, reducing the energy output of the canopies by approximately 2.7%. The City will have to trim the tree annually so as to avoid any additional loss of output. This pruning will also help maintain the health of this venerated tree.
• The city will replace the two trees that need to be removed with 20-25 new trees at a cost of about $6000.
IMPACT ON AESTHETICS
We have attached two renderings of the Library canopies. The poles are shown in white, but many other colors are available
• The renderings show optional brick cladding at the bottoms, to cover the concrete stanchions. The covering brick can be the same color as the Library brick.
We hope this information is helpful. For additional information, please contact Josh Morse. Commissioner of Public Buildings at 617-796-1600, or Andy Savitz, Director of Sustainability at 617-796 -1019.
Adam, I had a friend tell me that 100 cents of every dollar we have to spend on energy should go into efficiency because its the most cost effective. But I disagree with that, because while it definitely reduces our reliance on fossil energy in the most cost effective manner, it does nothing to promote the necessary transition to distributed clean energy. I would say that for every dollar we have, let’s spend, say, 80 or 90 cents on efficiency and 10 or 20 cents on transition to renewables. The library lot represents an opportunity before us today to cost effectively make this energy transition. It doesn’t absolve us of our other shortcomings and hypocrisies. In fact, I find it hypocritical for some to criticize solar for its visibility while spewing conveniently invisible greenhouse gases into the air and toxins into the lungs of our children.
And I know you weren’t saying to remove all parking. But let’s say you even tried to remove one row for trees? Or even one space? Like the trees in this lot, its a line in the asphalt that constitutes a threat to Newton’s most cherished civic space, the parking lot.
The city released this today about the project:
FACT SHEET ON SOLAR CANOPIES AT THE LIBRARY
The City is developing solar power on a variety of municipal sites: at the old Rumford Landfill, on school and municipal building rooftops, and in municipal parking lots — as carport canopies with solar panels on top.
A number of questions have been raised about the proposal to install two canopies at the Library parking lot. These questions center on three issues: (1) the costs and benefits of this installation; (2) the effect on aesthetics and atmosphere; and (3) the impact on trees. In addition, some of the questions asked for information about the relation of the Library panels to the overall solar development initiative.
We thought it would be helpful to set forth all the facts in one place, as they relate to those issues. In addition to this explanation, we have attached some Exhibits that may also be helpful
SUMMARY OF NEWTON’S SOLAR DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
The city’s solar projects are being built in three phases. Phase 1 was completed in 2014, with solar arrays on five school rooftops, totaling approximately 450 kilowatts (kWs) of solar capacity. Phase 2 is ongoing: the City Council approved ten of the twelve sites originally proposed, rejected one (solar panels on the roof of City Hall) and is voting next week on the Library parking lot, which has been approved by the Finance and Public Facilities committees.
Phase 2 will add approximately 3,745 kWs or 3.7 megawatts (MWs) — enough to power about 450 homes — and will be operational by the end of 2016.
The Phase 1 and 2 installations will save the City about $14M in energy costs over the 20 year contract with the developer.
Phase 3 is now out for bid, to add more sites and to develop a unique, community share solar program, for an estimated 80% of Newton residents who cannot take advantage of solar programs because of the structure or orientation of their rooftops, because they are renters, or because they can’t afford to install the panels.
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED LIBRARY SOLAR CANOPY
• Costs: The city will not pay anything for the design, installation, maintenance and removal of the panels at the end of the contract. No parking spaces will be lost as a result of the installation, but parking in the Library lot will be limited, or curtailed, for about two months during construction.
• Benefits:
o Cost Savings: The Library parking lot canopies will save the city an estimated $457,000 over twenty years
o Energy savings: The canopies will produce an estimated 237,000 kilowatt hours per year, 5% of the total output of Phase 2 — enough to power about twenty five homes. Environmental benefits: The Library panels will avoid carbon emissions equivalent to taking 34 cars off the road for 20 years. For tree planting to accomplish the same amount of carbon emission reduction, it would require planting 138 acres of new trees.
o Cover and shade: the canopies will provide cover and shade for cars in inclement or hot weather
o Educational benefits: The Library gets 700,000 visits a year and will create an exhibit about solar power, with outdoor signage that describes the panels and how they work, and with an app that will provide additional information including the amount of energy being produced and the associated environmental benefits.
IMPACT ON TREES
• A total of eleven trees will have to be transplanted or replaced to accommodate the canopies: seven young trees will be transplanted and two medium sized trees will be replaced. Two other trees are dying and need to be removed from the lot whether or not the canopies are approved.
• The eighty-year-old oak at the back of the lot will remain, reducing the energy output of the canopies by approximately 2.7%. The City will have to trim the tree annually so as to avoid any additional loss of output. This pruning will also help maintain the health of this venerated tree.
• The city will replace the two trees that need to be removed with 20-25 new trees at a cost of about $6000.
IMPACT ON AESTHETICS
We have attached two renderings of the Library canopies. The poles are shown in white, but many other colors are available
• The renderings show optional brick cladding at the bottoms, to cover the concrete stanchions. The covering brick can be the same color as the Library brick.
We hope this information is helpful. For additional information, please contact Josh Morse. Commissioner of Public Buildings at 617-796-1600, or Andy Savitz, Director of Sustainability at 617-796 -1019.
I still have concerns about the decision-making process involved in choosing potential sites. For instance, I was reviewing the list of proposed solar sites in the RFP for Phase 3 and a couple things jumped out at me: (1) the inclusion of the Waban Hill Reservoir on Ward Street in Chestnut Hill that was recently acquired with CPA funds; and (2) the apparent omission of the parking lot in Newton Centre. The former surprised me, since it is intended for passive recreation that would seem to be incompatible with a ground installation of solar panels. Moreover, the omission of the latter, which is close to two acres of parking lot devoid of vegetation, seems conspicuous by its absence from the list.
I still have concerns about the decision-making process involved in choosing potential sites. For instance, I was reviewing the list of proposed solar sites in the RFP for Phase 3 and a couple things jumped out at me: (1) the inclusion of the Waban Hill Reservoir on Ward Street in Chestnut Hill that was recently acquired with CPA funds; and (2) the apparent omission of the parking lot in Newton Centre. The former surprised me, since it is intended for passive recreation that would seem to be incompatible with a ground installation of solar panels. Moreover, the omission of the latter, which is close to two acres of parking lot devoid of vegetation, seems conspicuous by its absence from the list.
I would be in favor of the parking lot at the library, but why don’t we invest some of the “savings” and create a yearly tree fund with 50% of those savings. IF $6,000 plants 25 trees, and we could be planting 50 extra trees a year for the next 20 years.
I’d be strongly against putting solar panels on the roof of city hall. Aesthetics do matter. That is a classic historic building. Seems like a “message” project more than anything else. Even city hall does solar.
Newton Centre parking lot seems like a no brainer.
Waban Hill Reservoir is a definite no. Who put that in? Someone want to justify that one so I can get righteously angry and respond with a rant?
Btw, some of the best ways to protect our environment are energy efficiency programs, restoring old homes vs. tearing them down, and smart growth. Something in there for EVERYONE, both NVA and Chamber folks alike. 😉
I would be in favor of the parking lot at the library, but why don’t we invest some of the “savings” and create a yearly tree fund with 50% of those savings. IF $6,000 plants 25 trees, and we could be planting 50 extra trees a year for the next 20 years.
I’d be strongly against putting solar panels on the roof of city hall. Aesthetics do matter. That is a classic historic building. Seems like a “message” project more than anything else. Even city hall does solar.
Newton Centre parking lot seems like a no brainer.
Waban Hill Reservoir is a definite no. Who put that in? Someone want to justify that one so I can get righteously angry and respond with a rant?
Btw, some of the best ways to protect our environment are energy efficiency programs, restoring old homes vs. tearing them down, and smart growth. Something in there for EVERYONE, both NVA and Chamber folks alike. 😉