There will be a public hearing Wednesday on the revised plan to install solar panels on city owned properties, including roofs of buildings and parking lots. From Jenna Fisher at Newton Patch...
The revised plan reduces the number of trees that need to be cut or moved from the original 94 down to 28, according to the city. Of those 28, 13 will be cut and 15 will be moved. Some 140 replacement trees will be planted to make up for the 13 slated to be cut down.
Maybe I’m missing something here (and if so, please let me know), but since electricity/electricity generation is fungible (can be traded or sold), why not simply have Newton invest in solar panels to be built in easier/more appropriate/more productive locales, like in the desert southwest — and leave Newton’s natural beauty fully intact?
Why is this being done since we are going to be a greener City with the new PowerChoice program that is starting in March?
Our elected officials could make sure all City owned properties/infrastructure is in the 100% Green option of the program. This would eliminate the need to cut down trees and install solar panels. I would not mind my tax dollars paying for the 100% option as opposed to the solar panels/cutting trees.
I would also like to see sometime in the beginning of March, the resident power choice breakdown by option (DE Basic, DE Standard, DE 100% Green and EverSource Basic) made public. We all have the option to be 100% green. Our leaders seem to think we want to be 100% green at any cost (maybe a little dramatic). This is a good way to show whats reality .
As a side note, I don’t really care how many replacement trees are offered. I am not going to be around in 30 years to enjoy them in there maturity.
I’m pretty certain that at this point in time it’s not possible to be doing too many things to save the planet.
Fifth Generation, as you ask why being done, I suspect two reasons: (1) political aggrandizement and (2) money.
How is Newton ‘greening’ by increasing dependence on electricity generated from worst fossil fuel source? Grid power is largely shale gas sourced electricity in our load zone. We take enormous quantities of electricity from grid. Does it make sense to believe a few wind turbines somewhere (?) or a lot of old landfill gas, is powering our grid!? Telling residents it is clean electricity they’re using, will increase confidence in using dirty electricity. We use more electricity – then generation facility will use more shale gas. Nice proposition for the gas proponents.
Cheap RECs are practically meaningless gesture toward reducing our dependence on shale gas. That is difficult undertaking requiring enormous initiative, not yet even proposed. Yes, we need public clean safe electricity generation at scale we consume electricity now. Paid for by consumption, same as water sewer roads public health, …
Our young people are being sacrificed to keep CO2 polluter privileges we don’t need and are not telling truth about. Where does this end? Chaos. Little more money then lots of chaos. Why allow this to happen to our families!
Think about all that WWll generation accomplished for their families. Sure they weren’t perfect. But they kept their eye on the ball and swung hard. We’re punting on third down, that’s clearly what is going on with Newton Power Choice.
Just for the record, I am all in for the responsible installation of solar panels. Just not at the expense of trees (Library or Cove). Regardless of the tree replacement initiative.
Greg, do you own or drive a car, do you live in a home which is heated and cooled, do you eat meat, and do you promote building, business growth and population increase in Newton? If so on any of those scores — as you say “at this point in time it’s not possible to be doing too many things to save the planet” — I suggest you either revisit your statement or personally curtail and/or cease the above planet-killing activities.
Just sayin.