In energy, as elsewhere, it’s easy to miss the forest for the trees. Where should we get our energy?
The Solar phase 3 proposal would require moving or replacing 28 trees—a little more than 0.1% of our street trees—to generate 4.3 million kWh per year, increasing the solar share of our municipal electricity from 21% to 41%. How does that compare to other options?
Improve energy efficiency. Great choice. But it will take heroic efficiency and conservation efforts just to hold electricity use close to today’s levels, especially as we increase electrifying vehicles, heating systems, and industrial processes, using clean electricity to replace fossil fuels.
Solar rooftops. Great choice. But a detailed study by an MIT team for the city of Cambridge found that using all suitable rooftops could only supply 5-25% of total electricity use. Cities use LOTS of electricity.
Solar farms. Good choice. In theory, we could meet the country’s entire electricity use from solar farms on only 0.4% of our land area. But that still means a solar farm equal to the Solar phase 3 proposal would require clearing 14 acres, killing and/or preventing growth of almost 3,000 trees.
Wind farms. Good choice. But New England windfarms require clearing trees from ridgelines, roads to haul equipment to the ridgeline, and transmission connections to the grid. To equal Solar phase 3, it would mean clearing 1.5 acres and losing 300 trees. Plus putting new high voltage power lines through our forests.
Offshore wind. Great choice. We may still have to lose trees to strengthen the transmission system, and have to scrape up the ocean floor for foundations and cables, and drive away sea mammals for years with construction noise. Some birds will be killed. Fishing fleets worry about harming fishing grounds. Most importantly, we can’t have a reliable and resilient electric system using only one source.
Canadian hydro. Meh, but maybe still necessary to decarbonize our electricity. A reservoir to equal the output of Solar 3 would require 35 acres, about 7,000 trees. And new roads, and hundreds of miles of new transmission lines through Canadian & Maine woods.
Natural gas. Please read the Ken Ward article, “Powerless: What it looks and sounds like when a gas driller overruns your land,” ProPublica, December 20, 2018. Or “How gas demand from Boston changed a faraway island,” Boston Globe, December 30, 2018 [ignoring its contention that more pipelines are needed or would be better.] Then think about treeless pipeline corridors, compressor stations, explosions, and gas leaks killing our street trees. And climate change.
Mountaintop removal mine in West Virginia
Coal. We’ve blown up 501 mountaintops in Appalachia, buried 2,000 miles of streams with the rubble, destroying 1.2 million acres of forests for coal. Add Western grasslands, and we’ve stripped 8.4 million acres for coal. More land than we would need to get all our electricity from solar farms. Plus climate change will not only reshape our forests, but kill many entire species of plants and animals. Not to mention what it will do to us.
BUT THERE’S NO WAY WE CAN MEET OUR ENERGY NEEDS WITHOUT HARMING SOME TREES. IN THE WORLD OF ENERGY CHOICES, NEWTON’S SOLAR PHASE 3 IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS!
Additional responses to the Newton Villages Association alert:
- “We need clean energy but we need oxygen even more.” The oxygen deficit from moving or replacing 0.1% of our street trees, plus yard and park trees?
- “Urban trees are critical for sequestering carbon.” Solar phase 3 will reduce carbon by the equivalent of planting 2,340 acres of trees!
- Heat island effect. Solar canopies also reduce it, maybe more than immature trees.
- “Planting trees are good for social justice.” Please read the above articles about the social injustice created by our current gas use. Coal is even worse. Rejecting Solar Phase 3 will increase the use of open space and cutting of trees elsewhere.
It may be reasonable to argue that open space and urban trees provide more benefits and are more precious than the equivalent open space and trees in remote areas. I have personally spoken to rooms full of wind energy opponents in Western Massachusetts and Cape Cod. After all the technical questions are answered, after all the myths have been addressed, there is always one question that still wins applause among the opponents: “Why should we have our ridgelines/ocean views/woods spoiled just so that you city people can get all the energy you want?”
If we in Newton cannot even accept the sight of solar panels over our parking lots, if we cannot accept having to move or replace 28 trees to be able to increase solar to 41 percent of our municipal energy use, how would you answer that question? How could we possibly reduce the pollution, climate, water and land use impacts of our energy system if others follow that lead
For more details, & links to sources, email [email protected], and I’lll email you the 6-page version.
Nogee is the founder of Friends of Cold Spring Park and former clean energy program director of Union of Concerned Scientists. (Organizational affiliations for identification purposes only.)
Do photovoltaic solar carport installations reduce the urban heat island effect? There doesn’t seem to be any strong academic evidence that I could find.
I could imagine that placing them over a parking lot would modestly reduce heating, but even then you’re replacing a big black thing with another big black thing, and sucking maybe 16% of the energy out as electricity.
That being said….
If solar carports are going to become a thing, I’d prefer to see them not become just another reason to maintain big hunks of ugly impermeable surface.
How about shade-tolerant planting and landscaping, with hanging gardens and integral rain collection and watering? Garden City, and all that, after all. We don’t have to settle for what everyone else accepts.
Thanks for the post Alan. This seems like such an obviously good thing to do. I don’t understand the objections.
Is Mr. Nogee also objecting to the removal of the Countryside, Bigelow and Gath Pool – Albemarle Road sites as well? Because those would also have generated a lot of energy.
I hope the carports are tall enough for all the Lexus SUVs to park under.
I just got a flyer inthe mail that says for a few dollars a month more – a cappuccino if you will- I can get 100 percent renewable electricity source. So, the solar panels are needed why?
Ms. Sangiolio,
Good question. From an energy and climate perspective, the original proposal was also very positive. However, it’s also good practice to scrutinize any potential project, energy or otherwise, for every way one can reduce its environmental footprint while retaining most of its benefits. In this case, I think the City has done an excellent job revising the proposal to minimize the impact on our trees while retaining the large bulk of the energy, climate, and avoided pollution benefits.
I’ve also been asked, does my analysis mean an individual homeowner should cut trees to install solar on their roof? On a strict carbon basis, the answer would usually be yes.
But of course, urban trees have more benefits than just reducing carbon. Let’s assume that roughly ⅔ of Newton homes are shaded by mature trees. If everyone in one of the shaded homes were to cut a mature tree, that would mean losing around 20,000 mature trees, equal to our entire street tree population! So that would generally not be a good solution.
Complicating the equation even more, however, cutting an invasive Norway Maple and planting some smaller native trees and/or shrubs to replace it, or a tall tree or moreone in another location, might be a double environmental positive.
In Solar Phase 3, we would be moving or replacing only 0.1% of our street trees enabling 41% of our municipal electricity from solar. That’s a great deal, in my opinion.
Mr. Frank,
The PowerChoice program is great. You can actually opt up to 100% renewable electricity and still save money on your electric bill for at least the next 6 months. I’ve done it and hope everyone does.
That said, there are still environmental impacts from renewable energy sources. The PowerChoice program will probably procure most of its renewable energy from wind and solar farms, which are much better than fossil fuels in virtually every way, but will still use more open space and lead to more tree loss than the Solar Phase 3 proposal.
If you have an unshaded south, west, or east-facing roof (or parking lot) , you can save even more money and reduce your environmental footprint even more with solar than with PowerChoice. Everyone who has that option should consider it while we still have great federal and state incentives.
Local solar also brings many secondary benefits. It reduces energy losses from long-distance transmission. It can help defer local distribution system upgrades. It can strengthen grid reliability and resilience. In fact, energy expert Amory Lovins has actually calculated 207 discrete benefits that such “distributed energy resources” confer! https://rmi.org/insight/small-is-profitable-the-hidden-economic-benefits-of-distributed-generation-and-other-distributed-resources/
Finally, I hope you don’t mind if I use your question to briefly address some of the other “alternatives” suggested at the January 16 hearing.
Ignore the shading in the summer because the panels will still make electricity when the leaves drop. Because of shorter days and lower sun angles, solar panels are much less productive in winter.
Put them on the hill facing the Newton North baseball field instead. Faces north, much less productive.
Use empty commercial building roofs. I’m not sure, but let’s say it’s possible the City could lease private roofs. It would be much more time consuming to arrange, and it would mean giving up a good share of the dollar savings to the roof owner, compared to the city using its own roofs and parking lots.
And, if we’re going to avoid the risk of catastrophic climate change, we just don’t have enough unshaded rooftop
space (or other treeless open space). At some point, and hopefully sooner rather than later, those property owners are going to want to use solar to reduce their own costs, if not their environmental footprint. And we will have to make it worthwhile for them to do so, or too expensive not to.
In my opinion, the most responsible thing the city can do is to set a good example by using its own property responsibly to reduce its energy footprint as much as it can first. All levels of government should help all of us to do the same. We can use PowerChoice to green up the rest. And keep the heat on the state and federal government to require 100% clean and renewable energy before 2050.
Mr. Halle,
I have seen academic research on this subject, but your having raised it, I’ve done some additional brief searches and would agree that the academic research is thin relative to its acceptance as conventional wisdom among energy analysts. There is evidence that solar panels cool roofs beneath them, but also at least one contrary study, depending on conditions, like local climate and panel efficiency.
I know someone has asked the City to analyze the heat island impact in more detail, so I’ll agree to suspend judgement on that pending the analysis.
I like your other suggestions. I believe the city is planning to couple at least the library carports with increased surface permeability and rainwater management.
Mr. Nogee,
If I can opt for 100 percent renewables now, how much will my bill go down when Newton installs and has the solar operation running? At what point do we break even and start to have a financial payback? Sure, we will benefit from reduced climate change impact ( although with my paying a premium for a hybrid car, for which I used Consumer Reports carbon-lifetime analytics to choose from, I am already paying for the future, I hope ) but if it’s so urgent why isn’t the solar company giving away the panels ? Oh because people have to live in the present, and they have to pay their bills. Part of living in the present means enjoying the trees we have now. There’s a myriad of choices people can make everyday- from changing the color of their shingles, ( remember the white roof initiative? ) to changing the color of pavement, to driving a more fuel efficient car ( I can’t believe how many honkin SUVs I see in Newton, crazy) to installing ceiling fans in their home or office instead of central air. But what I tend to see in Newton and other affluent towns that can afford such extras are fads. If only we had bike lanes everywhere. If only we had a shuttle bus that would decrease car usage. If only we had more dense development that would solve it. Meanwhile there’s going to be 10 billion people on the planet, so if only people would limit their family sizes to 2 kids. The list goes on and on. I think the thing that worries me is that these things will get installed, become pigeon and swallow breeding grounds, not be maintained, and be technically obsolete in a few years. And for that we cut down trees. And a solar panel installation company makes a good profit. Sure I’m a cynic. But every year I seem to have more evidence the politicians in Newton are getting taken to the cleaners by developers, and this solar panel company I lump in with the rest of the developers, big on promises but ultimately just in it for themselves, and we get screwed, especially those of us along Washington Street. I’m just thankful that the solar panels along Albemarle got axed rather than the trees.
Mr. Frank,
To respond to the questions I take to be non-rhetorical:
– your electric bill won’t go up or down with the SolarPhase 3 program, but the city’s electric bill will go down, right away, and your tax dollars will therefore go further;
– the solar company only makes money if they maintain the panels.
Both of those are among the main financial advantages of this kind of arrangement for a city; the other being that it doesn’t require the city to use scarce capital for which there is a long queue of competitors.
I haven’t heard of any bird problems with the existing carports. Has anyone else?
There is no debate that fossil fuel is a finite resource. When will we run out? 50 years? 200 years? Probably somewhere in between, but we will run out. Should we wait until we have none left to meet our energy demands via renewable resources? You don’t wait to ration food when you’re taking the last bite, so why is this any different? If the feds said tomorrow that all energy supplies in the US had to be from renewable generation sources by 2030, then we would be having a different conversation. We all got us into this mess, and we all have a responsibility to get us out. Do we really want our kids and/or grandkids looking back lamenting about how ignorant and naive we were? We should be leading by example in every effort to create and promote renewable energy. The phase 3 solar project does not require any funding from the taxpayers. It generates renewable energy, and yields financial incentives for the City. Since the argument has centered on carports on parking lots, the primary issue raised has been the loss of trees. The City has a committed to replacing inch for inch for any trees lost. The part the bothers me is that if folks were really concerned about the trees, why aren’t they asking for more trees to be planted than what is being lost? 20% more caliper inches? 30% more? Where this has not been asked, I am left believing that this is purely a case of aesthetic preference and/or nimbyism. I can understand the folks that don’t like how they look, but I don’t understand how the benefits don’t outway the aesthetics. For the folks that don’t want them next to their homes, or don’t think they fit in with the surrounding area, why not push for screening or design alterations to make them fit in better? For the folks that are worried that their property value will go down if they live next to a solar farm, as opposed to a parking lot, what type of person do you imagine will want to buy your home when you’re ready to sell? A couple in their 30’s or 40’s? By the numbers, these demographics are the ones who believe in climate change and feel that we are responsible for causing it, and that we also need to fix it. They will live their lives with autonomous vehicles, renewable energy, electric cars, and a world, which to survive, will have to wean itself off of fossil fuels. By their social, educational, and environmental influences, they will prefer to live next to a solar carport, than a parking lot. They wake up to a snowy driveway, send a message to their car from their phone to drive over the the carport which is naturally clear of snow, and then shovel out their driveway before directing their car to come home. The world is changing folks.
A lot of good information from Alan Nogee and food for thoughts from many contributors.
To the question: why aren’t we asking for more than equal caliper replacement when trees are cut? I have never understood that part; it seems fair on the surface but I have never seen a squirrel play or sleep or eat in one of those replacement trees. They used to play/ eat/sleep in a huge oak tree.
What about the shade provided by those new tiny trees? If we wanted to replace the shade area of one of those removed mature trees, how many tiny trees would we need?
And I am not even talking about the birds or the owls that lose their habitat.
To me the solution is to use solar panels anywhere that does not require cutting trees.
Isabelle,
Yes, but …
Yearly the city loses many more trees than it plants, which means we’re not going to have enough mature trees in the future as those currently mature trees die. Taking down a mature tree is never good, but the balance of solar and new trees seems a good balance. But, I’d like a higher ratio of new trees to removed trees.
Alan,
Needs to include clear discussion of co-dependency between generation at helm here in Newton with the financially insecure shale fossil fuels industry. That awful relationship we’re suffering in now (if considering terrible costs and hardships to be faced). We need clarity..
Governor Baker administration just permitted an untterly dangerous and unacceptable pipeline compressor station in Weymouth MA. The shale gas industry must make money and it is not about someone’s greed but about our dependency joined with the industry’s dependency on us. We’re not dancing out of this relationship with a few solar installations! Or by putting pennies in sin jar, buying cheap RECs from who knows where.
Hard work ahead if we will protect our young people from our stupidity to strike up this relationship in the first place under Romney and Patrick Administrations, and tether ourselves to it further with NewtonPowerChoice.
“your electric bill won’t go up or down with the SolarPhase 3 program, but the city’s electric bill will go down, right away, and your tax dollars will therefore go further;”
Can you put that in real dollar amounts?
– the solar company only makes money if they maintain the panels.
I find that hard to believe- they would be dumb to put out that much capital for just a service contract. The maintenance fees must be expensive. but if so, what happens if they go out of business or fail to maintain them. Are the financial details of the city’s arrangement on the web? I can answer my own questions if so.
Swallows especially like these kinds of structures. I’m sure they will find a home in them.
If solar car ports are the the thing, why don’t we see them in other local municipalities? Why don’t we see them in all the sun filled parking lots along 128?
I drove by Ameresco in Framingham today. No solor car ports in sight. You would think they would have a few.
I looked at there website for solar car port references? Nothing. Why didn’t the City of Lowell or Revere use solar car ports with there Ameresco projects?
Does Ameresco require a minimum acreage to make phase 3 worth the effort?
@Fifthgenerationnewtonite, Solar Carports are very common. I googled for a few minutes. Here’s a short list in this area:
Waltham
Lexington
Wayland
Framingham
Umass Amherst
Easton
Fall River
Natick
Sandwich
Springfield
Newton
If I spent more than a few minutes, I’m sure I could find a ton more.
Randy,
I certainly agree that Solar Phase 3 and Power Choice are not enough to free us from dependence on gas or slow global warming by themselves. But as consumers, all we can do is seek to reduce our own carbon footprint as much as possible. The more consumers get together the more change happens, and sets an example for others to follow.
By getting 41% of its power within Newton on a landfill, and municipally owned roofs and parking lots, Newton sets a great example for independence from fossil fuels using our own local solar resources, with a very small land use footprint, by moving or replacing as few trees as possible.
By further purchasing Class I Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) and electricity in bulk on our behalf, and choosing a higher base level of renewables (60%) than any Massachusetts city or town to date—and allowing a 109% renewable option—it’s showing great leadership in greening the electricity footprint of both municipal government and its citizens.
The RECs are all new (since retail choice as allowed in 1997) renewables that must be generated within or delivered to the New England grid. Since the whole N.E. grid is interconnected, it guarantees that a fossil generator within New England is displaced. Currently, it’s very roughly about 80% wind, 10% solar, 5% landfill gas and about 5% other stuff. There’s a good more detailed explainer here: https://blog.greenenergyconsumers.org/blog/class-i-recs.
Of course, a lot more state and federal policy will be needed to phase out almost all fossil fuel. But this is exactly what cities should be doing to clean up our electric grid.
Mr. Frank,
Solar requires much less maintenance than any other electrical generator. No moving parts. The contractor gets paid per kWh generated — enough to cover its costs, including a return to its investors, and assume risks—but lower than the city’s electric rate. If the panels stop generating for any reason (and I’m sure the contract can monitor them online), they don’t get any revenue until they’re up and running again. The existing solar projects (about 20% of the city’s electric use) saves about $950,000 last year, if I recall correctly. The next 20% will save less because I believe they’re somewhat more expensive projects and state incentives are declining. The sooner we approve, the higher the incentive payments will be.
More details here: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/building/solar_phase_3.asp
Alan, thanks for your ideas, comments and responses to everyone here.
I think the Newton needs to figure out how to get information and educated, respectful opinions further out ahead of major proposals and decisions. Pitting passionate “tree people” and “solar people” against each other (I’m simplifying things, but not all that much) divides natural allies in the fight for a healthier world.
The problem seems to be as much a process one as it is substance, and I wish we could work proactively and together more and reactively less. We need innovative solutions – not just compromise ones – to these difficult problems, and we’ll only get them by working together.
Can we *really* not come up with a way to have solar power generation that, say, helps fund a major revitalized tree planting and urban forestry effort, as well as driving innovation in lush solar/landscaping integrations?
Can we also try to acknowledge that specific trees on specific sites have aesthetic and emotional value beyond their “caliper inches” and CO2 sequestration capacity, and try and build that kind of sensitivity and love of place into our future planning?
Alan,
You said in reply to Randy, “as consumers, all we can do is seek to reduce our carbon footprint as much as possible.”
We’re in a race to fix what we’re breaking, the climate systems humanity requires. That our young people require.
We don’t say about Cancer or about HIV-AIDS, all we can do is change our lifestyle. We respond with all the tools of an advanced society. With unified professionalism and leadership. As Americans have before.
Our young people are endangered. We must response. We can build clean safe electricity generated at scale we consume electricity now and paid for by consumption. Now. As we build and we pay for water sewer roads schools public safety,..
We need to and pronto.
Distractions that City officers are attending to now, principally NewtonPowerChoice, but certainly also solar projects that seem to be more about whether solar energy appeals to enough of us than about mustering our response to our children’s emergency. This crisis we caused is effecting them. Our response needs to be totally about protecting them.
As you well know, humanity has scant years remaining to level off and begin drastically lowering emissions of human caused greenhouse gas pollution.We don’t lead that mighty effort because we don’t want to figure out how to ask each other to do it. To make difficult decisions become possible by negotiation. Punting on third down is what this looks like.
NewtonPowerChoice is distracting us from forming consensus on how to muster the best educated best trained community response we should have for ending our disastrous dependence on the shale fossil fuels industry. Pronto. Moreover, it is distracting this community from understanding that industry’s dependence on our commitments to it. This codependency we never talk about, poses enormous complications for building electricity generation at scale we consume electricity now. This awful situation must be overcome, without the delay and obfuscation now evident in Newton and on Beacon Hill.
Much has been said in recent years about disenfranchised Americans, left behind folks, forgotten in PA, WI, MI and other economically struggling regions of America. Our young people here and everywhere else in America are struggling now with a much greater calamity than the loss of factory jobs. They’re losing livable climate systems. Their disenfranchisement is a disgrace. We can still fix what we’re breaking. Let’s get started. Let’s hold earnest negotiations and break down barriers so prominently raised here in Newton that are preventing attempts at rescuing our children from the advancing threats of unlivable climate systems.
Lawrence,
I probably should have started that reply saying: “Putting aside for the moment our role as citizens…”. Or maybe I’ve been too long-winded and you didn’t get to the last 2 sentences. In any case, I think our roles as citizens and consumers are complementary, and that it helps advocacy efforts when we “walk the talk” and make good consumer energy choices and take responsibility for reducing the damage from our own energy footprints as much as possible, while asking our elected officials to enact better policy and demand more accountability from energy companies.
Mike and all,
I really appreciate the good questions and civil tone of this discussion. Mike, I agree with your last points. I think you and others have made good suggestions that more of the energy savings could go to doing more to build up our tree canopy rather than necessarily settle for caliper inch replacement. And offer screening trees to those who’s views might be affected. And we certainly need more innovation.
I hope I’ve contributed to broadening the discussion, though, to the real trade offs in our current energy choices, which rarely seem to make the media outside of a specific conflict, like here, or when the Globe takes the side of the pipeline vs LNG companies, by showing us how bad our LNG imports from Trinidad and Tobago and Russia are.
I’ll continue to answer sincere questions here. Green Newton has also asked me to speak about these issues at the Library on February 27th. I welcome continuing the discussion in person there with everyone.
Alan,
I read it all. Hope you get my point that disastrous codependency between Newton ratepayers and shale fossil fuels is not ameliorated by telling them cheap RECs are ‘renewable electricity’. As if our awful codependency with Shalers were easily put behind us.
You say, “make good consumer energy choices and take responsibility for reducing the damage “ but a complete misrepresentation of how we’re getting electricity / what we’re consuming, isn’t letting consumers do what has to happen.
You know the one about “the dinosaurs and the asteroid”, physicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, used it to ask”what’s our asteroid”? We seem to be in the impact crater now trying to understand what has happened to generation at helm. Something terrible has. We don’t care enough about our young people to do what an overwhelming science and diplomatic effort asks of us. To bring our rising emissions to a halt and immediately reduce them in emergency mode.
Lawrence,
Maybe I’m defensive because I participated in developing the REC system. It was discussed and reviewed by the grid operator and all stakeholders, reviewed by the FTC and National Association of Attorneys General, and was subsequently adopted my most (if not now all) other grids.
It is a system that tracks and ensures that your REC dollars go to a generator delivering quality new renewable energy to our grid, if you’re buying Mass. Class I RECs like PowerChoice is. Many other marketers buy cheap RECs from the Plains or Texas, where wind energy is already cheaper than any option. The value of buying those RECs is questionable, in my opinion. But there is no misrepresentation with the PowerChoice program it’s the real deal.
Thanks for giving your perspective. Massachusetts is getting large share, nearly half by last report on MA DOE site, of Class 1 renewable energy from burning methane off rotting trash piles we call ‘landfills’. Calling that renewable electricity is misrepresenting what it is. Further, the aggressive and caustic manner behind this misrepresentation is scary to some who have experienced it. I know that some well informed voices have said the bundled cheap RECs pushed on ratepayers, won’t expand the renewable sources of electricity consumers wanted. Paul Levy of Newton wrote on this blog in June 2018, challenging the notion that compelling ratepayers to buy RECs is sensibly leading to the renewable sources we want. Easy for me to see why and to join other questioning the value of paying some extra – not much really – for RECs.
I have $4500 credit on my Eversource account, the credit for purchasing electricity for the account via net metering to physical solar panels in Holliston. The actual savings I am now seeing since panels were put onto grid in 2017 is more than I realized it would be and much less than Eversource charges for electricity services I am receiving in Newton. Of course, the Newton grid is dirty electricity because largely shale fuels keep the power on in such energy use intensive areas as here. The owner of panels I contracted with for electricity purchasing, sells the expensive SRECs obtained for it, not to programs like NewtonPowerChoice, but in auction. I too sell SRECs for rooftop panels. The Newton ratepayers should know that SRECs are not involved rather than get info insinuating that solar RECs are part of ‘renewable electricity’ they’re being signed up for.
We need clarity about our disastrous codependency with shale fuels industry! Our indifference to informing and guiding each other in leaving this awful relationship is our children’s emergency. That indifference has gotten much worse so much worse since renewable electricity became a ‘thing’.
Anything less than public clean safe electricity generated at scale we consume electricity now, paid for like roads water sewer schools,.., is more of same terrible codependency with dirty electricity producers. When someone moves into Newton and pays more to consume services that keep us safe, they’re asked to do that because we care about safety and having everyone receiving safe schooling clean water sewer lines and streets. Restaurant inspectors are paid by consumption taxation! Yet the situation we have with our CO2 polluter privileges is not making any sense (!) because we’re locked into a bad relationship, a very committed relationship, with Shalers. This is going to hurt – leaving the relationship. We need to leave to protect our young people.
Lawrence,
Not sure if your data source. Mine shows that class 1 eligible sources include 258 MW of landfill gas, 459 MW of solar, and 4,098 MW of eligible wind. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/11/09/Eligible%20Class%20I%20Renewable%20Units%20110918.xlsx
Landfill gas, created by the decay of organic matter in landfills, is near-universally considered renewable, as far as I’m aware. If it’s not captured to generate electricity, it ususally leaks into the air and is a potent greenhouse gas.
I know and respect Paul Levy, but he left the utility regulation arena long before RECs were created, and I think his piece was unfortunately just wrong.
Let’s just agree to disagree about this from here, or take it offline.
Eligible? But obviously insufficient! The actual consumption of electricity by towns currently in programs like Newton Power Choice or now are making preparations to be in one like it, is far more consumption than could be supplied by sources you found. And what tiny percentage of the electricity generated for those solar and wind RECs is purchased by entity selling dirty grid electricity to Newton ratepayers ‘Direct Energy’? Indeed why should one assume much of the actual renewable sourced electricity was purchased, rather than credited to account of producer? And finally what impact does a wind turbine in NH have on Newton’s power consumption? Why did we build huge GW fossil fuel cogeneration facilities near Boston if NH windpower can hold up grid here?
Too many questions that needed to be answered, before getting unsuspecting Newton ratepayers signed up to pay for such ineffective attempts to manage our awful codependency with shale fossil fuels industry. I am so ashamed of Newton officials for pushing this aggressively and for misrepresenting cheap RECs as electricity, much less renewable electricity.
BTW, I don’t know Paul Levy but read his comment and recognized it matches what other’s say whose opinions also make sense to me. RECs are not electricity. These monetary instruments do not solve the intermittency problems we face in solar and wind generation. So to equate wind RECs with shale gas electricity consumed by Newton residents does great disservice by increasing confusion over what we’re consuming and what it will take to end the codependency with shale fossil fuels industry.
Thank you Alan Nogee for your invaluable contribution to this discussion. Our current sources of electricity, e.g. coal and gas, result in much more tree removal than is being considered for Phase 3. They also are terrible for human health. People who live near coal plants suffer asthma, respiratory diseases and cancer. I have met with several of the people in this video who live near fracking in Pennsylvania and it has destroyed their neighborhoods, poisoned their water supply, and caused health problems for many residents as well as their children.
Thanks, Emily Norton. It’s so hard for us to imagine what many people in fossil fuel country go through. I once got a call about some coal atrocity in WV from someone afraid to give their name for fear of retaliation. I thought it was paranoia. Then I talked with someone who did decide take on the coal companies after they blew up a mountain in his backyard. His home had been in the family for generations. Now his view of a mountaintop from a ridge across the holler was of a pile of rubble.
He installed what was believed to be one of the first solar panels in WV on his roof, to become energy independent and make a statement about it. Someone literally blasted it off his roof with a shotgun. Friends and colleagues in the clean energy, clean air, and anti-mountaintop communities raised the money to help him replace it. He died a few years later. People in WV have the shortest life expectancy after Mississippi.
I remembered him and cried when I read NVA’s alert to save our 23 trees because, among other reasons, “social justice.” Then I wrote this piece. So if it lacks in sufficient empathy for our plight, sorry, now you all know why.
There’s a lot of ( attempted) fracking going on in Central New York, where I grew up. A friend of mine, all his neighbors sold their rights because they needed the money. But I think a moratorium went into effect. This is right in the middle of the fingerlakes. Anyways, he was considering selling the rights because he was surrounded on all sides and the ground water doesn’t know property boundaries and he figured he might as well get paid if his groundwater was going to be ruined by his neighbors. It’s also ironic that they heat there home with geothermal….
My son’s friend was an engineer for Tesla solar shingles( he was recently laid off) and he did an assessment of our house which came up short because our 3rd floor is finished and has a lot of gables, which minimizes the direct hit.
As I said, I’m sceptical of every private company selling stuff to the city, but at least Albemarle park area is not going to be ruined. I could make my carbon footprint zero by jumping off a bridge… but I’m not going to. We still have to enjoy our lives and part of that is enjoying trees and outdoor areas like Albemarle park.
Cover our parking areas and maybe Commercial areas like on route 9 will consider the benefits of doing the same.
Good post. Important initiative. One thing I don’t understand is the use of parking lot solars while municipal property rooftop is still available. Newton north does not have rooftop solar but we are putting up a large black concrete eyesore right in the middle of a residential and school zone. In fact the design of that thing spans across 2 rows of cars. Previously the city has planned to plant trees along the parking lot line. This never happened and so the newton Lowell ave parking solar seems like a good idea since the intended trees do not even exist.
Thanks. The proposal includes eight rooftop projects, which I believe represent all the remaining municipal buildings with roofs that have been determined to be structurally suitable at this time.
Parkingsolar, there’s a pretty big solar array on Newton North. Check Google Maps satellite view. The hum from the equipment at ground level is surprisingly loud, in fact. It would be nice to address that problem in the new designs.
Alan, thanks for your excellent post and follow up comments.
Gas leaks in Newton have probably killed thousands of trees and are currently damaging hundreds of trees. To transition off gas to electrification, we need to build the local renewable electricity generating systems that can power clean, safe, efficient electric heating systems. We’ll have a much healthier urban tree canopy across the city, not to mention better air quality on our streets and in our homes.
We can’t outsource all of our energy generation to the devastated frontline communities you described. Our parking lots are not precious green spaces; they’re degraded lands, entombing soils, literally constructed from petroleum for car storage.
We need to build solar on our parking lots AND municipal buildings, and commercial buildings, and rooftops. It’s all of the above, not one or the other.