Note to self: Be prepared for extensive abuse emanating from this column.
The question I’m asking today is how much global warming should matter when we are considering whom to vote for in the forthcoming elections for City Councilors.
Please note, I am not asking how serious the climate change problem is. I agree with Noam Chomsky when he sets forth the three major challenges facing humanity today: Anthropogenic changes in climate and weather patterns; the threat of nuclear destruction; and the failure of civil societies to deal with these and other issues.
I believe that one can properly argue that municipal governments have a role to play in the first issue, (1) by taking appropriate steps to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases, both directly and as by-products of their production and consumption decisions; and (2) providing a thoughtful example that might stimulate other municipalities (and states and the country) to do likewise.
But, should concern about climate change dominate a Councilor’s viewpoint, advocacy, and voting in City Hall? For example, what if a program that might reduce emissions has the effect of increasing the cost of government and therefore limiting spending on essential municipal services like schools, police, and so on? What if the desire to enhance renewable electricity production by employing solar or wind production has its own negative local environmental impacts? What if a permit issued by the City Council prohibits the use of natural gas in a residential and commercial development, resulting in higher energy use costs for the tenants of that project?
I can already hear people saying that these examples are off-point, in that energy conservation and renewables will have a lower cost to society. Yes, someday, but not yet. Even cost-effective opportunities often require an up-front investment to achieve results over time. There is no free lunch if our goal is to reduce energy use or transition to renewables. Someone has to pay the piper now, and the “someone” is the taxpayers of our city. It’s one thing when individuals are left with a choice, like in the Newton Power Choice program, but another when the cost is passed along as a part of our tax rate. I’m not saying it’s not worth it. I’m saying that I’d like to hear from candidates how they would draw the balance.
(Note: I’m not even trying to address the dispute seen on these pages as to whether densification is or is not a surrogate for a candidate’s view on climate change.)
Let’s say that I like a candidate’s view on 75% of the municipal agenda but differ on climate change issues. Or vice versa. I really like their view on climate change issues but disagree on their policies with regard to schools and the like. How much should global warming matter when I step into the polling place?
Your thoughts?
With one exception, it would seem that on a cost benefit analysis it would be less expensive and taxing on society to address climate change by constructing/adapting required infrastructure and some building locations to rising sea level rather than endeavoring to eliminate and/or severely restrict the use of fossil fuel world wide (at least to a sufficient degree to have significant impact which, at the same time, would cut off modern civilization under current technology). This would mean not seeking to densify Newton to reduce carbon impact entailed in travel.
The one exception might be massive development of new generation essentially safe nuclear power.
Climate change is huge to me, but if I’m being honest my current hill to die on is the schools – the teacher’s contracts, etc.
Although climate change is hugely important, I agree with Mary that I’d rather Newton elected officials focus on issues such as schools and roads that have a greater impact in Newton. Climate change is largely a national and international issue and local politicians are not knowledgeable enough about the costs and benefits that Paul outlined above to make intelligent trade-offs on which agenda items to pursue. I pay more attention to environmental issues when it comes to national politics where something can actually be accomplished and they have the resources to balance the trade-offs.
I also get my BS radar up when politicians “greenwash” agenda items that have little or nothing to do with the environment in order to justify those other issues.
@Laurie, are you referring to things like this part of the Green New Deal? “To promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘frontline and vulnerable communities’).” https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
I don’t think one issue can be the only factor for any vote. Plus, it is very difficult, as no one is “perfect” on green issues for me.
I certainly plan on voting for Congress/Senate/President with this issue in mind. It matters to me. But so do a lot of issues.
@Paul, one example of many, though perhaps the most egregious.
Short answer: When I step into the voting booth, it matters A LOT.
And there are plenty of Newton residents who have national and international expertise in this matter – who ARE national and international voices in this matter – – this is Newton, by the way – -and they stand fully behind our Climate Action Plan and the exigency of implementing it and not waiting for “a sunnier day.”
You’re evidently confused as to what “greenwashing” is (hint: it’s not that) as well as the actual purpose of the Green New Deal, which is intended to address climate change (that’s the Green part) as well as economic inequality (that’s the New Deal part).
@Jane, What the status of that plan? (Here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/99221) Does it need Council approval? If so, is there much debate around it from the incumbents or the challengers?
@Jim Epstein – what you say might make sense if rising sea levels were the only problem that climate change will cause. But it’s not. It is already causing more severe storms and more severe droughts and more severe wild fires, and will have major effects on food production among other things.
I would like to see the statistics of the Newton Power Choice program.
Did a majority of the city residents really care about global warming and up their electricity choice to the 100% green option? Did the residents have no real opinion and keep the default option? Did they have personal reasons they felt were more important and select the basic option?
This is one way to gauge how committed the residents of Newton are to the problem and how much effort/time the Councilors should invest.
To give the planet a good chance (not even a guarantee) of avoiding the worst effects of climate change, the science is absolutely clear that we need to AT LEAST be net 0 carbon output by 2050 globally.
The Citizen’s Climate Action Plan projects to put Newton on a path to net 0 by that 2050 goal, with concrete policies that get us there.
This is Newton. We are heavily Democratic. We have an incredibly educated population (cool stat – 10.4% of Newtonites have a doctoral degree, 7th best in the country: https://www.online-phd-programs.org/50-u-s-cities-with-the-most-doctoral-degree-holders/)
If we can’t lead the way by doing the bare minimum required to prevent the worst effects of climate change, who can we expect to lead us? The federal government isn’t going to. Developing countries can’t afford to. We have a moral and existential obligation to meet what the science demands, period.
But that doesn’t mean we need to take our eye off the ball on everything else. For example, nothing in the Climate Action Plan would preclude us from giving our teachers (or the rest of the unions without a contract) a competitive contract.
Based on my conversations with voters this year while running for City Council, climate change has been the 3rd most frequently mentioned issue for voters not far behind road repair (#1) and development-related issues (#2). It actually came up vastly more often than several seemingly more local issues like “traffic” and “schools” because voters have decided that climate change is in fact a local issue too and needs to be worked on at every level. It doesn’t make sense to hand-wave it away as a purely national or global issue, because even if a strong global treaty were signed tomorrow, the implementation would have to occur at ground level.
Not to mention that here in Ward 5 we are this coming Tuesday headed into our 3rd massive intentional release of natural gas from the Quinobequin Rd maintenance vent in as many months.
@Bryan, some reactions. When you say “We are heavily Democratic,” that carries little weight with regard to this issue for those of us who are registered as independent, and it feels exclusionary. Statewide, there are more independent voters than Democrats and Republicans combined. I imagine the Republicans in Newton would also be put off by that rationale. Perhaps you can think about how to express your opinion on this issue in a manner that would bring us together rather than divide us based on party affiliation.
BTW, also the Democrats–even in Congress–are of many minds on these issues. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/14/green-new-deal-democrats-split-strategy-address-climate-change/3164072002/
Finally, somewhat facetiously, let’s not start bragging about the number of Ph.D.’s in town. There is little about that degree that generally leads to knowledge about civic matters. More seriously, your use of that fact comes across as a kind of intellectual arrogance, as though the percentage of Ph.D’s is somehow reflective of a community’s ability to make good decisions or lead the way. I know a lot of people in town with no college degrees who are quite thoughtful and informed about these kind of issues. I’m hoping our elected officials or wannabees will act to reinforce our common values, rather than separate us based on our academic standings.
Thanks, @Bill. Great to get a report from the front lines. Please see my question above with regard to the Climate Action Plan: What the status of that plan? (Here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/99221) Does it need Council approval? If so, is there much debate around it from the incumbents or the challengers?
Unfortunately, the drivers of climate change and the impacts of climate change are both so pervasive that reaching the net zero goal set out by the UN, as Bryan says above, will require action at every level of government. There are things that can only be done internationally; others at the national and state level; but yes, there are also things that can only be accomplished at the municipal level. Housing and zoning policies, for example.
I dislike it when our councilors spend time on national issues that they and Newton cannot effect. But as difficult as the density and transportation decisions are—they will have an impact on how quickly each of us in Newton, as well as our city government and local businesses, can reduce our emissions.
So it is very important to me that we have elected officials at every level who will tackle climate-related issues that are within their jurisdiction, including city councilors. And I am proud that Newton has played a very constructive role improving the efficiency of municipal buildings, powering them with on-site solar to the extent possible, and adopting a municipal electricity aggregation program with the highest base level of renewables in the state, and a very affordable 100% renewables option.
Analysis after analysis finds that paying a little more to slow climate change will cost far less than the price of delaying action, with extremely high costs in adaptation and suffering. Ben Franklin has it right with his adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
@Paul – to be clear – I was only pointing out those facts to suggest that Newton is more likely than other communities to act. It was not meant to be exclusionary of people who are not Democrats and I apologize if it came off that way.
@Paul Levy –
I’m glad you’ve got my non-college degree’d back Paul 😉
Climate change also impacts a number of other municipal functions, such as timing of street sweeping and yard waste collection, pot hole repair (freeze-melt cycles), snow plowing, and much more. We need elected representatives at the local level who understand that and, like many others have said, are willing to invest in preventing future escalation of these issues by making broad change, now.
we also need to stop encouraging development in Boston especially in the Seaport district. It’s optimistic to thing the world can get to zero emissions by 2050, so why is Boston allowing so much development in obvious flood zones, and when it gets whacked by a major storm, who pays to clean it up?
Effort and money needs to be spent on mitigation at this point. We can’t control China and India, and the world is headed towards 10 billion people. ( from 3.6 billion in 1970). These countries have large populations in hot areas which means even more air conditioning as things warm.
Anyone for a ban on Air Conditioning in commercial space in Newton? When I’m working at some of my clients ( outside of Newton) I often have to bring a light sweater, in July, it’s so cold….
To FifthGenerationNewtonnite in answer to your question about Newton Power Choice…
As of the end of August, a bit more than 1,600 residents have chosen 100% renewable electricity in Newton Power Choice. Of course we can do better. To opt up, find your Eversource account number, then call 866-968-8065 or visit http://www.masspowerchoice.com/newton.
Here’s the numbers for the supply portion of a typical bill (the distribution portion of the bill is fixed by Eversource and accounts for about half of the total bill):
–Assuming the Newton average monthly usage of 730 kilowatt-hours (kWh):
• Standard (60%) Offering: 730 kWh x $0.1134 = $82.78
• 100% Green option: 730 kWh x $0.1175 = $85.78
So, for $2.97, less than the cost of a kiddie-size cup of ice cream, you can make a big difference.
If you are enrolled in Newton Power Choice, your electricity supplier will be listed as “Direct Energy Newton Power Choice” on your Eversource bill. Look at the price of the supply charge portion of your bill: If you are enrolled in the 100% Green option, the price will be 11.75 cents/kWh. If you are enrolled in the Standard offering (60% renewable), the price will be 11.34 cents/kWh
I agree with Alan Nogee’s comments in this conversation, as well as Bryan’s support for The Citizen’s Climate Action Plan that would put Newton on a path to net zero by 2050 with concrete policies that get us there.
Rick, regarding air conditioning, if not a ban, at least set the thermostat higher.
Required clothing for summers in South Florida includes warm sweaters or jackets.
One of the reasons I first ran for city council in 2013 was to be able to take local action on pressing environmental issues. The threat of climate change kept me up at night and I feared what the future would have in store for my children. Neither the State or Federal government were doing nearly enough and local government actually has a lot of authority. Over the last 6 years we have make great strides. This includes a municipal aggregation program that purchases 60% of the electricity used in Newton from renewable sources. We are now working on phase 3 solar which when complete will mean nearly 50% of our municipal electrical energy will come from solar power. We have eliminated plastic bags in the waste stream and have cost effective path for managing trash and recycling, including reducing consumption, improving the quality of curbside recycling end encouraging re-use and re-purposing of materials and products. Before the end of this year we will adopt the Citizen’s Climate Action Plan putting the City on the road to carbon neutrality by 2050.
Will no one answer my question, stated twice above, with regard to the Climate Action Plan: What the status of that plan? (Here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/99221) Does it need Council approval? If so, is there much debate around it from the incumbents or the challengers?
Just to show how complex the problem is, apparently “fashion” ( unclear from the article what that means; clothing manufacturing? Artificial cloth? ) creates 10 percent of greenhouse emissions)
Extinction Rebellion Takes Aim at Fashion
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/06/fashion/extinction-rebellion-fashion-protest.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
@Marcia
“As of the end of August, a bit more than 1,600 residents have chosen 100% renewable electricity in Newton Power Choice”
Ouch. That’s like 2% or something…
@Rick, interesting tidbit: We tend to think of emissions produced during fabrication, but a big portion of the fashion industry’s contribution to pollution is actually the incineration of unpurchased items, millions of tons per year. https://www.bbcearth.com/blog/?article=will-fashion-firms-stop-burning-clothes. Think of it as using petroleum to create clothing and then burning that material when it’s not sold.
I’m told that with 1,600+ choosing 100% renewable electricity (locally sourced) in Newton Power Choice — that’s above 6% of households, so its obvious we can do way better. To Paul’s question about the status of the Climate Action Plan.–it is being sorted out by the Newton Citizens Commission on Energy and City Departments. There have been presentations to the city council on the two plans. City Councilors are in the process of reviewing both of them. I believe a final plan is expected to be voted on in November. To read more go to https://www.greennewton.org/citizens-climate-action-plan-for-newton-now-available/
By the way, Councilor Alison Leary has been among the most outstanding local leaders when it comes to addressing climate issues in our community. Let’s all understand that climate change will never recognize municipal borders.
@Paul hmm. That’s pretty sick. And it explains when I go to buy a replacement pair of jeans after a couple years they no longer have the same thing! They burned them to be replaced with a new style that I don’t want.
At any rate, solving emissions is a very complex issue.
It is hugely important to me. I pay for solar power, drive a Prius and compost using Black Earth (which I pay for), however it is the CITY’s responsibility to worry about Newton first. No one, except for Newton, will be responsible for contract negotiations for all police, fire, teachers, etc. No one, except Newton officials are concerned about Newton roads or public buildings. I elect Newton officials to be concerned with Newton first. While the environment is important, no one else will be concerned with local causes.
One of the Councilors wrote me privately with regard to the Climate Action Pan: “2 committees of the city council discussed it last week, but it was not voted on. It will be voted on at some point but I’m not sure when. The people who would know are the chairs of the Zoning and Planning Committee (Susan Albright) or Public Facilities Committee (Deb Crossley).”
Continuing the questions: Is there much debate around the plan from the incumbents or the challengers? If so, what aspects?Where do incumbents versus challengers stand on the main provisions.
I haven’t seen much debate on this issue so far. Some challengers and incumbents may not know much about it yet. It seems that the councilors who sit on the two committees, in addition to around 5 other councilors, who attended presentations of the two plans (with follow up Q & A) have been studying the proposals. Most likely they are in the process of evaluating them and sorting things out.
Every level of government has a role to play in addressing climate change. If we do not make those investments, we will be paying much more down the road. Strong schools are important, but we must also invest in a stronger environment for our children’s health and better our children’s chances of inheriting a more liveable world.
What can Newton do? Invest in storm water management, tree planting, protected bike/mobility lanes and improved transit service. Building more multi-unit housing closer to amenties and transit nodes. Work during special permit process to ensure buildings being constructed today are at highest standards and hopefully soon with improved state building codes all buildings will be required. Transition off of natural(fracked) gas ASAP Gas infrastructure is crumbling and not easily repaired. Newton had close to 900 active gas leaks in 2018 of which only 200+ were repaired by the end of the year. https://heetma.org/gas-leaks/gas-leak-maps/ A quick review of the highest leaks in cities/towns/neighborhoods shows that Newton has the second highest number of leaks per square mile in the state behind the Boston neighborhood of Dorchester. We are all paying for that lost gas in our bills, increased cost of road maintenance and with our health and the health of our children.
Good news is these policies and investments should more than pay for themselves over-time with both improved property values, lower utility bills, reduced transportation costs and less health issues. Generations before us invested in schools, libraries, sewers, hospitals, railroads and roads. Our big investment is taking on climate change head on.
Alicia, are these thoughts beyond those included in the Climate Action Plan? Or are you just endorsing that Plan?
Transition off of natural gas would require the removal of thousands of miles of gas mains and service lines to people’s home and businesses, pus installation of alternative heating and cooking and water heating appliances. Is this what you are suggesting? I ask because you are reaching rather broad conclusions without addressing the costs and who should pay. Even assuming that they “pay for themselves over-time,” there is a current cost to be considered.
Even a “simple” idea like “protected bike/mobility lanes” (and I’m a biker!) suggests that you will reduce traffic flow for automobiles, leading to more idling time and longer commute times.
And how to read this: “Strong schools are important, but we must also invest in a stronger environment?” Are you saying give less money to the schools? Or just more money to the environment? Again, who should pay for this?
@Paul -The Public Facilities and Zoning & Planning Committees discussed the
the Adoption of the Climate Action Plan/Citizens Climate Action Plan last Wednesday night. The minutes can be found here:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/99386
We will be meeting again on October 16th and October 28th to discuss the item.
To Councilor candidates: Do you view 6 or 7% of Newton households choosing 100% renewable electricity as a sign of the residents’ commitment to this issue or as a sign of most people not wanting to pay for the increment over the standard contract. @Marcia says “its obvious we can do way better.” Do you agree? If so, what approach would you take to persuade people to spend more now for the potential of a different tomorrow?
Go to the Commonwealth’s energy options rate comparison tool page (http://www.energyswitchma.gov/#/) and you can easily find clean energy choices that are cheaper than the Newton PowerChoices program’s rates. And switching suppliers is simple on line.
I just don’t understand why the Mayor and City Council fans of Newton PowerChoices are praising a system that costs Newton residents more than what is readily available through the Commonwealth’s DPU site. Hope they didn’t spend a lot of time and $$$ on this “accomplishment” — but of course they did.
I forgot to mention — I found a 100% green option that was less expensive than the non-green standard supply from Eversource. I’m saving more than $20/month so green doesn’t have to cost more — unless you use the Mayor’s program…..
I probably would have gone green anyway, but saving a chunk of “green” ($$) as well made it a no brainer.
Actually, buyer beware. Before you conclude another program is better, check what kind of renewables they buy and from where.
Many “green” options available buy questionable Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) from other regions, while the Newton PowerChoice program buys the highest quality “Class I” renewables delivered to the New England grid. These are new renewables, primarily wind and solar, that displace fossil fuel power plants right here in New England. Also, because renewables are also often more expensive in New England (more expensive land, higher cost construction labor, more regulation, more NIMBYs), developers need these revenues to build and operate these projects, and your REC purchase helps clean up the electricity system.
Marketers that buy from the national renewable energy market are generally buying from cheap projects in Texas or the midwest. Because wind energy projects there are usually less expensive than fossil generation, your REC purchase may have had no impact besides providing additional profit to the generator. And you will not be displacing pollution from power plants that are polluting our air.
I was formerly the Clean Energy Program Director for the Union of Concerned Scientists and on the Advisory Board of the Green-e program, that certifies green power programs.
Abe, most of the competitive plans are subject to price changes and steep fees to end contracts. Recently, I spoke with one resident, who had no idea that he has been paying way more per kWh than the Newton Power Choice standard 60% rate and the only way for him end the contract was to pay a hefty penalty fee. As a matter of fact, around 2,000 residents opted out of Newton Power Choice when it first launched and I’m sure they did not know that on an average electricity bill of around $165 they were paying around $13 more than the Newton Power Choice standard rate on their monthly bills. Recently Eversource lowered their basic service price, but it is expected to go back up in a few months. Newton Power Choice has fixed 22 month electricity rates. It’s locally sourced renewable energy, with nominal costs all intended to benefit our environment. On average less than a few bucks a month. And the best way to really save on the costs is to conserve energy and take steps like using power surge protectors, and getting rid of second refrigerators that are huge energy hogs. Well, if you stick with your plan, keep checking the price comparisons in the coming months to make sure that you’re not paying more in the long run.
@Alan Nogee and @Marcia Cooper, thank you for your informative posts. You have restored my faith in the value of spending time on V14. Great to hear that Power Choice is funding new, local renewables.
In perusing the above comments, there are reiterations of climate change as well as an array of recommended measures and policies for the City of Newton.
However, I believe not one comment addresses whether any of the proposed measures or policies, even if implemented well beyond Newton, will have any significant impact (no matter what one believes about climate change), or whether any of them have actual capability of significantly indenting the production of CO2.
Without addressing this, we are being asked to make sacrifices that are purely symbolic.
Therefore, I’d look for any comments where simple arithmetic is applied and which thereupon address this aspect — because without that I’d suggest that this all seems to be “virtue signaling”.
@Alan, what is wrong with purchasing renewable energy from Texas if it is cheaper?
The theoretical argument for it is that it is cheaper, and may displace higher-carbon coal plants in Texas, versus natural gas in New England. However, a fundamental principle that many use for evaluating environmental investments or purchases is known as “additionality” —that the investment is causing something additional to happen that wouldn’t happen otherwise. Because renewables are already the lowest cost option in Texas and the Plains States—costing as little as 2¢/kWH to generate–your purchase of RECs from those states is very unlikely to be causing anything to be built or operate that wouldn’t happen anyway. And you get no local benefits in terms of avoided emissions or economic development.
@Alan, I’m admittedly not an expert in this area, but I buy peaches from Georgia instead of locally because they’re cheaper and better. Why doesn’t that apply to renewable energy? Georgia farmers and Texas wind producers will create additional capacity where its best suited to meet our demand, and we can focus on producing other things. Am I missing something?
Paul,
It needs City council approval for some aspects AND funding from the Mayor for others.
It needs everybody to look at every choices we make. This includes NewCAL and other issues that involve how we build and how we expect people to get from home, then to this place, and then back home.
Laurie, first, renewable electrons aren’t shipped here for you to consume like peaches are. When you buy RECs from Texas, you pay Texas generators for renewable energy delivered to the Texas grid. And they aren’t really going to produce more to meet your demand. They will produce more wind and solar energy when Texas utilities need to buy more, because they are already the cheapest option for them. You buying their RECs won’t affect that equation. in some cases, national marketers will also sell you renewables from very old hydro facilities that are cheap because their construction costs were paid off long ago. Your dollars affect nothing.
Second, it depends what you mean by better. To me, ”better” renewables are those that are predominantly new wind and solar, where my purchase incentivizes additional production, and where they not only reduce emissions of carbon, but also local air and water pollutants that harm our health, and contribute to our regional economy.
Marcia- You are quite correct that one needs to monitor the pricing at the end of the contract period. That’s simple— just enter a reminder notice in your smart phone calendar to do so at the end of the contract period when you sign up and then spend the few minutes it takes at that time to evaluate the then current rates. There’s always a competitive alternative available. So I’m happy to take the minimal risk of finding as good a rate at the end of the 6 money or 1 year contract period vs spending $20/month more for Newton PowerChoices to be able to avoid rechecking rates 2-4 times during the 21 month period that PowerChoices provides. ($20 x 21 = $420 — well worth investing a total of about 1 hours time over 2 years)
Frankly, I wonder why Newton didn’t negotiate a better set of rates for PowerChoices. But that’s par for the course with Her Honor the Mayor….
Jim, it is well established that carbon emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere are reduced when we reduce the energy used to provide energy services (I.e., heat, AC, lighting, transportation), and when carbon emitting sources are replaced by very low-emission sources, like wind, solar or nuclear.
Clearly, no entity, whether a person, business, city, state or national government can appreciably slow climate change on its own. But UN reports summarizing thousands of scientific studies have shown that we ALL globally need to get on track to reduce emissions by around half by 2030 and to net zero by 2050 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
If we, in one of the wealthiest cities in one of the wealthiest states in one of the wealthiest countries don’t do our share with our own emissions, how could we expect anyone else to?
And Jim, with respect to your first comment, perhaps you haven’t seen the most recent prices of various options. The price of offshore wind are is as low as 6.5 ¢/kWH, about half the price of electricity from new nuclear plants. , Onshore wind is even cheaper. Solar with storage now beats new nukes in many places. And the wind and solar prices come with contract guarantees, which you can’t get for new nuclear.
That said, it is still cheaper to continue to operate most older nuclear plants, so I support keeping them open as long as they are operated safely.
Alan, well put me down as saying there’s no way that wind and solar with only existing nuclear can remotely keep our modern civilization going without fossil fuel.
The arithmetic simply does not add up.
Jim,
It’s possible carbon capture will preserve some role for fossil fuels. And possible that R&D on new nuclear designs, especially, small modular reactors, will enable them to become competitive.
But there’s a lot of sophisticated “arithmetic“ being done that shows that rapid declines in the cost of renewables and storage has made getting to at least 80% renewables quite feasible and affordable. The last 20% is feasible but more expensive, and where other new advanced technologies may well compete. A PowerPoint of the best such recent work, In my opinion, by a former NOAA scientist, is here: https://vibrantcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/VCE-Clack_REvCF-_23August2019.pdf
I don’t think we need to try to resolve nuclear energy’s place in our energy future on Village14. Its a topic for another forum.
I do appreciate Alan’s well-reasoned comments on this topic, though. I hope that he will be able to advise the city on the most cost-effective ways to move forward on this important issue if he is not already.
Laurie,
Thank you. I have known and worked with the people who designed the program, Newton resident Ann Berwick, and consultant Paul Gromer, for 20 years and 30 years, respectively. Ann was a former chair of the State Dept. Of Public Utilities and head of the Dept. Of Environmental Protection. Paul was a former head of the state Division of Energy Resources. They are both people of great integrity, with deep knowledge of energy technologies, markets and policy. I have every confidence they have put together a great program. As the market evolves, based on when various companies go out for bids, there will be times when PowerChoice will be a little cheaper than other programs, and times when it will be a little more expensive. No one has perfect market foresight.
Abe, I’m curious to know the rate per kWh that you are paying? The rate for the standard Newton Power Choice 60% locally sourced renewable electricity is 11.34 cents/kWh and 100% is 11.75 cents/kWh. When the Newton Power Choice rate was negotiated last fall it was significantly lower than the Eversource basic rate. On an average electricity bill of $165 it was around a $13 per month savings for the Newton Power Choice plan over the Eversource basic rate on the supplier portion of the bill. Eversource lowered their rate during the summer and fall and it’s expected to go back up by January. It is likely to all even out in the long run. The 1,600 households that have chosen 100% renewable electricity in the Newton Power Choice have made a good choice to support New England sourced renewable energy. It would be great if we triple or even quadruple the participation among Newton residents. To save money and energy on electricity bills, it’s best to use LED light bulbs and turn off lights when not needed; use power surge protectors to turn off computers, TVs and other electronics when not in use; and stop using “energy hog” second refrigerators. No doubt, there’s plenty more we can do to conserve energy and support a rapid transition from fossil fuels to clean energy solutions.
The low rate of consumer choice toward the all-renewable option in Newton Power Choice, even with just a slightly higher price than the other options–and with extensive encouragement by the Mayor and others–suggests that elected officials should be careful about assuming that people have accepted the idea that they should pay more to assist in the transition to a less carbon-fueled economy. And, @Marcia, we also need to be careful in telling people what is “best” for them to do in their homes. (I wonder, for example, how many elected officials who urge us to go green have installed whole-house or room air conditioners in their homes, or drive SUVs, or have an extra freezer or refrigerator in their basement.)
I’m not disagreeing with the logic behind your suggestions. (I’ve spent years running and implementing energy conservation programs and encouraging a more diversified electric power production system.) I am saying that as a matter of persuasion and politics, you risk ineffectiveness and even backlash when adopting what can appear elitist expressions of what people “should” do, especially people who might have limited financial flexibility or choice in their lives. So please think about a different way to deliver the message.
Paul,
Arguably, we have too little must and should. Marcia and her cohort recognize the cataclysmic urgency of the climate crisis. Nobody is doing enough. But, pointing out the things that we can do and communicating a sense of moral urgency is appropriate to the moment.
We worry too much about backlash. The folks who say that they were dissuaded from doing x because someone said y were probably not likely to do x in the first place.
And, we don’t place enough emphasis on the power of elite signaling. You and Marcia are respected members of the community. If you say that Marcia should go slow, be careful, not be hypocritical, you signal that climate change is nuanced and worth taking our time on, people hear that and act accordingly. Imagine what would happen if you said, I’ve had experience with energy conservation programs. Marcia’s right. We should be doing everything we can. Don’t worry if advocates are perfect or not.
@Paul, at least Marcia is telling us what we “should” do rather than the admonition on what we “must” do that we often see on this site!
Marcia Cooper – In answer to your question, I’m paying 9.39 cents per kWh for 100% renewable. I just checked my bill. Better than the City’s 11.75 cents per kWh for 100% renewable.
My lightbulbs are CFL, transitioning to LED as bulbs burn out.
Alan,
My raising of arithmetic is not primarily to address the COST of constructing and maintaining ‘renewables’ (solar panels, wind mills), as well as any of their deleterious environmental impacts. My raising of arithmetic is to address how many solar panels and windmills (with their cost, maintenance, land use, environmental impacts) would be required to offset fossil fuel — to get to 80% or 100% replacement of fossil fuel as you cite (not even including where it is unfeasible such as air travel).
Again, without realistically addressing that, this discussion seems to be all symbolic (or “virtue signaling”).
Fair enough, Jim. I did address those issues in my Green Newton presentation earlier this year.
TL;DR: Just like solar and wind cost more initially but pay for themselves over time, they use more land initially, but because they don’t require more mining and drilling each year, eventually use less—and do a lot less damage.
https://www.greennewton.org/updated-steps-to-net-zero-carbon-emissions-from-solar-carports-to-the-green-new-deal-gn-talk-at-the-newton-free-library-on-february-25/
Alan,
The world we live in is mostly man made using fossil fuels. Try to repave the 2.7 million miles of road in the U.S. with electricity, that is not counting the parking lots and air ports. Pavement is mostly made from the bottoms of the distillation and processing equipment in the petroleum refineries. Each year we produce about 100 to 400 million tons of asphalt. We produce about 10 billion tons of concrete every year (almost all from fossil fuels).
We live in a fossil fueled world, we are using more of it every day… not less.
If we do not use fossil fuels we would not be able to run our electric cars on the roads that will soon cease to exist. We could not make the electric cars. We could not make the solar cells or wind generators. If we use less oil, we have less asphalt. Without oil we have no concrete. Without coal and coke from coal we have no steel. No bridges, no roads, no shingles, no skyscrapers and no food! No food! Without the Haber/Bosch process making ammonia for fixed nitrogen, we have very little food. We could not even feed a fraction of the population. We have no choice but continue to use fossil fuels. Solar and wind will always be a fraction of the total energy use. Both solar and wind require an equally large power plant to be steamed up and running to fill in the dips when the sun goes behind a cloud or the wind briefly stops blowing. Those that think solar and wind are a solution to our use and expectations of luxury and extravagance have a very limited understanding of the larger picture.
Jim,
First, your claim that wind and solar require equally large fossil fuel plants running as a backup is a common misperception. In fact, the grid always keeps operating reserves to back up the biggest system contingency, and adding wind and solar doesn’t appreciably increase those reserves. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63045.pdf
at least until we get to much higher levels of renewables.
Second, most of your examples are not about fossil fuel burning, which causes greenhouse gas emissions, but about the use of petroleum and natural gas for chemical feedstocks. I don’t think these necessarily have to be eliminated to achieve a stable climate, although there are many good reasons to try to reduce them. There is a lot of R&D, and progress being made, finding non-petroleum substitutes. One example: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/08/from-oil-to-algae-eco-friendly-asphalt-could-be-the-route-to-greener-roads
However, it’s true that the industrial processes to make asphalt, concrete, steel, etc., do use very high temperatures that are not necessarily easy to replace with renewables. But we’re making progress identifying low carbon options there as well. https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/low-carbon-heat-solutions-heavy-industry-sources-options-and-costs-today
Whether the ultimate economic optimum turns out to be 100% renewables, or 80%, or even something less, it is certain that it is much higher than the 17% of electricity use we have today, and we should be adding renewables as fast as possible.
And Newton PowerChoice is a great way to contribute to that.