All but two City Councilors, Councilors Bill Humphrey and Emily Norton, voted to replace the boilers at Franklin and South with fossil fuel boilers. This illustrates the problem faced by everyone concerned about climate change; whether to prioritize immediate financial considerations or longer-term environmental concerns. Below are the two docket items.
HER HONOR THE MAYOR requesting authorization to transfer the sum of one-hundred
seventy-one thousand four hundred ninety dollars ($171,490) from Acct#0110498-579000
Current Year Budget Reserve to a Public Building Project Account to fund the replacement
of the Franklin School Boiler which is forty years old and operable but leaking.
HER HONOR THE MAYORrequesting authorization to appropriate and expend the sum of
two hundred twenty-four thousand five hundred ten dollars ($224,510) from June 30,
2021, Certified Free Cash to fund the replacement of an inoperable boiler at Newton South
High School
“Investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure is moral and economic madness,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement to reporters. “Such investments will soon be stranded assets, a blot on the landscape, and a blight on investment portfolios.”
Franklin itself is in the beginning stages of being replaced or renovated, but the boiler is at risk of failure now.
As I recall, Franklin had to be closed a few years ago because the previous boiler failed, and the current boiler is an old one from another school.
We wish that the timing for replacing old things with new things would all line up nice and tidy, but mechanical devices have a life of their own. Kids can’t learn if the heat fails, nor does a leaky boiler sound especially great to have around.
I suspect the boiler will be reused to bridge another school to renovation once it has served its life at Franklin. New boilers are probably more efficient and safer than old boilers as well.
It would be interesting to know what Ms. Sangiolo would have proposed instead for a boiler that needs immediate replacement.
According to the committee reports, the boilers were necessary to ensure heat for the winter. This winter. I think enough kids have done without in-person school already.
Further, the Franklin boiler was addressed directly. It can be re-used, as Mike suggests, or sold, or recycled.
To get NSHS to all-electric, Building Commissioner Josh Morse estimated in the tens of millions of dollars. It was one of the first buildings to be retrofitted and rehabbed after years of Newton neglecting its buildings, and essentially racking up debt in the form of buildings badly in need of repair. Each building project since has been progressively more efficient, as the city learns and the technology advances.
In fact, the “new” early childhood building (former Horace Mann) will be all-electric. Plans for the new Lincoln Eliot (at 150 Jackson) have it all-electric. I am sure when NSHS comes up again for rehabilitation or renewal, Newton will make further progress on electrifying it.
Meanwhile, students need heated classrooms on cold winter days.
Councilor Downs – thank you for clarifying. I have a question regarding all-electric buildings: Are they currently more environmental than gas-powered buildings? Emphasis on “currently”, without regard to hypothetical future developments in renewable energy.
We should only consider these currently-un-economical options when the feds and/or the state provide incentives. Until such a time, the primary foci of a locale such as Newton should be public safety, education, and maintaining reasonable infrastructure. Nowhere in City Hall’s remit is solving the environmental crisis. We owe our citizens e.g., a vibrant jazz program at NSHS more than a budget-busting gas boiler. And no, we cannot have both. Props to those who understand and are willing to make these easy tradeoffs.
Glad to see this happen.
Opting for electric heating at a time when the vast majority of our electricity comes from fossil fuels is non-sensical and actually worse for the environment. Perhaps a different conversation in 10-15 years, but certainly not now.
I’m a big supporter of getting off of fossil fuels, the sooner the better. But I’m really concerned about going all electric as rapidly as possible.
Here’s the reason. As I travel around Newton and the adjacent cities I’m struck by the number of utility poles listing from vertical or lashed to newer poles. Looking at the actual wiring from the poles, in some areas it looks like a third world rats nest. And I don’t even want to think about the age, condition and reliability of transformers and other equipment that is part of the electrical infrastructure.
I’d be a lot less skeptical about rapid electrification if the utilities that own and control the distribution infrastructure were active partners in the effort.
Another question I’m curious about regarding electrification vs. gas is the possibility of using the gas pipe infrastructure to transport hydrogen. From what I understand this could be a realistic scenario. Are we sure it’s a good idea to preclude this option from all those all-electric buildings?
From my research, hydrogen is likely not compatible with elements of our natural gas distribution system – metals and rubber seals may degrade with the presence of hydrogen. We also know that our existing natural gas lines are leaky and in need of billions of dollars of repair. Certainly, any gas-fired boiler or furnace of today would need to be completely replaced by a hydrogen version tomorrow. Even if this idea comes to reality, running new supply conduit to the large gas mains under most every street would be the least costly issue to address.
Given where hydrogen fuel technology is today, we seem pretty safe planning a transition to electricity. However, I do agree we should not ignore all short-term economic considerations. We should also understand the future may not be exactly how we expect it to be: Hydrogen may run power plants of a variety of sizes, while a new generation of smaller, safer nuclear reactors may start to service our electric grid.
Nuclear is dead in the United States. The last utility to even try to attempt it went bankrupt because of the effort, costing ratepayers billions. https://www.powermag.com/former-scana-ceo-will-land-in-prison-as-result-of-v-c-summer-nuclear-project/
Federal gov’t won’t touch it.
As a smaller molecule, hydrogen leaks more readily from pipes than methane gas. It also embrittles metal pipes & promotes pipe cracking.
Hydrogen is an indirect greenhouse gas multiple times more damaging to climate than carbon dioxide, when it leaks.
Hydrogen burns hotter and generates greater nitrogen oxide than methane, and is thus worse for respiratory health in kitchens.
The energy density of hydrogen per unit volume is very low, so it must be compressed to 5000-10,000 psi to be stored. Because of its extremely low volumetric energy density, if it is blended into gas pipelines at the same operating pressure it substantially dilutes the total energy density of the mixture.
The highest value of hydrogen is as long duration energy storage for electric grid support during times of peak electricity demand. Hydrogen can be used in fuel cells to generate electricity at opportune times. Blending hydrogen into gas lines to burn is squandering a precious resource by treating it as a baseload energy commodity. It’s like blending single malt scotch whiskey into moonshine to improve the taste.
Nobody is seriously proposing H2-burning kitchen stoves. Otherwise don’t disagree too much with the rest of your post. There’s presently a shortage of industrial H2 so it’s not needed for pipeline injection.
Sangiolo just wants to make sure that the City follows what it recommends to its citizens and businesses. So, if the City is suggesting that residents and businesses must replace their fossil fuel boilers/heaters/stoves, transportation systems with clean energy – electric, for major renovations or new construction, that they do so too. If there are exceptions to be made for the City – in this case, because of an emergency situation or because of costs, then shouldn’t that exception also extend to residents and businesses too?
As for the NSHS Jazz Program – I wholeheartedly support immediate reinstatement of the program!
So the present options were to spend a lot of money the city doesn’t have or doesn’t want to spend to upgrade to a greener infrastructure, use a fossil fuel burning boiler, or close Franklin (my grade school alma mater) and keep its kids remote learning even longer. Not very attractive options. I can’t blame the city council for having not-great options, but this will happen again
This is yet another in the never ending number of instances as to why climate change isn’t solvable. By overpromising and underdelivering, a lot of credibility is lost. After all, if Newton can’t replace a boiler in one of its schools with a greener option without breaking its bank, it’s a bad look anyone. This is why It’s time for all of us to acknowledge the limitations and dial down expectations.
Spoke today to Ward 5 councilors, council VP, and Building Commissioner. The ‘new gas infra now – net zero later’ proposal is so out of touch with how scientists explain the planetary emergency destroying our kid’s future. Many in this community are not as out of touch as those who would add gas fired power plants to school buildings in clear violation of Paris Agreement commitments that this city has lauded and has endorsed.
But have residents been kept informed about the need for public assistance to keep these commitments? No.
Handful of residents know about the $171,000 for new boilers.Sure, the planetary emergency isn’t on every resident’s mind – but it certainly is on the minds of Newton youth.
Perhaps in coming years there may be new buildings with all electric heat and hot water. No surety of it, however nice to think about it. Across this nation and surrounding Newton, are other towns that also are in denial of the clear imperatives (and Paris commitments) to not add new fossil fuel infrastructure. In fact, the Commonwealth has not yet made good on it’s existing commitments to solve the immense problems involved to decarbonize public and private infrastructure.
All that is certain now is that Newton City Council is backing away from Paris commitments and that the promises it is making may in fact not be made good on in the uncertain future ahead.
Elected officials should ask this community to step up today in what our scientific community has with overwhelming consensus described as ‘all hands on deck’ emergency.
I was searching your comment in vain for a proposed alternative to buying a new boiler.