• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

A city with an energy policy conservatives will hate

Yes, a city with 100% renewable electricity. And I'm getting solar panels on my house. Surely a sign I hate America.


I'm not sure that the city really does run on 100% renewable electricity. There are two reasons for this.

The first reason is that 20% of their energy comes from solar and wind. What do they do on cloudy windless days to make up the difference?

They'll have to import electricity from elsewhere. But because they sell off surplus electricity at other times, they can claim that renewable energy meets 100% of their energy needs, and pretend that they haven't had to rely on any electricity produced by fossil fuels.

Sure, they may be producing as much or more renewable electricity in a year as they consume, but that doesn't mean they're not partly dependant on non-renewable electricity.

The second reason is the part about the biomass facility where "they haul in scrap wood from across Vermont, use the heat to make steam, and thus generate electricity".

If the trucks hauling the wood are burning fossil fuels, then fossil fuels are still an integral part of their electricity production process.

(I'm not saying that this isn't a pretty great achievement, I'm just pointing out that the claims shouldn't be taken strictly at face value.)
 
And I'm getting solar panels on my house. Surely a sign I hate America.
I didn't know you had so much disposable income! It'll cost you about $12,500 give or take for a modest system, assuming you have no trees that will need to be removed so they don't shade them.
 
Let's not poison the well here. Wait for some actual conservatives to complain about this. This post just reminds me of a recent meme I saw going around Facebook where conservatives were crowing that Kaley Cuoco's recent interview was going to "really piss off the libruls", when in reality I never saw a single liberal raise an eyebrow over it.

What interview was this?
 
I give up, is this a Poe?

Seriously, this type of nonsense is embarrassing.

Were you alive from, say, 1970-1985? I was - and I watched what I described happening and read the reports of it happening(Newsweek, Time, occasionally US News and World Report, Nashville Tennesseean and Banner (morning and evening/Democrat slant/republican slant) ), read and saw the analyses of those reports and even paid attention to at least two fundie semi-leaders of the time who thought (in articles they each wrote) it was a bad idea for them to link up with politicians*. Sorry, not even remotely a Poe.**




* Turned out they were right - the republickers had (apparently and based on actual results) no intention of destroying relations with some of their misguided supporters so did not actually give the fundies most of what they had "promised" them.............


**amazingly I have pointed this out a large number of times in posts on many similar threads and this is the first time anyone has tried to deny it. I lived through it, my memory is fine so,,,, - don't know what else I can do here:eek::eek::eek:.
 
I didn't know you had so much disposable income! It'll cost you about $12,500 give or take for a modest system, assuming you have no trees that will need to be removed so they don't shade them.

I did a little Googling and it seems you can actually get a system for nothing down. Assuming it actually saves enough on your electric bill then, you could use those savings to make the loan payments. So conceivably it could cost nothing up front and no more than you would be paying to the electric company until your loan is paid off, and if it still works after that, everything else is profit.

http://blog.ucsusa.org/cost-of-installing-solar-panels-635
 
Well, it depends upon how you define renewable, if you read closely:

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Here’s how they do it: about a third of Burlington’s renewable energy is produced at this biomass facility. Biomass is just a fancy word for something that gets burned to produce energy — in this case, they haul in scrap wood from across Vermont, use the heat to make steam, and thus generate electricity.

One third is produced by burning scrap wood? But doesn't that produce, "gasp", CO2? I mean, if burning wood is renewable, then why don't we all go back to fireplaces?

But the biggest portion of the city’s renewable production comes from hydropower… some they source from other places, like this older hydroelectric dam in Maine, some they produce at their own plant on the Winooski river.

I love hydroelectric power, but most environmentalists... not so much.

Hydropower produces no air pollution or global-warming pollution, but the environmental effects of damming rivers can be severe. The Sierra Club supports small-scale hydropower and the use of existing generating plants, but because of the effects of large dams on wildlife and watersheds, the Club does not support large-scale hydropower.

So the miracle looks pretty much unsustainable.
 
Well, I'm sure glad that we're not injecting any partisanship into this discussion about envirotards and enviroweenies.
Did you not read the OP or the title of the thread? Partisanship was injected immediately.
 
One third is produced by burning scrap wood? But doesn't that produce, "gasp", CO2? I mean, if burning wood is renewable, then why don't we all go back to fireplaces?

I've sometimes wondered about this myself. Assuming it really is all 100% scrap wood that would be produced anyway, then burning it to produce energy seems like a good, efficient use.

Some people who seem to know more about this than I do have doubts though:

Biomass: Not Carbon Neutral and Often Not Clean

Power companies, facing pressure to find alternatives to fossil fuels like coal, often consider turning to biomass – an umbrella term for fuel that is newly derived from plant matter. Until recently, most people including policy makers assumed all biomass was clean and renewable. But not all biomass is created equal, and our energy policies must distinguish among the good, the bad and the ugly.

For example, as my colleagues and I have written about before (see here and here for starters), burning whole trees to produce electricity increases carbon pollution compared with fossil fuels for decades into the future. On the other hand, some forms of biomass can reduce carbon pollution and other emissions compared to fossil fuels.

Regardless of the source of the fuel – low carbon or high carbon - burning stuff is just inherently a dirty process. The combustion of biomass in power plants releases harmful air pollutants such as particulates, NOx, and SOx. So combustion must occur in plants with high efficiencies and state-of-the art emission controls. This fact was underscored last week in a new report Trees, Trash, and Toxics: How Bioenergy Has Become the New Coal released by the Partnership for Policy Integrity.

Pelham, MA. - Biomass electricity generation, a heavily subsidized form of “green” energy that relies primarily on the burning of wood, is more polluting and worse for the climate than coal, according to a new analysis of 88 pollution permits for biomass power plants in 25 states.

Trees, Trash, and Toxics: How Biomass Energy Has Become the New Coal, released today and delivered to the EPA by the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI), concludes that biomass power plants across the country are permitted to emit more pollution than comparable coal plants or commercial waste incinerators, even as they are subsidized by state and federal renewable energy dollars. It contains detailed emissions and fuel specifications for a number of facilities, including plants in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

“The biomass power industry portrays their facilities as ‘clean,’ said Mary Booth, Director of PFPI and author of the report. “But we found that even the newest biomass plants are allowed to pollute more than modern coal- and gas-fired plants, and that pollution from bioenergy is increasingly unregulated.”

The report found that biomass power is given special treatment and held to lax pollution control standards, compared to fossil-fueled power plants.

Biomass plants are dirty because they are markedly inefficient. The report found that per megawatt-hour, a biomass power plant employing “best available control technology” (BACT) emits more nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide than a modern coal plant of the same size.

And counterarguments:
Environmental group’s report comes under fire after citing Bucksport mill as one of dozens of ‘dirty’ biomass plants

Critics say the report makes false assumptions and, from a wider environmental standpoint, neglects a key issue — namely, the impact of mining and other practices used to obtain nonrenewable fossil fuels used in other power generation facilities.

Bill Cohen, spokesman for the Bucksport mill, said Wednesday in a brief statement that “bad data and faulty assumptions” have been used in the PFPI report and others like it.

The Biomass Power Association, a trade industry group, had some of the harshest criticism of the report, calling it an “81-page editorial” that demonstrates a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the science surrounding forestry and biomass and the governmental policies that regulate them.

“This report was not peer-reviewed, nor was it joined or supported by any credible national environmental organization,” the association wrote Thursday in a press release. “It is unfortunately very easy to misrepresent numbers as true science. PFPI believes it is helping the environment — but the end result of studies like this is that, if they are taken as fact, more fossil fuels will be used as power.”
 
In all fairness, it wasn't like that until around 1980 when the former Republicans/GOP got into bed first with the fundies (religious nuts) and then hard core with the wealthy and the anti-tax/anti-services (except those they used) proto tea baggers.
Hardly. Read some of the campaign rhetoric from the days of the founding of the nation. Washington, Adams, Franklin, et. al. were simply blasted by opponents. Mudslinging is our national pastime.
 
I've sometimes wondered about this myself. Assuming it really is all 100% scrap wood that would be produced anyway, then burning it to produce energy seems like a good, efficient use.

Some people who seem to know more about this than I do have doubts though:

Biomass: Not Carbon Neutral and Often Not Clean

Basically, the environmental movement opposes all forms of energy. Of course, they can't admit that outright, so they support those that are least able currently to support our needs. I guarantee, if solar or wind power ever become really cost efficient and reliable, the environmentalists will turn against them.
 
Last edited:
Basically, the environmental movement opposes all forms of energy. Of course, they can't admit that outright, so they support those that are least able currently to support our needs. I guarantee, if solar or wind power ever become really cost efficient and reliable, the environmentalists will turn against them.

But think of the birds! Besides, it spoils the view from my chalet.

Why do you hate Mother Earth, Brainster? :mad:
 
One third is produced by burning scrap wood? But doesn't that produce, "gasp", CO2? I mean, if burning wood is renewable, then why don't we all go back to fireplaces?

It's inefficient, inconvenient and is harmful to local air quality. Burning it in a central remote facility increases efficiency, reduces inconvenience, and the air quality in residential areas isn't harmed.

But yes, burning wood is renewable. All the CO2 released into the air by burning the wood was taken out of the air in order to produce the wood, so there's no net increase in CO2 levels.
 
The second reason is the part about the biomass facility where "they haul in scrap wood from across Vermont, use the heat to make steam, and thus generate electricity".
I am generally in favor of industrial logging, and generally in favor of replacing some amount of natural forest with sustainable tree farming to support the lumber industry. And I'm definitely in favor of burning scrap wood for energy. But I feel I should point out that in order to make surplus wood a meaningful part of your energy plan, you have to have a certain amount of industrial woodworking going on, and a certain amount of industrial logging to support it. These things don't bother me, but they might bother some who pride themselves on their environmentalist credentials.

But I wonder why scrap wood? Why not set aside a certain acreage of tree farming, specifically as biomass fuel for the city? I wonder what it would take to run a city entirely on wood. And I wonder if the wood burned in this biomass plant really makes up a substantial percentage of the city's overall energy plan.
 
I am generally in favor of industrial logging, and generally in favor of replacing some amount of natural forest with sustainable tree farming to support the lumber industry. And I'm definitely in favor of burning scrap wood for energy. But I feel I should point out that in order to make surplus wood a meaningful part of your energy plan, you have to have a certain amount of industrial woodworking going on, and a certain amount of industrial logging to support it. These things don't bother me, but they might bother some who pride themselves on their environmentalist credentials.

But I wonder why scrap wood? Why not set aside a certain acreage of tree farming, specifically as biomass fuel for the city? I wonder what it would take to run a city entirely on wood. And I wonder if the wood burned in this biomass plant really makes up a substantial percentage of the city's overall energy plan.
It might be possible, but I don't think it would make economic sense. Acreage is finite, and wood has many uses. Many of those uses are economically more rewarding than burning, but still result in a good deal of scrap generation. I don't know what percentage of Burlington's energy comes from wood, but I think a much greater amount comes from the Winooski river and from Hydro Quebec.

As environments for large forest resources go, Vermont is not the best either. There's plenty of logging, but less than there might be, because much of the forested land is in parks, and on mountain ranges where clean access is difficult, and what timber is harvested is much more likely to be for hardwood logging. Culling mature trees from a state (e.t.a actually more likely to be national) park is a far different operation from turning it into a softwood farm for fuel. Much of the more accessible land is partially open farm land. Of course, one could let that grow back to woods as has occurred in much of Southern New England, but the reforestation of open land is not looked on so favorably by all, including those interested in wildlife conservation.

One of the more rewarding industries upcoming here in Vermont is wood pellet production for domestic heating. Despite the ranting of those convinced that all environmentalists are all the same, all stupid, and hate all energy all the time, pellet production has generally been looked at rather favorably, because the resource itself is renewable, and the technology for burning pellets is easier to make clean than traditional logs in stoves. Of course, anyone, environmentalist or not, would be happy if nothing needed to be burned at all, but it gets cold up here and pellets are generally considered pretty green.

What we're seeing a lot of these days is small solar farms. The prevalence of open land favors small scale solar operations, not so big as to cover many acres of scenery, but a few here and a few there. As the apparatus becomes cheaper, solar has caught on quite fast. Vermont has proved a difficult place for wind power, because of the hilly geography. Wind turbines are best on ridge lines, where they also affect scenery and the migratory routes of birds, and wind power has hit some big obstacles. It is, after all, an important issue in a state whose economy is as heavily dependent on tourism as ours.

Burlington is in a good position here, because they already have a big hydro plant in their back yard, and they're near to Quebec, where hydro is very big business. Vermont has been scrambling recently to find alternative sources to replace the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which has so far been providing over 70 percent of the State's electricity, but is slated to close very soon.

Here in Benson, we're looking forward to the development of a huge and fantastically expensive privately built DC line that is proposed to come down from Quebec, lying on the bottom of Lake Champlain, and exiting in Benson, whereupon it will be buried under highways on its way to a plant west of Rutland. It's interesting new technology that promises to be nearly invisible, but that will, we are told, provide a good bit of tax revenue to the town from its owners. We won't get any of the power, but we can use the money to fund a proposal to provide solar power in the village center to run the town's facilities.
 
Last edited:
I didn't know you had so much disposable income! It'll cost you about $12,500 give or take for a modest system, assuming you have no trees that will need to be removed so they don't shade them.

lol
Only if he can get someone else to pay for it.
 
If I've learned any truism it is that Republicans hate anything that makes life pleasant. Hence their hatred of the environment, schools, parks, healthy babies and safe roads.

And I just discovered a town they'll hate more than others.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/vermont-city-come-rely-100-percent-renewable-energy/

Yes, a city with 100% renewable electricity. And I'm getting solar panels on my house. Surely a sign I hate America.

It's when you start hatin' because your neighbor doesn't have solar panels that it becomes a problem.

I notice some weasel phrases all around in the article.

Well, they are renewable -- but under this definition so were the growing masses of Europe denuding forrests. They use "wood scraps" from other...whatever. Are those forests actively replanted?

Does burning it release CO2? "See those smokestacks? That's (just) steam!". Well.

An even more "liberal" kibitzer: "Well, they're not really 100%. They include power from an ancient hydroelectric dam! That's not super-green, y'all!"

Well, what do you mean by "green"?

- Renewable energy?
- Low CO2 or other greenhouse emissions?

Oh, I know! Damn dam threw those squirrels out of their house when it created a lake! Right over there, where 10,000 years ago there was a mile of ice.
 
Hardly. Read some of the campaign rhetoric from the days of the founding of the nation. Washington, Adams, Franklin, et. al. were simply blasted by opponents. Mudslinging is our national pastime.

Understand I was referring to only the 1900s where it was pretty exclusively Republicans and Democrats and as they existed during the past century. The older fights were mostly stuff we do not always gets that heated about now.........
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom