Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [concord] Re: Transmission costs and losses

Expand Messages
  • Brian Crounse
    On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:16 AM, David Allen ... Bill pointedly and constructively challenged the value of in-town generation. I reserve the right to repeat
    Message 1 of 114 , Oct 12, 2010
      On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:16 AM, David Allen
      <David_Allen_AB63@...> wrote:

      > Again, covered several times – those numbers are in hand and not
      > material to the decision.  Covering old ground, again.

      Bill pointedly and constructively challenged the value of in-town
      generation. I reserve the right to repeat something if I think it's
      germane to the discussion at hand (as, apparently, do you, David). My
      impression from the conversations on this list is that the case for
      the value of in-town generation has not been adequately presented.
      Making that case is still a work in progress.

      As for my "gotchas" (Carlson and Berkshire wind): My intent in
      bringing up these examples is to illustrate some actual MA projects
      that are relevant to the discussion. Rather than repeating myself, I
      brought up some fresh material. There's been a lot of talk of
      theoretical options in this thread; I think it's instructive to also
      look at concrete examples. You are free to object to my narrative
      style, if you wish.

      My main point in bringing up Berkshire Wind is to point out that
      renewable energy projects (or any new energy projects, for that
      matter) aren't easy, or quick- it is not the case that there are many
      easy alternatives for renewable energy projects that we are
      overlooking, and they all have pluses, minuses, and risks. I am
      frankly happy that the land dispute seems to have been resolved.

      Regarding Carlson- of course they didn't cut down all their orchards-
      that's their core business (that pun was accidental, I swear). They
      allocated enough space to supply roughly 80% of their energy needs.
      Using less than 2% of their land (I think they have about 140 acres in
      total). I think that's pretty interesting, especially as they use a
      lot of electricity for refrigeration. Perhaps their exercise in land
      use diversification can inform our discussions. A visit would also
      make for an easy (and delicious) field trip.

      > A very small amount, relative to Concord’s annual town energy budget,
      > also smaller by several factors than the solar array in town as planned.

      As noted, Carlson's solar generation is a very large fraction of their needs.

      If we're going to play the small numbers game, which has been used to
      e.g. downplay the economic advantages of in-town generation, I could
      point out that the 4.82 acres of Ammendolia land under consideration
      for solar is 0.03% of Concord's land area. But of course that doesn't
      tell the whole story.

      Finally:

      > The solar bid that Concord has in hand is half the price of the only other bid.

      My records show that Tioga bid at 11-12 cents per kWh, depending on
      the site, while Broadway bid at 13.7 cents per kWh. David, please
      help me understand this statement?

      Brian
    • Deborah Bier, PhD/Greater Wellbeing.com
      Tanya, welcome back (as your close neighbor, how did I miss that you are back? So unobservant of me!) I think you are touching at the very heart of something
      Message 114 of 114 , Oct 30, 2010
        Tanya, welcome back (as your close neighbor, how did I miss that you
        are back? So unobservant of me!)

        I think you are touching at the very heart of something absolutely
        vital, Tanya. Something that has really concerned me about how this
        topic has played itself out in some people's minds and behaviors.
        It's not a lone topic in this, but since it is right in front of us,
        it's worth talking about. And that is this:

        How do we as a community engage around topics where we hold numerous,
        strong, differing opinions?

        * Do we value our differences and find examining them together with
        mutual respect a path to a better outcome?

        * Or do we create an "us vs. them" mentality: the people who agree
        with me are "us" and those who don't we have to convert -- and
        failing that, suspect them, discredit and/or beat them down to "win"
        over them.

        I doubt I can adequately convey just how pivotal I feel the choice
        between these two styles is for us as a community. And as a culture.
        What happens in Concord is both a microcosm of what's happening in
        our wider regional and national culture, and something that impacts
        that wider culture. There is no time more clear than this
        pre-election period to show us how it is to live within one of these
        options. Frankly, that's just not how I want to be living now or into
        the future.

        But that's MY personal choice. What is yours, my fellow townspeople?
        And what do you think will help us get (and stay) there?

        best,
        Debbie


        At 12:21 PM +0000 10/30/10, tbartevyan wrote:
        >
        >
        >This is in response to an earlier post by Anthony Butler:
        ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/concord/message/41879>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/concord/message/41879
        >
        >Hello Anthony,
        >
        >I was out of town from October 10th until now and unable to read
        >emails with any regularity whatsoever. I just noticed your post
        >addressed to me
        >published by yahoo on October 11th - so I missed it even though you
        >seem to have posted it on the 7th.
        >
        >I would like to write a brief response to a couple of your comments:
        >
        >you say:
        >
        >> Neither you or David addressed the original statement.
        >>
        >> 9. The only group who has a legitimate gripe about the process is
        >> > > the residents abutting Ammendolia.
        >
        >I did not presume to be addressing the original statement-nor does
        >anyone have an obligation to answer any particular statement,
        >especially those not addressed to oneself. My headline makes it
        >clear my purpose was to reflect on the way nimby might come into
        >play at various junctures in various town deliberations of various
        >issues - and that was in response to something David wrote.
        >
        >> For all the people who have made accusations against town management, the
        >> BOS and the Light Board in this discussion group. To all the people who
        >> support those allegations. To all the people who have provided the forum
        >> that allows those allegations to be made........
        >
        >I am sensing an inclination in your comments of grouping everyone
        >with questions or objections of 'any kind' as "people who have made
        >accusations against town management or supported allegations " etc..
        >
        >I find this very presumptuous -- and factually wrong. As it happens,
        >I have been mostly a curious citizen with respect to this particular
        >subject. I have made no allegations against anyone in town
        >administration. I have not 'sided' with anyone. (even your saying
        >'neither you or David' in your statement above is disturbing to me.)
        >
        >I did voice an objection to a suggestion by one selectman that town
        >meeting decisions can perhaps be modified just this once, and that
        >the others did not correct that mis-statement clearly at the time.
        >That is not an allegation. It is correcting a mistaken approach.
        >
        >As for my post which you refer to, in addition to comments on how
        >nimby is perceived, I added, again to David's comment about CAN,
        >that residents farming on Ammendolia were also objecting to a solar
        >plant there. This was an 'observation' of a factual nature on my
        >part.
        >
        >In short, I have not made any allegations at any time - even when I
        >have voiced sometimes strong opinions on various issues - , nor have
        >I teamed up with anyone in the matter of solar energy, and therefore
        >I found your response to my post as making mistaken presumptions. I
        >also find your approach of grouping people into 'those who make
        >allegations, those who support them, those who provide the forum'
        >etc as possibly having an intimidating effect on anyone who might
        >question or object to anything in the administration at any point.
        >
        >thanks
        >
        >tanya
        >
        >


        --
        http://www.GreaterWellbeing.com - 978 369-8454

        Wellness Education, Counseling & Coaching
        Holistic Healthcare, Whole Food Nutrition

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.