Submitted by ak47workaccnt t3_zg0xrc in massachusetts
Comments
Unique-Public-8594 t1_izeh8js wrote
From the article:
Neighbors aren’t trying to kill this project, just have some impact on the design and replanting of trees.
potentpotables t1_izehp6k wrote
There's enough open space to put solar panels on. I've seen parking lots with panels installed overhead, for example.
dpm25 t1_izei94k wrote
Using land for solar, instead of housing, around the 128 belt is bananas.
Banea-Vaedr t1_izej4u2 wrote
They just wait to be consulted on making the perimeter pretty :')
Menacing_Anus42 t1_izeji2c wrote
NIMBY's 'horrified' want to save that shit for the south side of waltham, or Mattapan, or somewhere far away from them.
itallendsintears t1_izejvhs wrote
Put them as coverage in literally every grocery store/strip mall parking lot. Keeps cars cool in the summer and reduces the need to plow. River valley in Easthampton parking lot is like this and so does smith/Wesson. It’s not a complete solution but it’s a better one
The_Good_Fight317 t1_izekjus wrote
Would this ease electric costs for the state In the long run? Replanting is definitely important tho.
Thisbymaster t1_izemjqv wrote
One person is worried. I am surprised that land in Lexington could be cost effective for solar power when every home is well over a million a plot.
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_izenl2w wrote
oneMadRssn t1_izenttv wrote
And there are some subsidies available for doing it. I've seen Churches and Temples get subsidized panels put up covering parking lots. The Stone Zoo is currently getting their parking lot covered in solar panels too.
NativeMasshole t1_izenxez wrote
Yeah, but then how is the town going to make money through leasing this woodland?
person749 t1_izenxzp wrote
I hate this so much; acres and acres of beautiful wilderness being taken down all over the state for solar panels ..."to save the environment"...
Why not tear down abandoned buildings and parking lots and put them there? There's a ton of spots of urban decay around the state.
The_eldritch_bitch t1_izenypa wrote
Why not put them in a parking lot
person749 t1_izeo6mr wrote
Yeah, fuck nature!
IC_Design t1_izeo7h5 wrote
Imagine the reaction of residents if more housing was to be built
bassistmuzikman t1_izepoj2 wrote
Well... some of it would have to be GHASP LoW iNcOmE HoUsiNg!
Anon324Teller t1_izepuqx wrote
The problem is those are private areas, and they probably don’t want to pay the land owners to put up solar panels. It’s stupid, but that’s probably the main reason
[deleted] t1_izeqyfk wrote
[deleted]
GayleOnTheMove t1_izesp96 wrote
Hopkinton MA allowed solar on green space and, as a neighbor, not an abutter, it had a much greater impact than originally projected by the builder! Wetland run off, property flooding, wildlife displacement, weather negative impacts to swaths of open low lying terrain, lower property values to abutters, and more! The lack of commitment to keep up the property and deal with these issues post build is criminal. Hopkinton has since passed legislation to not allow building on green space.
The residents of Lexington and Waltham SHOULD be alarmed. They definately should do due diligence!
Electrician_Logician t1_izeteu8 wrote
The people in these towns won’t put panels on their roof though because it’s ugly.
ak47workaccnt OP t1_izets04 wrote
Expensive too
simpledeadwitches t1_izeu2t0 wrote
Ruining nature rather than bolting them to buildings is so infuriating.
simpledeadwitches t1_izeu5ew wrote
We as humans are vastly stupid.
nixiedust t1_izeue91 wrote
That sounds sensible. Not controversial enough for a headline, I guess.
crazicus t1_izeutd1 wrote
This wouldn’t make sense as a policy without also repealing parking minimums.
itallendsintears t1_izevev3 wrote
Then they should have to pay a yearly fine for not allocating their space responsibly. Think of what heat sinks mall and grocery store parking lots are, and the amount of diesel fuel and salt expenditures yearly to keep them free of snow.
There is no excuse, beyond moronic boomer decision making and subsequent generations desire to tow the status quo line into absurdity.
SherbertOk9255 t1_izew6vg wrote
they should do it over a parking lot/building(s)
aftershockre t1_izew7bl wrote
You can pay for my panels then?
UltravioletClearance t1_izewdz7 wrote
It's a small strip of land in a flood zone, directly abutting Route 128, with an existing utility easement cutting through the property. Probably cheap land since there's not much that can be done with it.
AverageJoe-707 t1_izewo07 wrote
Didn't know about the Stone Zoo, I'll have to drive over and check it out
AboyNamedBort t1_izex32w wrote
There is literally zero affordable housing in Lexington. The town is full of awful NIMBY's who let Boston take all the burdens.
5teerPike t1_izexq9a wrote
So put the solar on the housing
5teerPike t1_izey1up wrote
Until the electric company starts sending you checks.
oneMadRssn t1_izez27w wrote
They're still in the early phase of it, so not much to see. Unfortunately they had to cut down all the trees they had in the parking lot at step 1. But they said the whole system should be done around spring time, and will provide 80% of the electricity the zoo uses.
kyoto93 t1_izezlkv wrote
Here is a crazy idea, what if we put the solar panels on top of the houses/residential developments 🤯
LooseCannon1964 t1_izezmus wrote
Homer Simpson tells me nuclear power is the way of the future.
AgedCzar t1_izezmwr wrote
I am all for solar and wind power but for them to effective enough to mostly supplant carbon-based fuels they will require a lot of space. Also, the solar panels will eventually need to be replaced, causing a lot of waste.
AgedCzar t1_izeznlk wrote
I am all for solar and wind power but for them to effective enough to mostly supplant carbon-based fuels they will require a lot of space. Also, the solar panels will eventually need to be replaced, causing a lot of waste.
FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_izezqef wrote
Depends on the “impact”….
newestJourney t1_izf0183 wrote
I saw the headline with the word "horrified," saw the /r/massachusetts/ logo with the Ukraine support flag, and thought Kyiv had been nuked.
Nope, just some first world nimbyism. Fuck y'all are dramatic. Save some indignation for when it is actually warranted.
r2d3x9 t1_izf0jes wrote
Without seeing the proposal, it shouldn’t be allowed if it is in a wetland or has a conservation restriction. The developer should show a decommissioning plan that is funded, to dispose of the panels at the end of their life. It should also not be allowed in a residential zone, only industrial or commercial zoned. You could also build it over a manmade drainage area. Years ago I used to work on Tracer Lane. Also, that silver building, they exceeded Waltham height restrictions by mounding the dirt up higher!
r2d3x9 t1_izf0y99 wrote
Solar farm takes up space where trees will not be allowed to cast shadows on the panels. So where do they plan to plant these new trees?
Bobbydadude01 t1_izf18se wrote
r2d3x9 t1_izf1b4b wrote
The problem is the subsidies are too large. They should be installing solar panels because the cost is lower, not to capture the subsidy.
Unique-Public-8594 t1_izf1mol wrote
Elsewhere
quantic56d t1_izf1xg1 wrote
This is ridiculous. Should we force every homeowner to allocate their roof space responsibly by fining them for not going through the expense, upkeep and replacement costs for installing solar?
The best way to do this is with tax incentives. Landowners that want to do it come out net zero for installation on taxes and they sell the excess back to the grid. Fines slow down adoption of renewables since it just pisses everyone off. Also there’s no way it’ll survive a court battle.
EagleRose1971 t1_izf29fb wrote
So kill 800 tress for a solar farm, got it.
EagleRose1971 t1_izf2ci4 wrote
How about the town buy the land for open space?
Nonsheeple_Funnyluv t1_izf2ej4 wrote
Oh please. Enough with the boomer argument already
Nonsheeple_Funnyluv t1_izf2iz8 wrote
Totally agree. Plenty of other places to put them
hdjunkie t1_izf2vkn wrote
Hah yeah because solar panels are the real threat to nature!
[deleted] t1_izf4u05 wrote
oneMadRssn t1_izf4yxf wrote
First, how is the subsidy being too large a problem?
Second, the cost of solar is lower long-term, but requires a very large up-front expense. Many organizations, especially non-profits, don't have enough cash on hand to pay all of it up front. That's the point of the subsidy - to make the upfront cost hurt less.
itallendsintears t1_izf52f5 wrote
Are homeowners businesses?
Businesses derive a profit from the land they razed for their stupid ass parking lots. A human being needs shelter and warmth.
But thanks for pulling out your libertarian and swinging it around. Cool. Neato!
BostonPilot t1_izf74gt wrote
Being a local pilot, I can see that most of what is now "beautiful wilderness" was farmland 150 years ago... I'm not saying I don't love wooded land, just that most of it wasn't wooded in the 18th and 19th century. The vast wide areas we see how is a fairly recent thing.
When we have alternatives to solar arrays, it'll go back to wooded land very quickly. Assuming global warming doesn't kill off all the species of trees...
>Why not tear down abandoned buildings and parking lots and put them there? There's a ton of spots of urban decay around the state.
The same reason we aren't mostly doing rooftop installations. Cost. The major cost of solar isn't the panels, it's the installation cost. It's much more cost effective to install on a fairly large space, on the ground, than in many little installations scattered around.
Not saying I 100% support converting green space to solar, just saying it's why it's happening the way it is. There have been some good studies over the last couple years about sharing solar fields with agriculture ( plants and animals below the panels ). I'm hoping we'll go more this way, so the land doesn't have to be dedicated to just solar...
HammerfestNORD t1_izf77j4 wrote
Spaulding Rehab down the Cape has had them for several years.
TheLyz t1_izf82ch wrote
I like it when they put them in that wasted space in the middle of an on/off ramp.
BostonPilot t1_izf8d55 wrote
Hey, I wouldn't want a wooded lot abutting my land to be developed either, but I have to laugh at the guy saying:
>"I was horrified, I like solar energy, I think it is a good idea, but this is not the place to do it," Troy said.
The very definition of NIMBY.
>"Fifty feet from your property line, having a huge power plant go in is definitely not what people want in this neighborhood or what we moved here for," Luallen said.
We could... build a wind turbine there instead! Seriously, a solar array has to be one of the lowest impact things you could have installed next to your house.
I don't have much sympathy for anyone, including myself, if you're pulling power from the grid, but you don't like the idea of having solar installed next door...
tom_echo t1_izf8ebr wrote
Elsewhere where lol most land in that area already has a purpose. Repurposing it for forest isn’t likely.
tom_echo t1_izf8k0s wrote
It probably increases the cost significantly to put overhead solar. Energy is so expensive in MA already.
AverageJoe-707 t1_izf8u73 wrote
Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. I've lived in this area my entire life and I remember when the Stone Zoo had Elephants, Giraffes and Polar Bears etc. My grandchildren have season passes now but it's so much less than it used to be. Glad to see it still open and updating its carbon footprint.
potentpotables t1_izf94p6 wrote
You're probably right but in this case they'd have to clear land and still build structures for the panels. I wonder how much more it is to raise the panels up 10 feet.
richg0404 t1_izf96pa wrote
Just because they put solar panels up doesn't mean there would be no winter maintenance on the lots. The snow doesn't disappear. It will slide off of the panels and need to be cleaned up or it will melt and re-freeze as ice on the asphalt. There would need to me more salting or sanding because they owners do not want someone slipping on an icy lot and getting injured.
And imagine the nightmare is the snow slides off the panels and lands on someone.
I'm just saying it isn't as simple as it seems.
bostonmacosx t1_izf9qmy wrote
Imagine if you installed solar all the way yup and down 128 or 495... along the edges and on poles in the center islands....no one would give 2 bleeps about it......mass pike...on every telephone pole....duh the electric lines are already there.. but yet National Grid and other utilities want the homeowners to pick up the tab....cause the know if everyone did it they'd be out of business....
No environment should be ruined in the name of the "environment" period end of story.....
People who propose these have 0 creativity....and are just out to make a buck in the name of the "environment"
richg0404 t1_izf9v4h wrote
I posted this earlier in this thread but will repost it here.
Just because they put solar panels up on parking lots doesn't mean there would be no winter maintenance on the lots. The snow doesn't disappear. It will slide off of the panels and need to be cleaned up or it will melt and re-freeze as ice on the asphalt. There would need to me more salting or sanding because they owners do not want someone slipping on an icy lot and getting injured.
And imagine the nightmare is the snow slides off the panels and lands on someone.
I'm just saying it isn't as simple as it seems.
TheMajesticMoose08 t1_izfahte wrote
Solar developer here (not the company developing this project). We would love to put solar in every grocery store parking lot but the owners don't want it there, even if we offer them money. The always say it's because it'll block the view of the stores and the signage - which is a ridiculous notion. As if people will suddenly forget where Walmart is because they put solar in the parking lot.
TheSausageKing t1_izfd643 wrote
NIMBYs always say "I'm not trying to kill the project, I just X". But, the problem is there are 50 people and they all have their own X. And if you do everything they're "just" asking for, it kills the project. One person wants 800 trees planted, another wants a 50' buffer on the edges, another wants construction to only be weekdays between 9 and 4:30pm, another wants the entrance moved to change traffic flows, etc.
At some point, we need to say, this is their land, let them use it. Especially if it's for solar. We badly need more clean energy generation for our grid.
TheSausageKing t1_izfen1b wrote
You might not like it, but the science is clear that it's much better to cut the trees down. Mature trees don't help that much with CO2 capture and a 31 acre plot like this one will be tiny. Generously, it's 15 tons of CO2 / year. That's about the same as what 4 cars generate in a year.
Adding 31 acres of solar to a grid that's mostly fossil fuels right now, will have a much, much bigger impact.
The_Pip t1_izffehd wrote
Buildings, we need them on buildings. They should be mandatory for new construction.
Unique-Public-8594 t1_izfg0pz wrote
Yes. Agree 100%.
A lot of us buy/own property next to undeveloped land but don’t accept the risk that the vacant land could be developed someday.
I’m all for solar. Do I like solar best when it is hidden from view? Of course.
itallendsintears t1_izfg9ai wrote
Honestly my local coop has the parking lot like this and I can’t really remember what it looked like during snow last year. I will keep this in mind and observe (it’s a fair point)
Miami_Vice-Grip t1_izfhopb wrote
I mean, I'm sure they account for this when they design/install them. Some of you folks are talking about this like it hasn't already been a thing for several years in many places.
Like all these "what ifs" can be answered by just looking at the current state of the art because it already exists. And besides, if a random redditor can come up with a concern or question, I'm sure the professional construction and solar developers have also considered it already. Are mistakes made anyway across the industry anyway? Sure. Is that a reasonable excuse to prohibit new development? Not really.
Mnemon-TORreport t1_izfim4w wrote
Think of all the parking lots you could put a roof on with solar panels instead ...
[deleted] t1_izfio0q wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_izfio81 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_izfj8df wrote
NeilHanlon t1_izfj99t wrote
Your "beautiful wilderness" is a mockery of the land before we came here with non-native plants and planted giant tree farms to fuel the world we're living in now.
90 foot pines aren't that old.
imFreakinThe_fuk_out t1_izfj9kr wrote
Lmfao if they're good they'll make up some bullshit about how solar panels release lead particles into the water supply and it will get shut down. The absolute state of nimbys and yappies.
hanner__ t1_izfj9oy wrote
Installing solar on the highway would go thru the state, not the individual cities and towns. You’re directing your anger at national grid when they have literally no say over who builds solar where. The state could easily build those panels along the highway but they don’t.
Also - solar panels along the highway would not put large utilities out of business. Not even close.
NeilHanlon t1_izfjbdz wrote
the.. wetlands? next to a highway?
Academic_Guava_4190 t1_izfjmq9 wrote
Honestly yes a wooded piece of state or town reservation would be really nice to live next door to but hell at least with a solar farm you know no obnoxious neighbor is moving in.
Academic_Guava_4190 t1_izfjz96 wrote
I love parking lots with solar panels. They develop energy and my car sits in the shade
[deleted] t1_izfl4ic wrote
[deleted]
langjie t1_izflaij wrote
it's an expensive alternate though. carport canopies cost 2x the amount as ground mount
TheSukis t1_izfomy3 wrote
Because there are large amounts of treeless land where solar panels can be put without needing to further damage ecosystems.
TheSukis t1_izfoue9 wrote
No, but senselessly cutting down forest to install solar panels when there's a practically endless amount of non-forested land to put them on is potentially harmful. Countless acres of industrial building roofs and parking lots going unused so we can kill trees is a bad idea.
[deleted] t1_izfp9xd wrote
[deleted]
mini4x t1_izfptoc wrote
"Fifty feet from your property line, having a huge power plant go in is definitely not what people want in this neighborhood or what we moved here for," Luallen said.
It's SOLAR - it's not like it's going to be a coal plant, what a Karen.
Wild_Ostrich5429 t1_izfqoxm wrote
Cutting trees to go green! Nonsense
mini4x t1_izfs2jg wrote
There are a half a dozen affected houses, it's in a corner where rte 2 meets rte 95. The plan set has a tree wall around it as well.
https://goo.gl/maps/mh1TD8HtEqxvM1L8A
Link to project info is here:
https://www.lexingtonma.gov/1523/Tracer-Lane-Solar-Project---0-Cambridge-
mini4x t1_izfsixr wrote
There are hardly any trees there already, it's got a power line ROW through the property.
[deleted] t1_izfsx0j wrote
[deleted]
EagleRose1971 t1_izft193 wrote
Even more of a reason if it's wetlands.
EagleRose1971 t1_izft8h3 wrote
You did read that this guys yard backs up to a large area of wilderness, right? So if the town is smart buy the land so it can't be developed.
EagleRose1971 t1_izftg6e wrote
Not to mention, what will this do to home values?
mjkj393 t1_izftmdr wrote
Same type of people who don't want wind farms on the cape.
GayleOnTheMove t1_izftxh0 wrote
Who is responsible for policing and holding accountable to ensure that the build site is made structurally and aesthetically according to plan? At build and post build for many years? Bait and switch is what I've seen happen in many high growth towns in MA.
[deleted] t1_izfuv99 wrote
[deleted]
r2d3x9 t1_izfwh4e wrote
The electric utility will not allow trees to be planted under or next to their high voltage lines
mini4x t1_izfxay9 wrote
Look at the parcel on a map, 90% of it is a power line ROW already so no trees to begin with.
mini4x t1_izfxix6 wrote
Like I said, the ROW is there already so a huge swath with no trees.
March_Latter t1_izfzd50 wrote
The part that amuses me is the output and finances of this. The article lists this as a 1 Megawatt. Does anyone understand how little this is? The only way this type of event is even financially viable is the government handouts, and I will forecast this, permanently destroying 31 acres of land for such little reason will go down in history as complete idiocy.
anomanissh t1_izg0rli wrote
You might disagree with the commenter, but their idea is so far from being a boomer point of view.
enutz777 t1_izg1vsr wrote
Pitch them the idea that it is actually increased signage space where they can install led panels around the outside.
wgc123 t1_izg2586 wrote
Thanks, I came here to ask if anyone knew that.
From where the pin landed, it looks like this is between a power line right of way and the highway. What a perfect spot: does not affect any homes, nor any “wild” area!
The headline says “horrified” but the article talks about reasonable setbacks, and replanting trees. One guy complains, but if it’s really on the other side of the existing power line right of way, I don’t see how he can complain it affects him.
Edit: the pin in the map link above landed between the power lines and highway but the comment below stated it is planned for the residential side of the property. Completely changed the story
TheMajesticMoose08 t1_izg2bvf wrote
Oh we have. Plus the added benefits of cash, covered parking for their customers, EV charging, etc. and they're still antagonistic to it.
richg0404 t1_izg30kj wrote
If course they've thought about these issues.
My point was that it isn't just a matter of putting up the solar panels over a parking lot and there is a ton of savings because they no longer have to plow and salt.
It has been done in plenty of lots so there is no reason to think that it can't be done in others. I too would rather see it in lots than on cleared first plots .
richg0404 t1_izg39jw wrote
My local hospital has it and I know that on the days after a snow storm I've gotten dripped on but haven't had any snow fall on me.
enutz777 t1_izg3ebl wrote
Can’t fix stupid.
wgc123 t1_izg460u wrote
No one would want land there, for any price. It’s a small piece between a power line right of way and the highway. There’s not really a place to develop an entrance nor a tiny neighborhood. It’s wasted space, so solar is a great use of it
wgc123 t1_izg4exr wrote
And right up next to the highway, so there really not much nature to harm, nor residents to impact
wgc123 t1_izg4x9t wrote
REI in Natick has had this for years. What happens when it snows? My car stays clear and dry, and I can safely walk up to it without fear of slipping.
It is true that they do a poor job of clearing that parking lot, but the actual parking spots are good
ArsenalBOS t1_izg57pj wrote
Solar displaces vastly more CO2 than the trees capture. It’s not even close.
There are also very few trees on this spot, it’s already got power line ROW going through it.
mini4x t1_izg5izx wrote
> This is a disused lot in Waltham.
Lexington, and there is already a powerline ROW there. so a huge swath of treeless space.
ArsenalBOS t1_izg5joy wrote
Where are there large amounts of treeless land in MA? New England is heavily forested outside of urban areas and farmland.
We are going to have to cut down some trees to get anywhere close to our climate goals. Solar and wind are vastly more effective at displacing CO2 than trees are at capturing it. We have no choice if we want to do our part in averting the worst of climate change.
mini4x t1_izg5nzs wrote
Some places have this already.
mini4x t1_izg6q7z wrote
I never understood why they build them to dump the snow into the car lanes.
mini4x t1_izg78sr wrote
This is an unused parcel that is locked between a residential neighborhood in Waltham, rte 95, rte 2, and the Cambridge reservoir..
icebeat t1_izga7dn wrote
That should be mandatory long time ago.
icebeat t1_izgah6o wrote
One of the Lexington schools ($$$$) have solar panel on their parking lot and no one have a problem with the snow. Acton’s Discovery museum have solar on their parking lot and I don’t see problems. Who knows
statick89 t1_izgcxqn wrote
According to the developer's documents, their proposal puts the solar panels and inverters only on the side closest to houses, not the highway. That also brings potential runoff problems from construction much closer to Cambridge's water supply.
Miami_Vice-Grip t1_izgi3id wrote
> My point was that it isn't just a matter of putting up the solar panels over a parking lot and there is a ton of savings because they no longer have to plow and salt.
...
>It has been done in plenty of lots so there is no reason to think that it can't be done in others.
So what's your point again? You literally just acknowledged that it's already happening and hasn't had any of the issues you're supposedly concerned about, right? I think we're past the need to bring up already accounted for "flaws" in their implementation, so to me it seems like you're being either an anti-solar fearmonger at worst or a negative nancy for no actual reason at best.
statick89 t1_izgj8a4 wrote
When I click on your link to the plot from further up the satellite layer suggests more like 40% of the plot does not have trees due to the ROW. In addition, if you compare the Google satellite image to the developer's current proposal, it looks like the solar panels are will be installed where there currently are trees.
[deleted] t1_izgjxou wrote
[removed]
abcde__edcba t1_izgk5xz wrote
>i
not so fast, read my reply to wgc123 below.
Ill-Telephone-7926 t1_izgl4ta wrote
Land value taxes would effect this without too much micro-management. They base taxation on the value of the land rather than the value of the developments, disincentivizing unproductive parking lots in critical areas (among other uses)
richg0404 t1_izgnhfr wrote
Yeah, the places that have done it have dealt with the issues but it wasn't as easy as the posters on reddit seem to think it is.
There are plenty of responses in this thread saying essentially "put the panels in parking lots and you'll save tons of money because the snow won't land on the ground.
bigolebucket t1_izgnlcd wrote
Agreed, always good to co-locate with load but not always feasible. Carports are also MUCH more expensive than ground mounts.
abcde__edcba t1_izgnp6n wrote
This thing is being build right up to their property line. You can find the details on my reply to wgc123 below.
[deleted] t1_izgnsl5 wrote
[deleted]
abcde__edcba t1_izgoae6 wrote
Then why not offer to buy their home and move in there yourself?
bigolebucket t1_izgohbt wrote
I’ve designed several of these. The plowing and maintenance cost impacts are pretty small compared to the lease rates and energy sales/savings. On the one hand, yes it can reduce the amount of water and snow, making it to the pavement. But on the other hand, you’re limited buy some of the additional columns in the parking lots. Height can be a restriction, but they’re generally put at about 14 feet leading edge for fire access, as well as plowing access.
There’s also a huge range in the water and snow management strategies. You can use ones that have a deck or gasketing solution and are V-shaped to collect all water and snow and then funnel these via gutters and downspouts into an existing drainage system. You can also do some or none of those things.
One benefit that is universal is the shade when it’s sunny, especially in the summer. That’s a nice perk.
But at the end of the day, it’s really the cost to build it, the lease payment to the owner, and the energy savings for the offtakeer that govern the economics. And you need to build a giant steel superstructure with a 15 foot deep caisson foundations which makes these significantly more expensive than rooftops or ground mounts.
[deleted] t1_izgovn8 wrote
[removed]
abcde__edcba t1_izgp7r3 wrote
But it makes the town's Net Zero plan, as ridiculous as it might be or not, sound awesome to constituents who vote those who approve these projects into office.
If you're scared that your grandchildren will live in a world that you compare to a literal hell, you gadly vote for these plans even if they don't make sense.
edited: added "will" up above because that is what I should have written to begin with.
abcde__edcba t1_izgpjc7 wrote
I have no skin in the game, I don't live anywhere near the place.
Have you ever heard the wining of a large power transformer when it's not in tip top shape?
I have. It can get quite loud, and it is not something you just have delivered in 2 days from amazon prime, even if you can afford the millions it costs to replace something like that.
winter-has-come91 t1_izgq3il wrote
if this makes that area even somewhat affordable to live in, I'm down
TheMajesticMoose08 t1_izgqdx7 wrote
Definitely agreed, but when it comes to commercial/large-scale solar creditworthiness of the user of the electricity is critical to getting any project financed.
It's a much safer investment to go community solar / feed-in tariff where you just get paid from the utility company or have an investment-grade credit buyer (like a corporation or municipality) than it is to go behind the meter and make a bet that the grocery store, movie theater, etc. is going to be in business for the next 25 years.
abcde__edcba t1_izgqhix wrote
I live in a town not to far from this place, but far enough not to have any skin in this game though.
We have a tree replacement fund, very well funded actually. Everytime a tree is taken down from public/protected land, say because it's grown too much and gotten too close to a cell tower, or working on utlities kills a public tree nearby because it damages too much of the roots, the city can use these funds to plant 4 new trees to replace it. Problem is, the town does not have any land where it can plant new trees anywhere because they're already filled up with trees.
People in town loved the idea of the fund and gladly passed the bylaws to get it setup up and passed the bylaws to enforce the rules, etc, etc, etc. But no one asked if it was possible to acutally plant any trees anywhere.
Well, what about in sidewalks? It's one of those towns with barely any sidewalks, and utilities run either under or above the few places where you can find those sidewalks.
Net result every time such a tree is taken down? Negative.
abcde__edcba t1_izgqzg8 wrote
No one cares about any of that. Until it happens next door to them. Until that happens, they post around here about things only being a NIMBY issue.
[deleted] t1_izgr2dl wrote
March_Latter t1_izgrqjf wrote
That actually has to be the dumbest response I have seen on Reddit. So you know that it won't do any good, you know its trashing land. But because it makes people feel better because they voted it in continuing is the best answer. The hell our grandkids will live in is a version of idiocracy. Raised to be proudly stupid in a landscape trashed for no reason.
abcde__edcba t1_izgrzc1 wrote
This is all great and all until you buy a home and it happens to you.
I don't live there and it does affect me, but I am a homeowner and while nothing like this has happened to me, it has happened to a group of homeowners nearby (not as big of a project). I drove by almost daily on the way to and from work. I watched the hell these people were put through during the project and after trying to get the town and the contractors to actually do what they said they'd do and pay for remediation when the project was done.
This is the kind of thing that drive people to purchase property where it is very unlikely anything will ever be built next door, so they don't have to go through this sort of thing.
The location for this project has wetlands. Those people moved there because nothing could possibly be built on those wet lands. Now they found a way to build on the little bit of dry land in that spot. Lexington is huge. They have other places they can put this project in. The reason they do not is because their Lexington neighbors will not allow it to happen on their backyard.
abcde__edcba t1_izgsbgd wrote
They can't build this in the row. I believe it is because laws prohibit it. This is why these long strips of naked land exist all over the map if you look for them on google maps. They're all over the place.
abcde__edcba t1_izgu7gt wrote
yes, people do vote like this. All the time. Most people don't bother or are too busy with their lives to research the details of what is presented to them in town meetings, etc.
Want proof? Read the comments in this thread and count how many of them talk about things like distnace from people's houses, or how the pointer in the map someone posted to is on the side closer to the highway and not the side closest to the houses, etc. None of them bothered to search for that information in any detail, even though the docs, some pdf docs with maps, plans an legends, clearly who this being built right up to these people's properties. Oh, and one of the homes is owned by the realty place behind the project, and the site access is via this one property's driveway.
People vote on dumb crap because it makes them feel good all the time.
I should know. I live in a town with a law that says if a tree in public land is taken down for any reaons, the town will plant 4 new trees to replace it. There is a fund to pay for the threes, the work to have them planted, and make sure they're supported by cables so they are safe until the roots grow and the tree can stand by itself and not fall with a wind, pay the works involved in the planting etc. etc, etc.
What could ever be possibly wrong with that? Is that not an aweseomthing?
The town can't plant any new trees! It has not public land where it can plant new trees! Parks? Nope! They're parks where children play, can't take the monkey bars out to plant a tree! What about side walks? Nope! We have very few sidewalks and they either already have trees on them or there are utlities goino over or under the sidewalks that keep them from planting tress there either! Well, public parking places? Nope, those already have all the tress they can fit without taking up any of the parking spaces!
it was such a great idea to pass a law that guarantees 4 new tree trees were planted every time they had to take one down for any reason, like the own that died because utlity work required destroying most of the roots of a over 200 year old tree, that __no one bothered to even look at whether it was possible to plant new trees in town!!!!__
But wait, there's more! We still have to take trees down for watever reasons. But we can't use those funds for anything else! We got millions in a fund that cannot be used by anything, other than planting tress that will never be planted.
So realy, do you really think people do not just vote for stuff because they feel good about it, even if it does not make sense?
bigolebucket t1_izgud4i wrote
Completely agreed, onsite C&I is a huge pain. On top of that it's all custom agreements and PPAs etc., all for say 500kW. My "better to co-locate with load" has outed me an electrical engineer, not PF/BD.
richg0404 t1_izguwtw wrote
Thank you for the information !
[deleted] t1_izgvdgu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izgvvhp wrote
[deleted]
abcde__edcba t1_izgw1n5 wrote
Lexington, a rich town, has a ton of green space where this can go in. Nope, they're doing it here, next door to people who live in another town, not theirs.
By the way, access to the site is going to be **through** one of those residences in Waltham. 119 Sherbourne Place is owned by the real estate place behind this project.
Why through their property on a residential neighborhood?
Because the state is very unlikley to let them build access to the site from the ramp from 2S to 128/95S. So it's easier to take the neighbors to court who eventually will run out of money for lawyers and legal fees. The state will just laugh and say "bring it on" and the state's ag will use it as another item in their resume next time their up for reelection.
abcde__edcba t1_izgw6ra wrote
It does not. That is why Lexington is not building this where their own residents abuts this even though they are rich town and have tons of space where this could be built in.
abcde__edcba t1_izgwcyr wrote
Home values are exactly the reason Lexington is trying to put this in a spot where none of their residents are abutters. Even though Lexington has a ton of gree space where this coudl be built on away from this spot.
winter-has-come91 t1_izgwdok wrote
dang that sucks...I like the area but I hate that the cheapest houses there are half a million
Nonsheeple_Funnyluv t1_izgwjd0 wrote
You are blaming boomers. “Moronic boomer decision making”. That’s the moronic part
Nonsheeple_Funnyluv t1_izgwt5n wrote
Because they all have one point of view? Do all millennials and gen z’ers all have the same point of view? Ridiculous
anomanissh t1_izgxj2n wrote
Oh whoops sorry. I misread your comment. I thought you were the one calling it a boomer argument.
[deleted] t1_izgxuzy wrote
[deleted]
seanwalter123 t1_izgzuae wrote
NoT nEaR mY hOuSe. Just more super reliable and consistent green bs.
OldWrangler9033 t1_izhevfz wrote
I'm not in love with the idea. I'd rather keep the trees around make a reservation for land. Massachusetts filling up with housing or leveling old housing with more property and squeezing in more.
I support renewables, but they need find better way to deploy them without wrecking non-replaceable forests. Solar panels on homes would be more effective than leveling forest. When they do this...i hope they plan for solar batteries.
iforgotmypen t1_izhrao5 wrote
It happens a lot. Rich neighborhoods outsource all of their industrial districts to poor neighborhoods. Wealth inequality is a fuckin monster.
hvdc123 t1_izhrqoj wrote
It seems like all of your posts with links aren't visible. They had some great information so it is a shame they're gone. I can see then when I look at activity from your username but not in the thread.
Anyway, it seems like the company bought up a property as a contingency plan for access. They apparently were in negotiations with the City of Cambridge to use an existing path off Trapelo but they fell apart. Lots of detail in the Appeals Court case. Tough situation, the construction will be incredibly disruptive and the company took it to court when other alternatives for access were possible.
hvdc123 t1_izhu7dl wrote
There is literally not zero affordable housing in Lexington. Not enough, I'd agree with that. But not zero as you claim. Unless you are using the term affordable in a non technical sense, in which case most places aren't affordable around Greater Boston.
bubalusarnee t1_izhw0zu wrote
I am familiar with the sound.
I am also familiar with someone playing what if and getting other people to round-up in their imaginations something you know full well isn't loud, and isn't placed near houses.
Go ahead. cite me a dB range at 100 feet from the equipment.
We can wait. The info is out there, but the claim was yours. So can be the proof.
gsalon t1_izius4w wrote
#WE ARE HORRIFIED I TELL YA HORRIFIED
winter_bluebird t1_izivp40 wrote
North of the panels?
winter_bluebird t1_iziwpst wrote
Look into the environmental history of the state. What you call “beautiful wilderness” is mostly anything but.
wgc123 t1_izj0qml wrote
That’s too bad. Amazing how a minor change in pin placement on a map can completely change the story
[deleted] t1_izj3w4w wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_izj5msx wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_izjazm3 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_izjfpnq wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_izjgcb9 wrote
[deleted]
abcde__edcba t1_izkg1ur wrote
I linked to plans above, but I guess a lof of people must've been using the direct links and they no longer works. You can still get to them from Lexington's website though
https://lexingtonma.viewpointcloud.com/records/67918 then click on the Files tab. You can download the same docs from there.
Take a look a the site plans you can see the distances, elevetaions, etc.
But that is not the only issue these people will deal with. Were it the only one, it'd be a non-issue really. There construction, maintenance, noise, drainage, etc. all to be taken into account when you live next to it.
You don't have to agree with me on whether they people are going to suffer or not, but I believe you and I do agree it's not just NOT be an issue at all.
By the way: the noise at 100ft at whatever dB is going to dependon on a lot of variables (other than distance), such as temperature, humidity, what's in between the source and the measurement location, altitude differences and whether it goes up or down the terrain matters too. So it'll very a lot, IF it happens (see I can even agree it might never be an issue). But if it does happen, it's not just clear cut with a simple calculation.
abcde__edcba t1_izkhvpz wrote
Yes, the links were direct links to the PDF docs themselves, they blocked those.
But you can still get to them via Lexington's website. If you go to https://lexingtonma.viewpointcloud.com/records/67918 then click on the "Files" tab, you'll see a list of documents you can download. Two of the ones I had linked to earlier are "Project Narrative" (and other links seem to open this same pdf), "Drainage Analysis and Stormwater Management Plan" has maps and 177410LT006-Certified.pdf which has very detailed drawings, maps and legends.
Skidpalace t1_izkse86 wrote
Wow. We almost bought a house that backed up to that very same stretch of land a few years ago.
But we didn't. Why? Because it is a wide swath of cleared space with a power transmission right of way. Oh, and there is an Interstate highway a few hundred yards beyond that.
The TV spot making it seem like they are tearing up a wildlife preserve is total BS.
Ok_Entrepreneur_dbl t1_izkstv1 wrote
That is the problem right? People vote for or they say they want renewable energy - but not if it is in their back yard or they can see it. Suck it up if you believe in it!
Nonsheeple_Funnyluv t1_izl0n14 wrote
Nope, i was calling it out. It made no sense and is totally overused in an ignorant knee-jerk fashion.
Platinum_wolf_420 t1_izlalfu wrote
They will, they’ll just plant a non native species that does nothing for wildlife because “it looks pretty”
Revolutionary-Toe789 t1_izmdvhd wrote
My set up was a bit different but I put them On the roof of a building. Got a payment up front and a new rubber roof layer. They got a 20 year lease.
The issue was the project sold 4 times in a couple of years. And each time it sold everyone in the condo complex (there were 6 other buildings)had to sign off on several legal documents, get them notarized and reviewed by attorneys. It took me several hours each time to compete them and get the other people to sign. It completely turned me off from every doing solar in a commercial setting again.
person749 t1_izmvyyf wrote
Well said.
person749 t1_izmw57x wrote
You're right, what we have now isn't as good as what we had originally, so let's just tear it all down and make it even uglier. /s
person749 t1_izmw7rh wrote
Yeah, trees and animals are so disgusting. Let's kill them all! /s
person749 t1_izmwn1v wrote
>18th and 19th century.
But was it wooded in the the 16th and 17th centuries? We can never get back what we had before colonization, but I think it's sad to think of any wildlife habitat as dispensible just because the land had been altered before.
person749 t1_izmx0ph wrote
> let Boston take all the burdens.
Damn, what a callous way to talk about poor people.
person749 t1_izmx670 wrote
It's nice to hear somebody else actually think of the local wildlife.
winter_bluebird t1_izn1y5q wrote
I’m a conservationist. It’s just that in this specific case what you’re trying to conserve is junk chock full of invasives nestled between two highways.
There is plenty of beautiful wilderness to protect which has to ACTIVELY be protected. Even the Estabrook Woods, for example, which are the biggest forested area close to Boston are a dying environment because of all the deer overbrowsing and an underbrush made almost exclusively of barberry, firebush, oriental bittersweet, and in the open areas, multi flora roses. Even the knotweed is creeping in now. NONE of those plants have any function for our native pollinators and fauna.
You see wilderness. I see a profoundly damaged environment that is not fulfilling its ecological role.
This is not a cut down all the trees moment! But it’s important to note that the only reason we have white pines everywhere is precisely BECAUSE we cut down our native hardwood forests for farmland. When the farmland was abandoned, the white pine seedlings germinated fast and shaded out most diversity. It’s not a healthy environment to begin with.
BostonPilot t1_izne2un wrote
Actually a lot of it was open fields being farmed by native Americans, at least according to one book I read. The names of towns reflected that... Mansfield, Marshfield, Springfield, etc. etc. was already open agricultural fields when the Europeans showed up. So you probably have to go back 5,000-10,000 years to find a time when it was all untouched aboreal landscape.
Also, my point wasn't that:
>I think it's sad to think of any wildlife habitat as dispensible just because the land had been altered before.
But that it's not a one way path... It's gone from wilderness to open field and back to wilderness before... And in a relatively short amount of time.
Also, if it was a new Walmart these people would probably be shrugging and saying "that's progress". I don't see any of them calling for a halt to all new construction. Just, you know, construction next to their house... Quite literally NIMBY.
While loss of habitat due to construction etc. is a real thing, it's nothing compared to the damage coming from global warming. Entire ecosystems across huge amounts of the country are going to be decimated over the next 100 years. If we can minimize that by converting a small percentage of previously farmed land into solar farms, it's arguably a worthwhile strategy, especially when it will quickly go back to wooded land once we no longer need the solar array.
Terminalmisery t1_izsg675 wrote
Lexington has a propensity to develop properties at the very edge of the Lexington town line. A "memory care " facility was recently opened next to the Belmont Country Club. Avalon at Lexington Hills repurposed the old Met State hospital next to Waltham (Waltham has chosen to preserve as open space the part of Met State that falls within their boundary). There is another Avalon on Waltham St. in Lexington and a massive (31 acres) new complex called Brookhaven, an assisted living facility literally across the street from Avalon. The traffic problems are obvious. Lexington could prevent this development if it were inclined to do so. By contrast, a solar farm is mostly passive.
person749 t1_j1i7e3n wrote
This is a good response.
person749 t1_j1i7sq1 wrote
Another great response. I'd still rather see windmills and nuclear take up the slack, but this makes a little more sense.
blacklassie t1_izeh7yv wrote
NIMBYism aside, cutting down a bunch of trees to install solar doesn’t make much sense to me.