Frustrating but all-too-real situation. I think a possible solution is ownership models that allow these homeowners to co-own these solar/generation assets. This would mean that when looking out at a solar farm or wind turbine, individuals would see something helping pay off their mortgage or save for retirement, rather than an "eyesore" that is owned by a private entity. The property itself could even be tied to the co-ownership of the system to help address the property value argument.
When I look at solar arrays or wind turbines, I see things of beauty. The beauty of humanity using innovation and ingenuity in confronting an existential crisis. Clean energy constructions are acknowledgment of the damage that has been done by living an extractive, excessive lifestyle. Of all the human-made utilitarian structures we must look at in our environment, these would not be the ones I would find objectionable. Just like a viewer who prefers a Monet to a Pollack, it's time to educate our senses and broaden our appreciation.
Faced similar pushback in the Home Satellite TV Industry when 'overly neighborly HOAs' and others objected to a homeowner installing a satellite dish because of "aesthetic reasons".
We took care of that with Federal Rules administered by the FCC which prohibits governmental and nongovernmental restrictions on satellite dishes.
Suggest that those in the Climate Justice movement do something similar on a nationwide basis in regards to Solar Panels and Solar Farms.
Start with Senator Sanders and House Reps in Vermont and then get buy in from others including trade groups and solar panel installers.
** Subject to certain exceptions, the OTARD Rule prohibits governmental and
nongovernmental restrictions that impair the ability of antenna users to install, maintain, or use over-the-air-reception device to receive satellite signals."
In our bit o' th' woods, two promising solar arrays that would have earned a town and a county handsome revenues were shot down for similar reasons, and also because they could be seen from some trails neighbors frequented. (The land was publicly owned.) There are a half dozen walkable parks within 5 miles, but these are across the street. This happened despite urging by those in favor, including testimony I gave, emphasizing the climate emergency, emphasizing that it was continuing the favoritism of white suburbs over poorer income areas, emphasizing that these would at least be controlled by the town and county rather than being some mega-array constructed and paid for by a manufacturer who wanted the energy for their factory.
The bit about energy and white suburbs .... Such suburbs consume a lot of electricity. Is it that unfair to insist that some of their land be used to generate this electricity rather than pushing some natural gas combined cycle monstrosity onto a community which hasn't the influence or time to oppose it?
The most outrageous cut, worth a journalist investigating, is that a local Representative Paul McMurtry (Democrat), tucked in $25,000 of funding in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts budget solely for the purpose of paying legal fees and other support to a group which opposed building one of the solar arrays. I wrote to the Massachusetts EEOR (energy and environment unit) pointing out the conflict between this and the Commonwealth's objectives consistent with its Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) and its 2021 update. Same to Governor Baker. Not a peep back.
I understand that Hydro Quebec is a serious source of methane and CO2 as well as destroying local ecology. As such, the claim that Vermont's electricity is "clean" and "renewable" is cast into doubt.
Further, Green Mountain Power purchases RECs from HQ at a steep discount and sells the RECs derived from Vermont solar projects at a several hundred percent markup. This is because Vermont is the only New England state which allows the purchase of HQ RECs by utilities.
Here in rural central NY, no complaints about aesthetics. The cynicism stems from all of the tax-avoidance slight-of-hand that solar projects require in order to be deemed viable investment vehicles here at 43N latitude, in an area of almost constant overcast skies. One local project is advertised as providing 12MW to the grid, which is possible only for a few hours on June 20th, providing there are no clouds. So in this area, solar panel farms are built not to generate low-carbon energy but rather to generate refundable tax credits, which are sold at a discount to mega corporations with huge tax liabilities. Solar projects are also negotiating 30-year payment-in-lieu-of-tax agreements that set property taxes at a small fraction of what they would be on a similar sized new construction for carbon-fueled utilities. In order to retain their existing ag exemptions, farmers who host solar projects deploy sheep to keep down the grass and weeds between the rows of panels, and then market a minimal amount of meat/wool so that the land is still considered to be in agricultural production. There's got to be a better way.
Bill you should submit this to the Manchester Journal! One small correction. The town issued no permits for the project. It’s only jurisdiction was to designate the site as a “preferred site” after those six public meetings you referenced.
Solar farms raise local temperatures from the fact they are metal and dark glass, which absorb heat from the sun. Nearby homeowners can expect to need to water more to keep vegetation alive and use more air conditioning to keep their homes cool. This may not be much of an issue in Vermont but it certainly is an issue in other areas.
Solar arrays are ugly, Vermont protects its natural venues aggressively, and solar energy is not very useful in achieving the target goal of influencing worldwide CO2 targets. Only dramatic reductions by China and India in current and planned increase usage would make any difference. And all this assumes that CO2 reduction is somehow useful in limiting the negative effects of the apparently mostly natural process of long term changes in climate. The fact is that even if CO2 helps create the very small increases in world temperatures that are of themselves normal multi-century temp variation, it is clearly and provingly significantly improving plant productivity resulting in a much greener and productive world. Solar arrays are a moral statement, not useful to the targeted issue.
Have any wind and solar advocates thought things through beyond the knee-jerk stage? Do you want firm power, or power only at the whim of the weather? Have you calculated how much storage would be necessary?
Others have. At least 400 watt hours' storage per average watt of demand in all of England and Scotland (Euan Mearns). Same for Texas (Norman Rogers). 400-800 for North America (Shaner et al).
How much it would cost?
A commonly-used number is that if today's American energy economy were all electric, demand would be 1,700 GWe. Looking in Tesla's catalog for prices and reliability, and doing really simple arithmetic, the conclusion is that storage for firm power would cost ONLY FOUR TIMES TOTAL USA GDP EVERY YEAR!
Wind and solar are not going to solve the "carbon problem." So why are they being pushed so hard? Who benefits? Certainly not the climate, or the neighbors of the projects.
I direct readers to the commentary of Brooke Dingledine (below), a practicing civil and criminal law attorney who is arguably one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable attorneys regarding Vermont utility law. Bill McKibben is neither a scientist, engineer, hydrogeologist or attorney, but an English Professor who tends to leave out the critical facts and context that is necessary to fully understand the story whenever he rails against people would dare disagree with him. Quite apparently, (once again) Bill doesn't let the facts get in the way of his misleading and polarizing assault on good Vermonters, as Ms. Dingledine's clarifying response below makes so clear. I find it sometimes hard to believe that Bill is the son of a minister who should have been taught by his parents that we need to work together, be compassionate and embrace differences of opinion. Its time we stop this us v. them name calling. Here is another point in fact that the uninformed zealots continue to leave out that might be helpful in understanding the real story: in order to be provided legal standing as a party to either an Act 250 or Public Utility Commission proceeding, one must establish that they have an "affected interest". One of the few ways to prove that a person has an affected interest is to be a direct adjoiner or neighbor to a proposed development project. I bring this up as it is codified in Vermont law that in order to participate as a legal party in proceedings before these tribunals, the project must be "in my backyard" otherwise they would be denied standing. Bill McKibben, would you please do us Vermonters a favor, do your research, and provide all the facts next time you spout off, attacking our friends and neighbors who care about our planet just as much as you do, but come at environmental protection from a different approach than you do? Please end the divisiveness, god knows we have seen enough of it since 2016. It does the cause of saving our planet from the death spiral it is most assuredly on, no good when we use the divisive approach used in your misleading summary of the process leading up this this project's denial.
Frustrating but all-too-real situation. I think a possible solution is ownership models that allow these homeowners to co-own these solar/generation assets. This would mean that when looking out at a solar farm or wind turbine, individuals would see something helping pay off their mortgage or save for retirement, rather than an "eyesore" that is owned by a private entity. The property itself could even be tied to the co-ownership of the system to help address the property value argument.
Bill, so frustrating! We need to promote climate change literacy in our communities and schools so all can get beyond the NIMBY syndrome.
When I look at solar arrays or wind turbines, I see things of beauty. The beauty of humanity using innovation and ingenuity in confronting an existential crisis. Clean energy constructions are acknowledgment of the damage that has been done by living an extractive, excessive lifestyle. Of all the human-made utilitarian structures we must look at in our environment, these would not be the ones I would find objectionable. Just like a viewer who prefers a Monet to a Pollack, it's time to educate our senses and broaden our appreciation.
Right on Bill!
Faced similar pushback in the Home Satellite TV Industry when 'overly neighborly HOAs' and others objected to a homeowner installing a satellite dish because of "aesthetic reasons".
We took care of that with Federal Rules administered by the FCC which prohibits governmental and nongovernmental restrictions on satellite dishes.
Suggest that those in the Climate Justice movement do something similar on a nationwide basis in regards to Solar Panels and Solar Farms.
Start with Senator Sanders and House Reps in Vermont and then get buy in from others including trade groups and solar panel installers.
Here's a recent FCC ruling**: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-38A1.pdf
** Subject to certain exceptions, the OTARD Rule prohibits governmental and
nongovernmental restrictions that impair the ability of antenna users to install, maintain, or use over-the-air-reception device to receive satellite signals."
Thanks for this perspective, Bill. Seems as if we should also be considering the viewpoints of the younger members of our population who will be left to deal with the mess the "adults in the room" have created. https://vtdigger.org/2021/05/06/iris-hsiang-equity-and-justice-are-key-issues-for-the-vermont-climate-council/
Sometimes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder... https://spark.adobe.com/page/xOQJbyObEPhAo/
In our bit o' th' woods, two promising solar arrays that would have earned a town and a county handsome revenues were shot down for similar reasons, and also because they could be seen from some trails neighbors frequented. (The land was publicly owned.) There are a half dozen walkable parks within 5 miles, but these are across the street. This happened despite urging by those in favor, including testimony I gave, emphasizing the climate emergency, emphasizing that it was continuing the favoritism of white suburbs over poorer income areas, emphasizing that these would at least be controlled by the town and county rather than being some mega-array constructed and paid for by a manufacturer who wanted the energy for their factory.
The bit about energy and white suburbs .... Such suburbs consume a lot of electricity. Is it that unfair to insist that some of their land be used to generate this electricity rather than pushing some natural gas combined cycle monstrosity onto a community which hasn't the influence or time to oppose it?
The most outrageous cut, worth a journalist investigating, is that a local Representative Paul McMurtry (Democrat), tucked in $25,000 of funding in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts budget solely for the purpose of paying legal fees and other support to a group which opposed building one of the solar arrays. I wrote to the Massachusetts EEOR (energy and environment unit) pointing out the conflict between this and the Commonwealth's objectives consistent with its Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) and its 2021 update. Same to Governor Baker. Not a peep back.
I understand that Hydro Quebec is a serious source of methane and CO2 as well as destroying local ecology. As such, the claim that Vermont's electricity is "clean" and "renewable" is cast into doubt.
Further, Green Mountain Power purchases RECs from HQ at a steep discount and sells the RECs derived from Vermont solar projects at a several hundred percent markup. This is because Vermont is the only New England state which allows the purchase of HQ RECs by utilities.
Here in rural central NY, no complaints about aesthetics. The cynicism stems from all of the tax-avoidance slight-of-hand that solar projects require in order to be deemed viable investment vehicles here at 43N latitude, in an area of almost constant overcast skies. One local project is advertised as providing 12MW to the grid, which is possible only for a few hours on June 20th, providing there are no clouds. So in this area, solar panel farms are built not to generate low-carbon energy but rather to generate refundable tax credits, which are sold at a discount to mega corporations with huge tax liabilities. Solar projects are also negotiating 30-year payment-in-lieu-of-tax agreements that set property taxes at a small fraction of what they would be on a similar sized new construction for carbon-fueled utilities. In order to retain their existing ag exemptions, farmers who host solar projects deploy sheep to keep down the grass and weeds between the rows of panels, and then market a minimal amount of meat/wool so that the land is still considered to be in agricultural production. There's got to be a better way.
Bill you should submit this to the Manchester Journal! One small correction. The town issued no permits for the project. It’s only jurisdiction was to designate the site as a “preferred site” after those six public meetings you referenced.
Solar farms raise local temperatures from the fact they are metal and dark glass, which absorb heat from the sun. Nearby homeowners can expect to need to water more to keep vegetation alive and use more air conditioning to keep their homes cool. This may not be much of an issue in Vermont but it certainly is an issue in other areas.
Solar arrays are ugly, Vermont protects its natural venues aggressively, and solar energy is not very useful in achieving the target goal of influencing worldwide CO2 targets. Only dramatic reductions by China and India in current and planned increase usage would make any difference. And all this assumes that CO2 reduction is somehow useful in limiting the negative effects of the apparently mostly natural process of long term changes in climate. The fact is that even if CO2 helps create the very small increases in world temperatures that are of themselves normal multi-century temp variation, it is clearly and provingly significantly improving plant productivity resulting in a much greener and productive world. Solar arrays are a moral statement, not useful to the targeted issue.
Have any wind and solar advocates thought things through beyond the knee-jerk stage? Do you want firm power, or power only at the whim of the weather? Have you calculated how much storage would be necessary?
Others have. At least 400 watt hours' storage per average watt of demand in all of England and Scotland (Euan Mearns). Same for Texas (Norman Rogers). 400-800 for North America (Shaner et al).
How much it would cost?
A commonly-used number is that if today's American energy economy were all electric, demand would be 1,700 GWe. Looking in Tesla's catalog for prices and reliability, and doing really simple arithmetic, the conclusion is that storage for firm power would cost ONLY FOUR TIMES TOTAL USA GDP EVERY YEAR!
Wind and solar are not going to solve the "carbon problem." So why are they being pushed so hard? Who benefits? Certainly not the climate, or the neighbors of the projects.
No one from government is telling people that they must change. So scary and true. Thanks.
great post!
I direct readers to the commentary of Brooke Dingledine (below), a practicing civil and criminal law attorney who is arguably one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable attorneys regarding Vermont utility law. Bill McKibben is neither a scientist, engineer, hydrogeologist or attorney, but an English Professor who tends to leave out the critical facts and context that is necessary to fully understand the story whenever he rails against people would dare disagree with him. Quite apparently, (once again) Bill doesn't let the facts get in the way of his misleading and polarizing assault on good Vermonters, as Ms. Dingledine's clarifying response below makes so clear. I find it sometimes hard to believe that Bill is the son of a minister who should have been taught by his parents that we need to work together, be compassionate and embrace differences of opinion. Its time we stop this us v. them name calling. Here is another point in fact that the uninformed zealots continue to leave out that might be helpful in understanding the real story: in order to be provided legal standing as a party to either an Act 250 or Public Utility Commission proceeding, one must establish that they have an "affected interest". One of the few ways to prove that a person has an affected interest is to be a direct adjoiner or neighbor to a proposed development project. I bring this up as it is codified in Vermont law that in order to participate as a legal party in proceedings before these tribunals, the project must be "in my backyard" otherwise they would be denied standing. Bill McKibben, would you please do us Vermonters a favor, do your research, and provide all the facts next time you spout off, attacking our friends and neighbors who care about our planet just as much as you do, but come at environmental protection from a different approach than you do? Please end the divisiveness, god knows we have seen enough of it since 2016. It does the cause of saving our planet from the death spiral it is most assuredly on, no good when we use the divisive approach used in your misleading summary of the process leading up this this project's denial.